Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 05 AUGUST 2010

R. v. Syncrude Canada Ltd. 2010 ABPC 229 — A Case of Overstated Significance?

McCarthy Tétrault
McCarthy Tétrault
Contributor
McCarthy Tétrault

McCarthy Tétrault

Built on a unique model of collaboration, innovation and efficiency, McCarthy Tétrault delivers...

View firm profile
Explore more from McCarthy Tétrault

On June 25, 2010 Syncrude Canada Ltd. ("Syncrude") was found guilty on two charges arising out of the death of approximately 1,600 ducks in its settling pond in Northern Alberta.

CanadaEnvironment

1. Introduction

On June 25, 2010 Syncrude Canada Ltd. ("Syncrude") was found guilty on two charges arising out of the death of approximately 1,600 ducks in its settling pond in Northern Alberta. The charges were brought pursuant to Alberta's Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, (the "EPEA") and Canada's Migratory Birds Convention Act (the "MBCA").1 Both the EPEA and the MBCA provide statutory "due diligence" defences.2 Syncrude raised a number of additional defences including an act of God, abuse of process and officially induced error.

This decision has received considerable media attention. It is being heralded as a monumental victory for environmentalists and by some commentators as devastating to the oil sands industry. Some commentators have gone further to suggest that this decision undermines any comfort that businesses can take from the fact that they have an environmental approval for their operations. In our opinion, this decision is not as

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from