The two acts of legislation that Syncrude violated were the Migratory Birds Convention Act and the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (Fluker, 2011).
The Migratory Birds Convention Act is implemented by Environment Canada so when the act is violated they are responsible for pressing charges. The regulations that are used in this this act are the Migratory Birds Regulations and the Migratory Birds Sanctuary Regulations (Environment Canada, 2015-a). The specific section of the Migratory Birds Convention Act that Syncrude violated was section 5.1 (1) “No person or vessel shall deposit a substance to be deposited, in water or an area frequented by migratory birds or in a place from which the substance may enter such water or such an …show more content…
This is because the environment is a grey area for whether it is federal or provincial jurisdiction. In both the Migratory Birds Convention Act and the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act there are sections that pertain to ducks. The ducks being migratory birds protects them under the Migratory Birds Convention Act (Environment Canada, 2015-b). Also the ducks being animals that had come in contact with hazardous substances protects them under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act [EPEA], RSA 1992, CE-13.3 s148). Due to both of these acts being broken Alberta Environment and Environment Canada both laid their own charges against Syncrude (Fluker, …show more content…
As shown before Environment Canada was charging Syncrude with offences against the Migratory Birds Convention Act and Alberta Environment was charging Syncrude with offences against the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (Fluker, 2011). The judge that proceeded over trial was Judge Tjosvold from St. Albert (R. v. Syncrude Canada Ltd.). Syncrude’s defense against both charges laid against them is the following “It has established that it used due diligence to avoid the contamination of birds in its tailings pond. It was impossible for Syncrude to prevent birds from landing on its tailings pond and the defence of impossibility should apply. The defence of Act of God should be applied. The proceedings are an abuse of process because Syncrude complied with all required approvals, permits, licenses, and leases. De minims should apply to prevent a conviction “((R. v. Syncrude Canada
The Migratory Birds Convention Act is implemented by Environment Canada so when the act is violated they are responsible for pressing charges. The regulations that are used in this this act are the Migratory Birds Regulations and the Migratory Birds Sanctuary Regulations (Environment Canada, 2015-a). The specific section of the Migratory Birds Convention Act that Syncrude violated was section 5.1 (1) “No person or vessel shall deposit a substance to be deposited, in water or an area frequented by migratory birds or in a place from which the substance may enter such water or such an …show more content…
This is because the environment is a grey area for whether it is federal or provincial jurisdiction. In both the Migratory Birds Convention Act and the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act there are sections that pertain to ducks. The ducks being migratory birds protects them under the Migratory Birds Convention Act (Environment Canada, 2015-b). Also the ducks being animals that had come in contact with hazardous substances protects them under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act [EPEA], RSA 1992, CE-13.3 s148). Due to both of these acts being broken Alberta Environment and Environment Canada both laid their own charges against Syncrude (Fluker, …show more content…
As shown before Environment Canada was charging Syncrude with offences against the Migratory Birds Convention Act and Alberta Environment was charging Syncrude with offences against the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (Fluker, 2011). The judge that proceeded over trial was Judge Tjosvold from St. Albert (R. v. Syncrude Canada Ltd.). Syncrude’s defense against both charges laid against them is the following “It has established that it used due diligence to avoid the contamination of birds in its tailings pond. It was impossible for Syncrude to prevent birds from landing on its tailings pond and the defence of impossibility should apply. The defence of Act of God should be applied. The proceedings are an abuse of process because Syncrude complied with all required approvals, permits, licenses, and leases. De minims should apply to prevent a conviction “((R. v. Syncrude Canada