R. v. Geil, 2011 ONCJ 888

COURT FILE No.: 10 591/592/593 DATE: January 26, 2011 Citation: R. v. Geil , 2011 ONCJ 888 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN — AND — JASON GEIL, JANET BRATTON ONT. CORPORATION #1410025 o/a GEIL STYLE ENTERPRISES INC. Before Justice of the Peace Zeljana Radulovic Heard on September 29 th , September 30 th and December 22 nd , 2010 Reasons for Judgment released on January 26, 2011 Mr. S. O’Melia Prosecutor for the Grand River Conservation Authority Mr. D. Thwaites Counsel for all Defendants JUSTICE OF THE PEACE ZELJANA RADULOVIC: [ 1 ] Jason John Geil, Janet Ann Bratton and Ont.

Corporation #1410025 o/a Geil Style Enterprises Inc. (herein after Defendant) have been charged with three separate Information, as a joint owners of the property municipally known as 1943 Roseville Road, Township of North Dumfries, Ontario under Section 28(16) of the Conservation Authorities Act, RSO 1990 as amended.

It has been alleged that on or about August 4 th , 2009 at or near the Township of North Dumfries the Defendant did commit the offence of undertaking development on a property municipally known as 1943 Roseville Road, Township of North Dumfries, Ontario without obtaining an authorization of a development permit in violation of Section 2(1) Conservation Authorities Act Regulation 150/06 thereby committing an offence contrary to Section 28(16) of the Conservation Authorities Act, RSO 1990 as amended. 2.

The Defendant Jason Geil before beginning of the trial was prepared to plead guilty with respect charge against him, with a condition that that quantum of fill put within regulated area would be rather smaller amount than the prosecutor can offer as a facts and that the Defendant Janet Bratton and Ont. Corporation#1410025 o/a Geil Style Enterprises Inc. whose president is Jason Geil would plead not guilty. Mr.

O’Melia did not agree with that proposal for guilty plea and explained that that would affect the quantum of the facts that the Prosecutor has intention to enter to the Court and reflect the remedies that would be available if Defendant found guilty. 3.

Upon considering submissions made by the Prosecutor and Defence Counsel and considering that the charges against all three Defendant are based on the same facts and that all matters were set down for trial on the same date after completion of pre-trial, court found that the administration of justice would be best served if all Defendant, who were charged separately be tried together pursuant to Section 38(1) of the Provincial Offences Act. Therefore this trial has been conducted jointly for all three Defendants. 4.

The Prosecution is alleging that the Defendants as joint owners of the property municipally known as 1943 Roseville Road, Township of North Dumfries on or about 4 th day of August 2009 had been undertaking development on a laneway through wetland by dumping of fill of gravel and building a berm on the restricted area without obtaining an authorization of a development permit in violation of Section 2(1) Conservation Authorities Act Regulation 150/06 and therefore acting contrary to Section 28(16) of the Conservation Authorities Act. The Court has heard from civilian witness Mr. Gant Gole, Ms.

Lisa Lair , Ms, Melissa Larion, Ms. Janet Baine and Mr. Bradley Kuntz called by the Prosecutor and from Andrew Herreman, Stewart Geil called by the Defence counsel. The Defendant Mr. Jason Geil testified on this trial. However the Defendant Janet Bratton did not testify on this trial. The Counsel for the Defendant Ont. Corporation #1410025 o/a Geil Style Entrprises Inc. and the Defendant Janet Bratton chose not to call any evidence on behalf of those two Defendants and takes position in closing submissions that the Prosecutor did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the corporation or

Janet Bratton committed the offence as alleged, and that mare fact that Defendants are joint owner of the property does not make them responsible for the violation under S28(16) of the Conservation Authorities Act. Court also received demonstrative evidence Booklet of photographs marked as Exhibit A, Photo of Driveway to Geil’s property marked as Exhibit B, photo of property marked as Exhibit C, Photos taken by Mr. Gole from his back deck marked as Exhibits D1and 2, Email to Grand River Conservation Authority to Ms. Larion by Mr.

Thwaites marked as Exhibits E, Certified copy of Abstract of Land marked as Exhibit F1and 2; Corporation Profile Report marked as Exhibit G; Aerial Photo of lands marked as Exhibit H; Photographs taken by Mr.

Kuntz marked as Exhibit I1to 5; Photo from 2006 marked as Exhibit J; Photo from 2006 marked as Exhibit K; a copy of telephone Information Form marked as Exhibit L; Photo laneway taken by Jason Geil June 2010 marked as Exhibit M; Photo of laneway taken by Jason Geil on June 2010 marked as Exhibit N; photo of laneway taken by Jason Geil on June 2010 marked as Exhibit O; photo of laneway taken by Jason Geil on June 2010 marked as Exhibit P; Photographs of area in fall 2009 marked as Exhibit Q1to 3; a copy of the Application for Development

Schedule A filed September 17, 2006 marked as Exhibit R; Certified Copy of Information #07-5766 with respect charges laid under Criminal Code against Mr. Jason Geil which charges has been stayed , marked as Exhibit S and a copy of letter dated October 19, 2009 from Region of Waterloo sent to Geil Style Enterproses Inc and Jason Geil and Janet Bratton, marked as Exhibit T.

Photographs and documents marked as Exhibits A, D(1and 2), F(1and2), G , H,I (1-5), R and S has been filed by the Prosecutor and photographs and documents marked as Exhibit B,C, E,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q(1-3)and T has been filed by the Defence Counsel. 2: ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT The first issue before this court is whether the Prosecutor has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about 4 th dated of August 2009 the Defendants did commit the offence under section 28(16) of the Conservation Authorities Act by undertaking development on a property municipally known as 1943 Roseville Road, Township of North Dumfries without obtaining an authorization of a development permit in violation of Section 2(1) Conservation Authorities Act Regulation 150/06, and if so proven did Defendant raise any available defence to escape from a liability?

The second issue is whether the Defendant Janet Bratton and Ont. Corporation #1410025 o/a Geil Style Enterprises Inc are guilty for undertaking development by the Defendant Jason Geil as result of mere fact that they are joint owner of the property municipally known as 1943 Roseville Road. The date, location and the identity of the Defendants before the court is not in issue neither the jurisdiction of this court.

It is evident from the evidence of civilian witness Grant Gole and Lisa Lair, who are the neighbours of the Defendants, that during the first week of August 2009 a large number of dump trucks have been entering the Geil’s property at 1943Rosesvill Rd. going all the way down the laneway and instead of entering to where the out building are going along the railway tracks and back into the bush area. Mr. Gole in his evidence stated that his property is immediately beside to the property 1943 Roseville Rd. and that Defendants Jason Geil and Janet Bratton are his neighbours.

On August 3 rd , 2009 the trucks started going into the wetlands from about the middle of the property. He recalls being very heavy traffic for whole week from August 3 to August 8, 2009 and that frequency of track’s traffic slowed down after that period of time. He explained that he observed with his own eyes when the trucks were coming they were full of fill of dirt mixed with gravel, and when they were emerging from property they were empty. He also stated that on the same time there was ongoing fill project right behind his house as the Defendant Jason Geil were constructing a berm .

He further stated that there would have been approximately 150 loads for the week of August 3 to August 8, 2009 and they were damping its loads into the wetland. As result of very high distraught on August 4, 2009 he contacted Grand River Conservation Authority and asked if there was a permit given or permission to fill in what he believed was wetland. Andrew Herreman from Grand River Conservation Authority provided him with aerial photograph form Grand River Conservation Authority , and he was able to indentify that in fact the area where the fill was going on is wetland.

When presented with Exhibit A aerial photograph he confirmed that that is a aerial photograph provided by Andrew Herreman to him, and that he draw the diagram where the filling is being placed. Upon receiving confirmation that the filling is in wetland area, he took several pictures confirming dumping trucks coming into the bush area , dumping fill and returning from that area.

When presented with Exhibit A photograph 66 he confirmed that he took that photograph on August 5, 2009 from golf course which is to the North from his and defendant’s property and that pictures depict a truck is dumping a load directly in the wetland area.

He also confirmed that he took the photographs marked as Exhibit A 67D,68E, and 69F on August 7,2009 and that those photographs depicts a truck is dumping and Defendant Jason Gail is sitting on the bulldozer directly behind it ,and he is levelling the fill and that photograph 69F depict the truck had just backed in and the Defendant Jason Geil with bulldozer touching up the last load that had been dumped. He explained that he observed that with his own eyes and took the pictures with his digital camera.

He did not want to take photographs of truck coming to the defendant’s property before he was sure that place where the trucks were dumping a dirt –mix of gravel is wetland. He further stated that work finally concluded sometimes after August 8, 2009 when traffic was much lighter and that last load on that fill area was in 2009. He stated that prior August 3, 2009 that there have been no fill place in that particular area and that spot has been prepared as much as two or three years ago, just that very spot where the trucks were entering the marsh. He explained that there was a compost pile in that area.

With respect a new berm he stated that that project started two weeks before August 3, 2009 and during the period of August 3, 2009 . For the following two weeks the fill was being placed in that berm. He further stated that project on the berm

was completed two months ago in 2010. He explained that from his residence towards entry point for dumping they are not any impediments in the way of that view. He describe the nature of land between his property and entry points as dead flat working agriculture land, maybe 10 feet difference in elevation. Whit respect to berm he confirmed that berm is directly behind his property line and that he observed with his own eyes all the activities on the dumping the fill which consists of dirt and mix of gravel.

After the August 7, 2009 he did not take any further photos of the wetland area and he did not have any contact with Grand River Conservation Authority the week after August 8 th , 2009. It cross-examination he confirmed that relationship between Mr. Geil and him is extremely difficult and they have been several incidents. As result of the last incident between him and Mr. Geil the police was involved. However he stated that he does not have difficult relationship with Ms. Bratton. Ms. Lisa Lair in her evidence explained that she is a neighbour of the Defendants.

She lives at 1967 Roseville Rd., and her property is located three properties over to the west and on the south side of Roseville Rd. The Defendant’s property is on the same side of the road. She could see the Defendant’s property from her property. She recalls that during the early August 2009 she saw a large number of dump trucks entering the property at 1943 Roseville Rd. , which is Defendant’s property , and going to the bush area. She also explained that her property is a two storey shop and from her property where her office is located she could see the truck as well hear the noise coming from the trucks.

She recalls seeing dump trucks from Roseville Rd. in addition to a bulldozers and packer working in the swamp area at the front of the property. She observed the trucks when they arrived at the property. She recalls that truck’s traffic was significant in that period, and that she can hear the slamming of the tailgate of the truck when dumping. Her evidence corroborate with the evidence of Mr. Gole with respect area of fill and berm as depicted on the Exhibit A areal photograph as well set of photographs taken by Mr. Gole on August 5, 2009 and August 7, 2009.

She further stated that she witnessed a several truck in the area where the berm has been built behind Gole’s property and also the additional fill to create the roadway in bush area. She could not recall exact number of truck coming but she explained that for that first week of August there were dozens and dozens truck coming with fill and returning empty. She could not explain what sort of material has been dumped in the bush area explaining that was because it was too far from her property.

However with respect the berm behind the Gole’s property she explained that there is all matter of debris and all kind of things went into that berm. In cross examination she stated that she observed truck’s traffic in and out of the Defendant’s property all week during the beginning of August 2009 but she can’t recall the particular days. Having concern about what Mr. Jason Geil is doing to her property value , she reported him to government agency. She believes that she contacted Grand River Conservation Authority about this fill the second week of August.

Melissa Larion as a resource planner for the Grand River Conservation Authority stated that her on day to day responsibilities are plan review functions , working with local Municipalities and dealing with permit requirement if area falls within regulated area. With respect property at 1943 Roseville Rd. in North Dumfries a permit application was never filed. She stated that she received a voicemail message from Grant Gole in early August 2009 with respect some sort of fill placement on a neighbouring property. She forwarded the voice mail to their planning technician Andrew Herreman.

Referring to Exhibit “A” aerial photograph she stated that was an aerial map produced by Andrew Herreman on August 5, 2009 and sent to Mr. Gole . She further explained that August 5, 2009 is not an actual date when that map was created it is date when Mr. Herreman printed out from Grand River Conservation Authority system and sent it to Mr. Gole. Mr. Grant Gole sent back the aerial map with his drawing, basically showing where he thought there might be a fill placement.

Reviewing the map and using GIS mapping service, which is basically the tool that is used by Grand River Conservation Authority to figure out which areas are regulated and comparing with the areas drawing by Grant Gole it has been define that fill was within the regulated area. She in detail explained when referred to Exhibit “A” the aerial photograph and Grand River Conservation Authority map as part of Regulation 150/06 that 2009 fill and entry point for dumping as drawn by Mr.

Gole on aerial photograph is within regulation limit define under regulation as wetland, and that a new berm 2009 is mostly within the regulation limit. She further stated that with respect fill in 2009 permit was never issued for the work on the site or applied for. On August 14, 2009 she sent a letter to Mr. Jason Geil addressing those concerns. She further stated that she received after couple days a call from Janet Bratton who she learned is a partner of Jason Geil. Court did not consider a part of the hear say evidence provided by this witness in cross examination with respect telephone conversation with Ms.

Bratton. She stated that nor she or somebody from her office was able to go out and verify where exactly there had been fill placement as they could not get access to the property. On September 29, 2009 Brad Kuntz and she went out to the Gole’s property to see if they could view anything from that stand point. They had also taken a look from the road being Roseville Road.

When referred to Exhibit A Tab2 photograph marked as 72”I” she confirmed that on September 29, 2009 she had taken that photograph, explaining that is a view point from Roseville Road directly towards the property showing some sort of heavy machinery. Further, when presented with Exhibit A aerial photograph she pointed on the aerial photograph location of that heavy machinery and stated that the heavy machinery had been located within the regulated area. She stated that on September 29, 2009 , when she attended at Roseville Road , she did not witness any dumping of fill or any site grading going on.

She only observed heavy machinery located within the regulated area. Whit respect a berm behind a Gole’s property she stated that berm area is mostly within the regulation limit for the wetland but it is not within the wetland. She explained that the regulation limit essentially means that in the case before the court is a 120 meters from the wetlands so within that 120 meters Grand River Conservation Authority would require a permit application for any sort of development where as if it was within the wetland Grand River Conservation Authority would not provided a permit application.

She further explained that the regulation limit comes from the Conservation Authorities Act which states that any sort of work outside of the wetland that might have some sort of hydrologic impact on the wetland would require a permit from Grand River Conservation Authority in order that Grand River Conservation Authority can make sure that there is not going to be any hydrologic function impaired due to that development within that regulated area. When presented with Exhibit “E” a copy of e-mail sent by D.

Thwaites counsel for Defendant to M.Larson on October 6, 2009 she stated that she did not received that e-mail and explained that her last name is misspelled that might be reasons why she did not received that e- mail. Janet Baine communication specialist for Grand River Conservation Authority when presented with Exhibit “A” Tab 3 photograph number 73 she confirmed that on December 2, 2009 she took that picture from a plane, from the air when they were up taking pictures of several properties around the watershed. She recalls that she took a picture of the municipality address 1943 Roseville Road.

She explained that on that day she was with Ms. Yerex and she had been taking pictures of the area as directed by Ms. Yerex , who is a resource planer for GRCA. She confirmed that on that day she took four pictures of the area with municipality address 1943 Roseville Road, North Dumfries.

Bradley Kunts : stated in his evidence that from August 2008 until October 2009 he was in the position of Regulations Officer for the Grand River Conservation Authority. Upon receiving information about the activities on 1943 Roseville Rd, he went to inspect what works were taking place at that time. He attended the neighbouring property at 1953 Roseville Rd. and spoke with the resident Paullette Gole. He observed that a berm had been constructed previously along the property lines between 1953 and 1943 Roseville Rd.

He observed what appears to be a lane way extending from what looked to be the original laneway of 1943 Roseville Rd. extending into an area that Grand River Conservation Authority has mapped as wetlands. When presented with 5 photographs marked as Exhibits I1-5 he confirmed that he took those photographs on September 29, 2009 and that those photographs depicts the berm that appeared to have been made out of unconsolidated gravel type material that extended along the southern property line of 1953 Roseville Rd and a laneway through wetland.

He further explained that berm has been made of a loosened earth type material with various size stone and rubble in it, approximately five meters high by five meters in width extending along what is represented as the southern property line of 1953 Roseville Road. He explained in cross examination that he did not use any measurement equipments and based on his eyes observation he estimated the measurements. He further stated that 99 percent of berm was located on restricted area and may be a slight corner a few feet that extends out of that area.

Referring to photograph marked as Exhibit I5 he stated that that photograph depict a relatively newly constructed laneway that did not appear on any of Grand River Conservation Authority mapping that there have been before. He explained that he was not able to walk down that laneway; however from the point where he was standing he could see clearly laneway at distance of 150 meters or so, and after that laneway turns into the forest area or the vegetated area.

He further stated that it would be difficult to him to define how much fill was added to laneway but it appeared to him that some grading has been done and that more fill was added to the Easter portion. He further stated that he observed when attended the area of 1943 Roseville Rd. that laneway is more clearly define than as appear on Grand River Conservation Authority ’s aerial photo flown May 2006 marked as Exhibit H. Andrew Herreman , Resource Planning Technician of the Grand River Conservation Authority evidence corroborate with the evidence of Melisa Larion. He recalls that Ms.

Larion forwarded to him a voice message from Gant Gole on August 4, 2009. He spoke with Mr. Gole on August 5 th 2009 and sent him a copy of Grand River Conservation Authority mapping of 1943 Roseville Rd. He also asked Mr. Gole for any photos that he could provide to him. On August 6, 2009 he received a responding e-mail from Mr. Gole and a map with Mr. Gole’s indication of the place where activities where on the land as well photos. He transferred his notes and mapping to Melissa Larion.

He further stated that on the afternoon August 5, 2009 at 4:15p.m.he drove by on the road allowance in the parking lot of golf course from which point he could observe property at 1943 Roseville Road. He stayed there until 4:20p.m. For that period of time he did not observed any truck activities, heavy equipments or any dumping activities. He explained that he was only 5 minutes at the area in question and that he could not speak to any of the other minutes that day or any other days of that week with respect whether any activities were occurring on 1943 Roseville Rd.

Further in his evidence he confirmed that Exhibit A aerial photograph of Roseville Road marked as number 66, is one that he sent to Mr. Gole, and that that he received it back from Mr. Gole with his drowning of dumping activities. Stewart Geil is oldest brother of the Defendant Jason Geil, who resides at 1831 Roseville Rd. He stated in his evidence that he has been residing at 1831 Roseville Rd since 1986, and his property is about as close as to that of Jason Geil’s property. When presented with Exhibit A Tab 1 aerial photograph marked number 66, he stated that he believes that waterway is on his property.

He further stated that his brother moved to 1943 Roseville Rd. in 2003 or 2004. He is very familiar with the surrounding area and that wetland is on the Jason’s property. He stated that laneway through the wetland has been existing prior 2003 or 2004 and if one had a four wheel drive truck or tractor one could get through it. He further explained that line was mostly used by famers. It had overgrowth in the center of it, mostly with poplars tree approximately 30-40 feet tall and small brush type of growth pretty close to the driveway. There were a couple of areas where it was ruddy.

From 2003 to 2009 he recalls using the laneway through wetland when the other road was blocked off. He explained that Jason was having problems and he had locked road to his property and that was a reason why he had to use the old laneway. He further stated that prior to summer 2009 there has been changes to laneway through wetland. His brother Jason put rocks and some gravel on top to firm it up, and he has put sum fine gravel on top of the driveway , removed some brushes, trimmed lower branches on the bigger trees.

He further explained that within two years since his brother bought the property those ruddy areas that needed the fixing to make it better to get through has been done by Jason. He also stated that Jason has been working putting gravel on laneway since 2006, 2007 and 2008. He could not tell the amount of gravel put on but there were areas that he could see fresh gravel. With respect 2009 he stated that he had opportunity to be over at Jason’s and Janet’s property during the spring and the latter part of July 2009 to cut the hay.

He further stated that he has been on the property since July 2009 and that he has not really observed any other changes to the laneway. He stated that that with respect to any change in the elevation of the original laneway from his observation from 2003 to 2009 putting the gravel on two to three inches which he things pack overtime that elevation would be very close to nil. With respect a project on the new berm behind Gole’s house he recalls that that project started in early 2009 because he had hay stored in a trailer parked out there.

In cross examination he confirmed his statement given in examination in chief stating that there was always a laneway in wetland and it hasn’t really changed much other than gravel put on it. He also stated that the Defendant Jason Geil was fixing every year that laneway and he would take one or two truckloads a year up to 2009. He do not think there was any gravel dumped in 2010. He did not witness any of that dumping but he things works was done because he has been on that laneway . With respect of August 2009 he stated that he witnessed fill being hauled in for the berm and trucks coming in.

When he was visiting the Defendant’s property he has seen three or four trucks waiting to dump and dumping in the berm area. In cross-examination he stated that he did not see any dumping on the wetland in August 2009. Further in cross examination when presented with Exhibit H and Exhibit A photographs #65 and 73 he agreed that laneway as depicted on Exhibit H as aerial photograph form May 2006 by Grand River Conservation Authority is not visible as on Exhibits A photograph #65 and 73, but he stated that there was possibility to go through brush and vegetation with a four wheel drive truck or a tractor.

In cross examination he stated that location of a new berm is correct as presented on Exhibit A aerials photograph #65. When presented with Exhibit I1-5 photographs dated September 29, 2009 he stated that those photographs depict the new berm and laneway and he agreed that material on a new berm looks like freshly dumped material. He further stated that when he visited the property he observed a fair stream of trucks and he recalls there were four trucks at the time he was there. It seemed to him that the trucks were coming and going and that there were always trucks waiting to dump.

He stated that there was continuing truck traffic when he was visiting the property. He estimated taking the pile crated over time that would be 20 to 30 trucks a day dumping material. He believes that is around the end of July and into the beginning of August 2009. In re-examination when presented with

exhibit A photograph marked #67 dated August 7, 2009 he stated that that photograph exactly depict the type of growth, trees and vegetation being mostly poplar trees on the wetland. The Defendant Jason Geil stated that he is a contractor, and that he purchased back in October 2003 83acres of property at 1943 Roseville Rd. That property is used for farming. He owns property jointly with Janet Bratton who is his spouse and Geil Style Enterprises. He stated that he is the president and the principal officer of that corporation. He farms three acres of it and he rents out about 56 acres.

When he bought the property in 2003 it was overgrown, dead trees laying there through wetland but there was lane through the wetland. He explained that from the point of elevation the road can be describe at that time as fairly flat but because the township of Region did same digging back there in 1976 there are some hills that are higher. In his opinion there might be a difference in the land of two to three feet in some spots. He explained that when he bought the property the laneway was approximately eight feet wide and it had topsoil and gravel and it was fairly dry.

He confirmed that from Fall 2003 through July 2009 he did make changes to that area and that he did work on that area. He described the type of work he has done in that period starting from 2004 as cleaning brush away, dead trees. He explained that a lot of the trees were overhanging the lane so he trimmed stuff back, made the laneway wider just by cleaning everything up that was laying around there.

He also stated that over those years he probably dumped a few loads of gravel from time to time where there might have been a wet spot or a little bit of a low spots so he would just dumped a load of gravel and spread it out. He further stated that he had been using that lane in November 2006 when he was assaulted by his neighbour Mr. Gole. He recalls putting over the years a gavel on the top of laneway, explaining that he put A-gravel and eventually the laneway has been extended in width and at the present time is about 16 feet wide and 1500 feet long.

When presented with Exhibit M-P he confirmed that is how laneway looks at this time and that all of the gravel over the 1500feet and 16feet wide lane way , was created by roughly 18 tracks. He explained that between October 2003 and August 2009 elevation of laneway has not changed much. He stated that prior August 2009 possible in spring he might have put a couple loads of A gravel on laneway. It would be 21 tone of A gravel which was brought by a tri-axle dump trucks. He explained that usually two loads would be brought at the time.

Whit the respect a berm he stated that he decided to build the berm behind the Gole’s and Lairs’ property because his neighbours Gole and Lair were taking photographs of him at his house. He explained that at first after they put a trailer and they were shooting guns off, throwing the rocks he decided to build the berm to stop all this stuff from happening. Further he explained that he had many disputes with his neighbour Mr. Gole and that in August 2009 they had dispute over the cutting the grass which escalated to the point that Gole through the rock into his face.

Gole called the police but charges has not been laid. He explained that his relationship with his neighbour Goles and Lairs is not very good. In late June 2009 before he undertook the project on berm he had a discussion with the Township. He recalls having meeting with the Township lawyer Daryl Denning about exactly what he was doing there. Prior that meeting he started to scrape the topsoil off and started dumping fill in there.

He further stated that prior that time he had conversation with representative of the Grand River Conservation Authority , Drew Cherry in 2006 and 2007 because he was duping out front and since that conversation he has been aware that he would have to apply for a permit to dupm out front. In cross examination he confirmed that he never received a permit for that project from Grand River Conservation Authority . After meeting with Township the work was done on berm roughly 250 feet back from the Gole’s property and about 230 to 290 feet long.

He explained that the berm is actually stretched the whole length of the Gole’s property. He stated that his intention has been that a new berm to be constructed the whole length of his field which is approximately 1500 feet and 12 feet high with intention to use for cash crops up to the property line. He stated the berm was constructed with pit run on the bottom and with bigger rocks and on the top was just a sand fill. He was getting the fill for free so during July trucks were coming when it was available. He explained that one day he might get 30 loads and another day he might get 100 loads.

He stated that there was no work done during last week of July 2009 as he was on holiday with his family on camping and he returned home on the afternoon August 3, 2009. He admitted that on August 4 th , 2009 he was working around the farm and couple days later he called for a couple loads of A- gravel which was brought and he was just fixing up the road. Referring to Exhibit A Tab1photoghraps #65 to 67 he admitted that those are trucks dumping the A gravel to fix the laneway.

He explained that reasons for placing this A gravel from August 5 through August 7 , 2009 was to tighten the laneway and make it easier to drive . He believes that he dumped three loads of A-gravel on the original laneway in that period. He agreed with the statement made by Mr. Gole that on August 8 th , 2009 there was still dumping going on but in the area of the berm. He explained that it has been duping basically past Grant Gole’s property which is out of the regulated area. He stated that after receiving the letter from Miss.

Larion from Grand River Conservation Authority around 16 or 17 of August, 2009 he did not dump anything at the original laneway. When presented with exhibit H he confirmed that that photograph accurately depict how his property has looked like in May 2006. He stated that there was a roadway that was well grown over, the trees were overhanging it, there was a lot of bushes along it. He stated when presented with Exhibit A Tab1 photograph 65 that a new berm fill in August 2009 was just barely outside the regulated area. His evidence corroborate with evidence of Ms.

Lair that after the start of August 2009 there were dozens of trucks that are coming in and dumping fill in the berm area, but he stated that the fill that was being dumped was being dumped past the regulated area going west of the Gole’s property. He also stated that dumping in that area continued in 2010 but outside of the regulated wetlands.

He admitted that in August 2009 he have dumped three loads of A-gravel on laneway and after receiving the letter from Grand River Conservation Authority he had full knowledge of where the wetlands were at that time and after that he never dumped any more fill in any of the marked areas. He acknowledges that he dumped three loads from August 4, 2009 to August 7, 2009 on the laneway.

However in cross examination he stated that he is only doing maintenance on the laneway by cleaning, putting gravel and spreading gravel on it and that hid did not know that he is required to have a permit under Conservation Authorities Act. He further stated that he knew that a front of his property is regulated area but he did not know that all of his property is regulated area and he learned of that when he received letter from Grand River Conservation Authority August 14, 2009.

In cross examination he confirmed that as result of his activities on the property the Waterloo Regional Police laid charge under a noise bylaw and that he was convicted of that charge in the Provincial Offences Court. He explained that noise was related to dump truck coming in his driveway. He stated that from 2003 to 2009 he did tree clean up, stump clean up, logging and he is not sure did he place any fill in the area from 2003 to 2006. He explained that dozens of loads of fill were brought in but he cannot recall everywhere where he was dumping because the place was a mess when he bought it.

FINDING OF FACTS AND APPLICATION OF LAW

Section 28(1) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. reads: “Subject to the approval of the Minister, an authority may make regulations applicable in the area under its jurisdiction, (

a) Restricting and regulating the use of water in or from rivers, stream, inland lakes, ponds, wetlands and natural or artificially constructed depressions in rivers or streams; (

b) Prohibiting, regulating or requiring the permission of the authority for straightening, changing, diverting or interfering in any way with the existing channel of a river, creek, stream or watercourse, or for changing or interfering in any way with a wetland; (

c) Prohibiting, regulating or requiring the permission of the authority for development if , in the opinion of the authority, the control of flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches or pollution or the conservation of land may be affected by the development; (

d) providing for the appointment of officer to enforce any regulation made under this

section or

section 29; (

e) providing for the appointment of persons to act as officers with all of the powers and duties of officers to enforce any regulation made under this section.” Section 7(1) and (2) of the Conservation Authorities Act states that the Grand River Conservation Authority is continued under the name Grand River Conservation Authority and that the Lieutenant Governor in Council may designate the municipalities that are the participating municipalities of the Grand River Conservation Authority and the area over which it has jurisdiction.

Considering above noted sections, evidence presented to this court and submissions made by the counsel, court finds that the authority in this case is the Grand River Conservation Authority and that Grand River Conservation Authority has an area within its jurisdiction which includes the property municipally known as 1943Roseville Road, Township of North Dumfries. The Grand River Conservation Authority made the Regulation 150/06 Regulation of Development, Interference with wetlands and alterations to shorelines and watercourses, which Regulation is approved by the Minister of Natural Resources.

Section 28(

c) of the Conservation Authority Act states that regulation has authority for prohibiting, regulating or requiring the permission of the authority for development if in the opinion of the authority did control a flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches or pollution or the conservation of land may be affected by development. Section 28(4) of the Conservation Authorities Act states: “ A regulation made under subsection (1) may refer to any area affected by the regulation by reference to one or more maps that are filed at the head office of the authority and are available for public review during normal office business hours.”

Section 2 of the Regulation 150/06 states: “Subject to

section 3, no person shall undertake development or permit another person to undertake development in or on the areas within the jurisdiction of the Authority that are “….. among other listed in paragraph (b) (c) (

d) river or stream valleys plus 15 meters, hazardous lands, wetlands, and further paragraph (

e) states “other areas where development could interfere with the hydrologic function of a wetland including areas within 120 meters of all Provincially significant wetlands and wetlands greater than or equal to 2.0 hectares in size, and areas within 30 metres of wetlands less than 2.0 hectares in size.” (

f) Further subsection 2 refers to

section 12 which is the mapping

section and has been presented and submitted by the Prosecutor as a part of the Regulation 150/06 on this trial.”

Section 12 of the Ontario Regulation 150/06 refers to areas included in the Regulation Limit and states : “hazardous lands, wetlands, shorelines and areas susceptible to flooding, and associated allowances, within the watersheds in the area of jurisdiction of the Authority are delineated by the Regulation Limit show on maps 1to 242 dated may 2006 and filed at the head office of the Authority at 400 Clyde Road , Cambridge, Ontario under the map title “ Ontario Regulation 97/04 : Regulation for Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses”. O.Reg.150/06 ,s12.

Considering

Section 12 of the Regulation 150/06 and attached mapping court finds that those maps are official documents part of the Ontario Regulation 150/06 and that area in question being 1943 Roseville Road is within regulation limit. Pursuant to

Section 2 of the Ontario Regulation 150/06 the Defendant is required to obtain a permit from Conservation Authority prior to undertaking any development.

Section 5 and 6 of the Ontario Regulation 150/06 states that no person shall without the Authority’s permission , straighter, change, divert or interfere in any way with the existing channel or a river, creek , stream or watercourse or change or interfere in any way with a wetland. The permission of the Authority shall be given in writing with or without conditions. Section 28(25) of the Conservation Authorities Act define what would be considered as development among others states: “(

c) site grading, or (

g) The temporary or permanent placing, dumping or removal of any material, originating on the site or elsewhere;” And further with respect definition of “Wetland” states: “Wetland means land that

a) Is seasonally or permanently covered by shallow water or has a water table close to or at its surface,

b) Directly contributes to the hydrological function of a watershed through connection with a surface watercourse,

c) Has hydric soils, the formation of which has been caused by the presence of abundant water, and

d) Has vegetation dominated by hydrophytic plants or water tolerant plants, the dominance of which has been favoured by the presence of abundant water, But does not include periodically soaked or wet land that is used for agricultural purposes and no longer exhibits a wetland characteristic referred to in clause (

c) or (d).” Considering evidence of Ms. Larion and Mr. Kunz as well reviewing Exhibit A aerial photographs, Exhibit H court finds proven following facts: that the laneway at 1943 Roseville Rd. is fully within the regulated area.

In accordance with the Regulation 150/06 that area is defined as a wetland for which part even if permit application has been filled , Grand River Conservation Authority would not give a permit for any type of development, and that the berm is mostly within regulated area which would required permit application to be submitted to the Grand River Conservation Authority prior any development. Ms. Larion’s evidence corroborates with the evidence of Mr. Gole, Ms. Lair and Mr. Stewart Geil and with Exhibit “A” confirming that has been placement of material within the regulation area.

Reviewing the Exhibit A aerial photograph and maps which are part of the Regulation 150/06 and considering evidence of Ms. Larion court finds that the regulation area is shaded in yellow and that laneway and berm are within regulated area. Court finds considering the Regulation 150/06 and Ms. Larion’s evidence that regulation limit essentially is a 120 meters from the wetlands so within that 120 meters a permit application is required for any sort of development, where as if it was within the wetland permit application would not be provided.

The Conservation Authorities Act states that any sort of work outside of the wetland that might have some sort of hydrologic impact on the wetland would require a permit from GRCA. Considering evidence of the Defendant Jason Geil whose evidence corroborate with Exhibit F1-2 Registered parcel abstracts for the property 1943 Roseville Rd. and Exhibit G Corporate profile Report for Geil Style Enterprises court finds that all three Defendants are the joint owners of the subject property and that Jason Geil is the president of the Ontario Corporation #1410025 o/a Geil Style Enterprises Inc. Ms.

Larion evidence coincides with material evidence the aerial photograph of a portion of the subject property at 1943 Roseville Rd. taken May 2006 marked as Exhibit H and a photographs depicting a plotting of the regulation limit in a red line marked as Exhibit A Tab4 photograph number 74 and with the Regulation 150/06

Section 12 and two maps as a part of the Regulation. Based on those evidence court finds that the area where is laneway and a new berm does fall within the regulated area. Despite Mr. Stewart Geil has been well aware of the area in question and that he has been living on that area since 1986 court finds that he is not a technical expert to be able to define laneway elevation ,and court did not consider this part of his opinion evidence with respect laneway elevation. Further his evidence does not corroborate with material evidence Exhibit H that laneway was existing in 2006 and prior 2006 .

It is clear from Exhibit H aerial photograph dated May 2006 of 1943 Roseville Rd and souranding area through wetland that that aerial photograph does not depicts any laneway through the bush area . Further comparing the Exhibit H aerial photograph dated May 2006 from Grand River Conservation Authority with Exhibits A, I5 M to P there is no any indication that that laneway was existing in 2006 all way through the wetland as it appear on Exhibit A , I5 and Exhibits M to P.

Court also did not give much weight to Exhibit K and J which depict some portion of roadway because based on the other evidence presented to court, court does not find proven that those photographs exactly depict area of laneway in question. Further Mr. Kuntz in his evidence was not able to indentify that Exhibit K and J in fact depict the laneway through wetland as presented on Exhibit I-5 photograph taken by him on September 29, 2009. Considering evidence of Ms. Larion, Mr. Kuntz, exhibits H, I, M,N,O and P Court cannot accept evidence by Mr.

Stewart Geil that there was laneway always through wetland and that it hasn’t changed a much except gravel put on. Even the Defendant Jason Geil in his evidence admitted that during the period of time since he bought property at 1943 Roseville R. he was cleaning area through wetland and he made laneway wider and longer by cleaning bushes, trimming the brunches and putting the graven on the laneway.

Reviewing ExhibitH which depict aerial photograph of 1943 Roseville Rd. flown May 2006 by Grand River Conservation Authority it is evident that there is no indication of either a laneway or any sort of a passage way through wetland area ,except small portion of the some sort of laneway on the beginning before bush area. However laneway is clearly visible on Exhibit A picture 73 all way through area as define under Regulation 150/06 as wetland. Considering these

finding of facts court cannot accept evidence of Stewart Geil and evidence of the Defendant Jason Geil in the part that there was laneway always present and that there was possibility to use that laneway with a four wheel drive truck or a tractor. Court cannot accept evidence of the Defendant Jason Geil that he did not have knowledge prior receiving a letter from Ms. Larion from Grand River Conservation Authority between 16 or 17, of August 2009, about wetland and requirement to apply for permit.

The Defendant Jason Geil in his examination in chief stated that even in 2006 and 2007 after having conversation with Drew Cherry from Grand River Conservation Authority he was aware that he has to apply for a permit before any project he wish to perform on the part of his property which has been under regulation define as wetland but that he understood that is just with respect front part of the property. However further in his evidence he stated that he knew that laneway is through wetland.

Exhibit R a copy of Application for Development , interference with wetlands and alternations to shorelines and watercourses permit dated Sept 17, 2006 proved that the Defendant Jason Geil in fact filed an application for development, interference with wetlands and alterations to shorelines and watercourses permit pursuant to Ontario Regulation 150/06 which application has never been approved. He also admitted that that application has never been approved by Grand River Conservation Authority . Therefore court takes position that this part of the Defendant’s evidence are self serving and not trustworthy.

Reviewing the Exhibit H which depict an aerial photograph of 1943 Roseville Rd. flown May 2006 by Grand River Conservation Authority , it is clear that there is no indication of any sort of a disturbance in that area that would assist the court in finding the fact that there was some sort of a laneway as that clearly appear on Exhibit A Tab 3 four photographs marked as #73 or on Exhibit I photograph #5 dated September 29, 2009. Based on those evidence and evidence of Ms. Larion and Mr.

Kuntz, whose evidence court finds to be credible and reliable and considering the Defendant Jason Geil own admission , court finds that at some point in time a very significant finely define road 16feet wide, 1500feet long, as estimated by the Defendant’s Jason Geil, was created by the Defendant through wetland. Court finds based on the presented evidence that that laneway through wetland did not exists in 2006. Court also find upon examining the exhibit H, exhibit A and Ontario Regulation 150/06 maps that a new berm has been as Mr. Kuntz stated 99% within regulated area.

It is evident from material exhibits that actual fill that was deposited on the berm is substantial. Court finds that the Defendant did not apply for permit before starting any of these activities. Considering all the evidence in totality and relying on decision in R. v. W(D) 1991CanLII(S.C.C.),[1991] S.C.R. in deciding on issue of credibility , court finds evidence of Mr. Gole and Ms. Larion as reliable and credible and corroborating with evidence of Ms. Larin, Mr. Kuntz and Mr. Herrman and even in part with the evidence of Mr. Stewart Geil and Defendant Jason Geil.

Issue has been raised by the defence counsel with respect relationship between the Defendant Jason Geil and his neighbour Mr. Gole and Ms. Lair. Court observed the general integrity and intelligence of those witnesses, power to observe and capacity to remember and despite it appeared that they were agitated by the Defendant’s activities court did not find in their testimony any contradiction whith the testimony of other witnesses and other material evidence. Court did not find anything in the demeanour of those witnesses suggesting untruthfulness and there for court accepts Mr. Gole’s and Ms.

Lair’s’evidence as credible and reliable. Upon reviewing all the evidence court finds that significant amount of fill must have been dumped to form finely define laneway 1500 feet in length and 16 feet wide through wetland and on a new berm project. Considering evidence of Ms. Lair and Mr. Gole whose evidence court accepts as credible and reliable court cannot accept defendant’s evidence that during August 4 to 7, 2009 he duped only three loads of A gravel for the purpose of maintenance on the stretch of the laneway.

Court finds that the Defendant Jason Geil evidence to be not credible and trustworthy with respect quantum of fill he deposited , number of trucks used to dump the fill and the period when fill has been dumped on the laneway and the berm. Court observed Jason Geil’s demeanour during his testimony, his ability to recall and concludes that there were internal inconsistencies in his statement and contradiction by other witness. However court did not find proven based on the presented evidence how much of fill has been put on the laneway and how much on the berm.

What we have proven as a fact is that during the first week of August 2009 they had been extensive truck traffic, gravel had been duped on laneway through wetland as well on a new berm. It is proven that as Ms. Lair stated dozens and dozens of truck were there and Mr. Stewart Geil stated there were always trucks there 20 to 30 a day waiting to dump. Based on the evidence presented Court cannot find proven how many loads were in fact dumped on the laneway through wetland and on the berm in or around August 4, 2009.

However court agrees with the submission made by the Prosecutor that according to the Regulation 150/06 and Conservation Authorities Act number of fill dumped is not important and offence can be committed even with one load of fill dumped in the area without a permit. The Law: The offence before this Court is regulatory offence. In R. v. Sault Ste. Marie Justice Dickson divided “regulatory “ or “public welfare” offence into three categories: mens rea offence, strict liability offence and absolute liability offence. Considering process of categorization as define in R.v. Sault Ste.

Marie by Justice Dickosn and analyzing the precision of the language in S28(1) of the Conservation Authorities Act R.S.O. 1990 and S2(1) court agrees with the submission made by the Prosecutor that this is a strict liability offence. In this type of offence prosecutor needs to prove beyond the reasonable doubt prohibited act. While the prosecutor does not need to prove that the defendant acted with a guilty mind, the defendant may escape conviction if she/he can demonstrated that she/he took all reasonable steps to avoid doing the act prohibited in fact that she/he did act with due diligence.

This involves consideration of what a reasonable prudent man would have done in the circumstances of the case as one before the court. It is clear from Defendant Jason Geil’s evidence that he did not act as a reasonable prudent man and did not take reasonable steps as required by the law. He was well aware in 2006 that he needs a permit for any development on his property.

Even if he was under believe that this is just for front part of his property, court finds that he did not take all reasonable steps to make sure that the rest of his property is not under regulated area and that he does not need a permit before commencement of any development on his property. There are no action that can be considered as reasonable and therefore court concludes that the Defendant Jason Geil’s evidence did not raise defence of due diligence. It has been suggested from Jason Geil’s evidence that he attempted to raise the defence of officially induced error.

He stated in his evidence that as result of the conversation with Drew Cherry form Grand River Conservation Authority in 2006 he was under impression that permit is required only for the front part of his property as well after conversation with Township’s lawyer Daryl Denny in 2009 he was under impression that a new berm is not within regulated area and that he is ok to continue his activities on development of the new berm. He further stated that he was not aware that he is interfering with wetland until he received letter from Grand River Conservation Authority between August 16 or 17, 2009.

From that latter he got clear understanding where a wetland is and he did not

dump any fill after receiving the letter from Grand River Conservation Authority . Is the defence of officially induced error applicable in this case? The Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Maitland Valley Conservation Authority v. Cranbrook Swine Inc., (ONC.A.) noted that there are a five elements of the defence of officially induced error: 1. The Accused must have considered the legal consequences of its action and sought legal advice; 2. The legal advice obtained must have been given by an appropriate official; 3. The legal advice was erroneous; 4. The person receiving the advice relied on it, and 5.

The reliance was reasonable. In R. v. Cancoil Thermal Corporation and Parkinson (1986)11C.C.E.L. 219(Ont. C.A.) at page 231 explained the defence as follows: “ The defence of “officially induced error” is available as a defence to an alleged violation of a regulatory statute where anaccused has reasonably relied upon the erroneous legal opinion or advice of an official who is responsible for the administrationor enforcement of the particular law.

In order for the accused to successfully raise this defence, he must show that he relied onthe erroneous legal opinion of the official and that his reliance was reasonable.

The reasonableness will depend upon severalfactors including the efforts he made to ascertain the proper law, the complexity or obscurity of the law, the position of theofficial who gave the advice, and the clarity, definitiveness and reasonableness of the advice given.” There is nothing in the Defendant Jason Geil’s evidence suggesting what instructions he received from Daryl Denny Township lawyer .Daryl Denny has not been called to testify nor Mr. Drew Cherry from GRCA. Mr.

Jason Geil provided no credible evidence that hereceived an erroneous legal opinion or advice from “ official who is responsible for the administration of enforcement of particular law”as defined in R. v. Cancoil Thermal Corporation and Parkinson. Even if he was advised by Drew Cherry from Grand RiverConservation Authority when he was duping a fill upfront in 2006 that he needs a permit he continued with work for all these years andduring first week of August of 2009, without prior attempt to make sure that the further fill is not within regulated area.

He did notattempt to contact any official from Grand River Conservation Authority in 2009 to make sure that he can perform further developmenton his property without interfering with wetland. A great deal of time at trial and in submissions dealt with the fact how much development on laneway and a new berm has been taken onor about August 4, 2009 and how much gravel has been dumped on laneway through wetland and on the new berm. Defence counsel inclosing submissions takes position that evidence of Defendant Jason Geil proofs that only three trucks of gravel were dumped during theweek of August 4, 2009.

However it is evident that since Defendant bought the property he was cleaning wetland area and from 2006dumping from time to time gavel to make laneway in 2009 solid 16feet wide and 1500feet long through wetland. The laneway was notvisible in 2006 on aerial photograph produced by GRCA marked as exhibit H on this trial. Conservation Authority acted uponcomplainant on August 4, 2009 and had no witnessed any of Defendant’s activities on development prior that date. Full observation of awell define laneway through wetland by GRCA was during the week of August 4, 2009. In R. v.

Rutherford (1999), (ON CA), 75C.R. (3d) 230 (Ont. C.A.) at page 235 stated: “ A continuous or continuing offence is a concept well known in the criminal law and is often used to describe two different kindsof crime. There is the crime which is constituted by conduct which goes on from day to day and which constitutes a separate anddistinct offence each day the conduct continues. There is , on the other hand, the kind of conduct, generally of a passivecharacter, which consists in the future to perform a duty imposed by law.

Such passive conduct may constitute a crime when firstindulged in but if the obligation is continuous the breach though constituting one crime only continues day by day to be a crimeuntil the obligation is performed.” Considering R. v. Rutherford Justice J. D. Wake in R. v. Allan, 2009 ONCJ 486 at page 4 paragraph 30 stated: “If the rocks or material observed in the water on September 5th, 2006 by Mr.

Craig were found to have interfered with thewatercourse on that date, it was of no relevance as to when the Appellant actually place them there since interference with thewatercourse would constitute a continuing offence.”

Statutory meaning of the word “development” In analysing statutory meaning of word “development” which means under in S25 –Definitions of the Conservation Authorities Act among others under close (c ) “site grading” or (

d) the temporary or permanent placing , dumping or removal of any material, originating on the site or elsewhere” , court starts from the one principle or approach as stated by E.A. Driedger under Construction of Statutes (2nd ed 1983) at page 87 “Today there is only one principle or approach, namely the words of the Act is to be read in their entire context and in theirgrammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act and the intention of Parliament.” Justice Lamer in Ontario v. C.P.

Ltd (SCC), [1995]2S.C.R. 1028 at page 1049-1050 stated: “the first task of the Court construing the statutory provision is to consider the meaning of its words in the context of the statuteas a whole. If the meaning of the words when they are considered in this context is clear, there is no need for furtherinterpretation.

The basis for this general rule is that when such plain meaning can be identified this meaning can ordinary beset to reflect the Legislation’s intention… The best way for the Court to complete the task of giving effective legislative intentionis usually to assume that legislature means what it says when this can be clearly ascertained.” Considering Justice Lamer position in Ontario v. C. P.

Ltd and context of the wording of the Conservation Authorities Act andRegulation 150/06 court finds that meaning of definition as “development” among others includes site grading, the temporary orpermanent placing, dumping or removal of any material, originating on the site or elsewhere is clear and does not require and furtherinterpretation.

Conclusion: Court is satisfied that there were evidence before this court proving beyond reasonable doubt that Defendant Jason Geil on or about 4th day of August, 2009 did undertake development on a property municipally known as 1943 Roseville Road, Township of North Dumfrieswhich property is define as wetland under Regulation 150/06 by dumping fill of gravel originating on the site or elsewhere withoutobtaining an authorization of a development permit.

Court also finds that Defendants Jason Geil, Janet Bratton and Ont.Corporation#1410025 o/a Geil Style Enterprises Inc. are the joint owners of the property municipally known as 1943 Roseville Road.Jason Geil is the president and owner of the number company o/a Geil Style Enterprises Inc. Therefore he is an operating mind behindthe corporation. Geil Style Enterprises Inc. as joint owner is responsible for action taken by his operating mind. Court agrees with thestatement made by Justice of the Peace Woloschuk stated in R.v.

Vastis, 2006 ONCJ 151 , 2006 ONCJ151 at page 16: “ I have taken into consideration Regina v. Fell, which deals with the issue of whether both the corporation and the officer,president and the directing mind of the corporation could be convicted. The court in this case found that a conviction could beregistered on both. It is clear from the evidence that Mr. Vastis , was an officer and president of the defendant corporation andhe controlled the activities dealing with the offence of April and July 2003.

I am satisfied that conviction can be registered onboth defendants.” Whit respect Defendant Janet Bratton court considered that she is joint owner of the property, that she has been living on the property allthe time and that she is the Defendant Jason Geil’s spouse. Therefore court can infer her knowledge with respect all the activities takenby her husband Jason Geil. Court takes position that as joint owner of the property she is fully responsible for all the action taken by theDefendant Jason Geil despite there is no finding of fact that she was involved in direct development.

Section 2(1) of the OntarioRegulation 150/06 is clear that no person shall undertake development, or permit another person to undertake development in or on theareas with the jurisdiction of the Authorities. Janet Bratton did not testify, and she did not raise any defence of due diligence on her side.Therefore as joint owner permitting Jason Geil to undertake the development on jointly owned property without permit she is equallyresponsible as Jason Geil.

For this reasons court finds the Defendant Jason Geil, Jenet Bratton and Ontario Corporation #140025 o/aGeil Style Enterprises Inc. guilty of the offence contrary to S28(16) of the Conservation Authorities Act.

Released: January 26 th , 2011 Signed: “Justice of the Peace Zeljana Radulovic”