CPAC is proudly owned by these leading companies
  • Rogers Logo
  • Shaw
  • Videotron Logo
  • Cogeco Logo
  • Eastlink Logo
  • Access Logo

Castonguay Blasting Ltd. v. Her Majesty the Queen

   
       Loading CPAC video...    
         
   
   

| video language:    

   
   
Supreme Court Hearings

Castonguay Blasting Ltd. v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Ontario as represented by the Minister of the Environment (May 17, 2013)
Case # 34816

The appellant was working as a subcontractor for a construction project commissioned by the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario. The construction project was for the widening of a provincial highway. One of its blasting operations went awry and rock fragments known as “fly rock” were released into the air by an explosion. The fly rock landed on and damaged a vehicle and a house on nearby private property, but no one was injured. The incident was reported to the Ministry of Labour and to the Ministry of Transportation, but not to the Ministry of the Environment. The Ministry of the Environment only learned of the incident several months later. The appellant was thus charged with failing to report the discharge of a contaminant into the natural environment. Failing to report the incident went contrary to section 15(1) of the Environmental Protection Act. The Ontario Court of Justice acquitted the appellant, but that decision was reversed by the Superior Court.

Add new comment

Order The Rideau Canal on DVD
The CPAC Digital Archive

Daily Programming Highlights


 

Latest Comments

Mak:
All this case and the police actions in this case prove is that the combined Canadian police forces are nothing more than and have no more a
oto:
The Supreme Court of Canada made the correct moral decision, regardless of case law. IBM Canada is paying Dick Waterman approximately $80K
Fredrick Owen Blacklaws:
Was the hearing simply a formality? Had the court made an, irrvocable, decision on the matter prior to the hearing?
Don Dash:
The main issue is that the threatening remarks were made in a place where it is assumed that confidentiality exist? Wasn't he in jail?