A recent decision from the Yukon Territorial Court is a reminder
of how important communication between the regulator and the
regulated can be. At the same time, perhaps as an illustration of
the power of fate, at least in a narrow set of circumstances,
communication may make no difference at all. In R. v. Cobalt
Construction Inc., released September 14, 2017 the sole
shareholder/director and his road construction company were charged
with failing to provide a detailed decommissioning plan in
accordance with the conditions of a permit for a facility designed
to accept, store and treat dirt contaminated with petroleum
hydrocarbons. The defendants failed to establish a due diligence
defence to the charges because of poor communication with the
authorities, but were acquitted anyways because it was impossible
for them to comply given the weather conditions during the time
frame for compliance.
