Ontario Court of Appeal upholds convictions for conservation violations on a farm property

The appellants were guilty of importing fill onto their property without proper permits

Ontario Court of Appeal upholds convictions for conservation violations on a farm property

The Ontario Court of Appeal has upheld the convictions of two individuals for conservation and site alteration violations on their farm property.

In Grand River Conservation Authority v. Kentner, 2024 ONCA 689, the appellants, a mother and son, were found guilty of importing fill onto their property, violating the Conservation Authorities Act and local bylaws. The Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) and the Town of Erin had charged the pair after they continued a filling operation without proper permits. They were fined $25,000 and ordered to rehabilitate the property.

The appellants had initially appealed the conviction to the Provincial Offences Appeal Court (POAC), but their appeal was dismissed after they failed to file the necessary materials and pay the fines required to proceed. They argued that their paralegal provided ineffective counsel by failing to seek a waiver of the fines, which was a condition for continuing the appeal.

The Ontario Court of Appeal reviewed the claim of ineffective assistance under a two-part test, requiring proof that the paralegal’s performance was incompetent and that it caused a miscarriage of justice. The court found that the paralegal’s failure to seek a waiver did not prejudice the appellants, as they were aware of the requirement to pay the fines and chose not to comply. The court agreed that there was no reasonable chance the waiver application would have succeeded.

The appellants also challenged their convictions, arguing that the trial judge had improperly relied on regulatory maps to establish the boundaries of the GRCA’s jurisdiction. The court rejected this argument, ruling that the maps were properly used to define the regulated area.

The Court of Appeal upheld the $25,000 fine, stating that it was only a fraction of the illegal profits earned from the filling operation and that the rehabilitation order was necessary. The court dismissed the appeal and reaffirmed the strict enforcement of conservation laws.