R. v. Fraser Valley Disposal and Liang Date:, 2015 BCPC 127

Citation: R. v. Fraser Valley Disposal and Liang Date: 20150413 2015 BCPC 0127 File No: 200822-1 Registry: Surrey IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Criminal Court REGINA v. FRASER VALLEY DISPOSAL LTD. and FANNY L. LIANG ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE M.B. HICKS Counsel for the Crown: N. Farinelli Counsel for the Defendant: C. Wang Appearing in person: F. Liang Place of Hearing: Surrey , B.C.

Dates of Hearing: January 23, March 2, March 23, 2015 Date of Judgment: April 13, 2005 [ 1 ] THE COURT : The Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District has brought this prosecution against Fraser Valley Disposal Ltd. (B.C. Incorporation No. 0798439, now known as Bright Sky Disposal Ltd.) and Fanny L. Liang, a director of Fraser Valley Disposal. Denny Liang, Fanny Liang's former husband, is also charged but he is not before the court. I am advised that a warrant is outstanding. His whereabouts are unknown. Ms.

Liang's culpability flows from s. 121 of the Environmental Management Act which provides that a director who authorized, permitted or acquiesced in the offence of the corporation also commits the offence. This matter is before me today to impose sentence following submissions on an earlier date. [ 2 ] Fraser Valley Disposal Ltd. has pled guilty on two counts.

On Count 1 the company has pled guilty to the charge that between September 2, 2011 and April 4, 2013 at Surrey, British Columbia, it accepted unauthorized material in breach of s. 4.2 of the GVSDD licence T-013 and thereby breached s. 17.1 of the GVSDD Solid Waste and Recyclable Material Regulatory Bylaw No. 181 as amended. Fanny Liang as a director of the defendant company has pled guilty on Count 2 to the same offence.

On Count 4, Fraser Valley has pled guilty that between January 21, 2011 and February 5, 2013 at the same location it exceeded the allowable quantity of municipal solid waste that may be at a licensed facility at any given time, in breach of s. 4.3 of the licence and committed an offence under s. 17.1 of the same Bylaw. On Count 5, Fanny Liang has pled guilty as a director of the company to the same offence over the same timeframe.

On Count 7, Fanny Liang has pled guilty that between January 21, 2011 and April 4, 2013 being owner, operator or a person having charge or control of a transfer station, she failed to report contraventions of the District Municipal Solid Waste and Recyclable Material Regulatory Bylaw and thereby committed an offence under s. 17.1 of the bylaw.

Article 17.1 and 17.2 of the bylaw state the following: 17.1: Any person who contravenes a provision of this Bylaw, a Licence or requirement made or imposed under this Bylaw commits an offence and is liable to a fine not exceeding $1,000,000. 17.2: Where there is an offence that continues for more than one day, separate fines, each not exceeding the maximum fine for the offence, may be imposed for each day or part thereof in respect of which the offence occurs or continues. [ 3 ] By virtue of the Environmental Management Act the prosecuting authority says the maximum fine applicable here is $200,000.

The District, as the prosecuting authority, seeks fines against the company of $24,000 on Count 1 and $48,000 on Count 4, totalling $72,000. The prosecuting authority says deterrence, both specific and general, are the principal sentencing objectives and substantial fines which reflect estimates of profit earned through the illegal conduct are required to address these objectives. [ 4 ] The defendant company says that the company has in the meantime been purchased by new owners who aspire to operate in full compliance with the licence and bylaws and were not responsible for prior violations.

Further, the defence takes issue with the calculation of profit made by the prosecuting authority. The defence says appropriate global fines should total $10,000. [ 5 ] The prosecuting authority acknowledges that Fanny Liang was not the primary directing mind of the business; that was her husband, who has not yet been brought before the court. Nevertheless, she was involved in the business and did not act on the knowledge that she had as a director. The District seeks fines of $700 on each count, totalling $2100 against her. Ms. Liang contests the amounts of the fines sought by the District. Ms.

Liang is not represented by counsel. I confirmed in the course of her submissions that she accepts responsibility as a director and has pled guilty on that basis. [ 6 ] The Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District is established under the Environmental Management Act , which is provincial legislation enacted to regulate the management of solid waste and recyclables within the municipalities that make up Metro Vancouver, for the purpose of environmental protection, public safety and public health.

It is authorized to enact bylaws to achieve these purposes through licensing privately operated landfills, transfer stations, recovery and storage facilities and brokering businesses. Through the licence, the District imposes conditions which these facilities must meet. In the particular circumstances here, that regulatory scheme is enforced through the District's Municipal Solid Waste and Recyclable Materials Bylaw No. 181 as amended. [ 7 ] Fraser Valley Disposal Ltd. was incorporated in British Columbia to operate a solid waste transfer station at 128th Street and 116th Avenue in Surrey, British Columbia.

A transfer station is defined in s. 1.1 of the bylaw to mean any land or buildings and related improvements at which municipal solid waste from collection vehicles is received, compacted or rearranged for subsequent transport. Fraser Valley received its first licence to operate a transfer station in April 1998 and the licence was amended in October 2010. Ms. Liang and her husband were the principals of that company in the later years, commencing in or about 2010. The licence is Exhibit 1 in these proceedings.

The licence states the following at paragraph 4.3: The quantity of municipal solid waste and recyclable material that may be accepted at the facility shall not exceed 80 tonnes per day. The quantity of municipal solid waste and recyclable material that may be accepted at the facility shall not exceed 240 cubic metres per day. The quantity of municipal solid waste and recyclable material that may be at the facility at any given time shall not exceed 200 tonnes. The quantity of municipal solid waste and recyclable material that may be at the facility at any given time shall not exceed 600 cubic metres.

Paragraph 4.1 of the licence states that: The facility may accept municipal solid waste of the following types: construction waste, demolition waste, land clearing waste, municipal solid waste from other sources having the same characteristics as construction and demolition waste and other materials authorized in writing by the solid waste manager. Paragraph 4.2 states: The facility shall not accept waste which is not authorized in the licence, hazardous waste, putrescible waste, liquid or semi-solid waste, white goods and gypsum waste.

White goods is defined generally in the bylaw as what I would call large home appliances. The licence provides that: Disposal of certain specified materials is banned or restricted and must be diverted from the waste stream and forwarded to an appropriate facility. Reasonable efforts must be made to recover and recycle clean wood waste, metal and plastic.

The licence places reporting and recordkeeping responsibilities on the licensee. [ 8 ] The District has filed a chart as Exhibit 2 which purports to break down the days within the offence period during which the licensee Fraser Valley Disposal was in violation of the licence, either by accepting unauthorized material as Counts 1 and 2 assert, or by having an amount of solid waste onsite which exceeds the amount allowed under the licence as alleged in Counts 4 and 5.

The District also filed a binder of photographs, Exhibit 2, showing the state of waste material onsite on each relevant date. [ 9 ] In respect of Counts 1 and 2, 12 days are identified. I note here that although the District in submissions asserted these were dates agreed upon by the parties, in fact the first date identified, March 7, 2011 does not fall within the dates alleged in Counts 1 and 2. It predates the opening date September 2, 2011 by about six months. On that date, drywall and food waste were the types of materials found onsite in violation of the licence.

On the other dates, variously those substances, general household garbage, fabric, asbestos, diapers, electronics and on five dates putrescible waste were found onsite in violation of the licence. [ 10 ] In respect of Count 1, regarding the corporate defendant, the District proposes a fine of $2,000 for each of the 12 days, or $24,000 in total.

Bearing in mind March 7, 2011 falls substantially outside the dates covered by the charge, as I indicated during submissions I will not consider it for purposes of Counts 1 and 2, and the Crown's calculation of a proposed fine is therefore reduced to $22,000 based on 11 days the facility was in violation. [ 11 ] In respect of Counts 4 and 5, the District has attempted to estimate the total tonnage onsite and value that tonnage based on an estimate of the fee charged to those who delivered waste to the facility on those dates. The District calculates the average price per tonne charged by Fraser Valley to be $83.

The District then calculates a daily gross revenue based on a maximum of 200 tonnes per day, pursuant to the licence, equalling $16,600. Utilizing the table in Exhibit 3, the District says Fraser Valley exceeded the daily maximum during the 24 days of the offence period in Counts 4 and 5 from 2.4 times the maximum to 11.4 times the maximum allowable. The average is about five times the maximum, or $83,000 in daily gross revenue during those 24 days.

The District goes on to consider the cost to Fraser Valley of onward transfer and disposal of the material, including the $3 per tonne that the District charges under the Environmental Management Act and concludes Fraser Valley earned on average about $2,400 in profit each day. In reaching this figure, the District applied the figures and calculations most favourable to the defendant company. The District says the $83 figure is generous to the company because in legal proceedings to recover an outstanding debt the company referred to charges of $88 to $95 per tonne.

The District then proposes a fine calculated at $2,000 per day, or $48,000 in respect of Count 4. In proposing this calculation, the District argues that it has been generous at every stage of the calculation in favour of the offending company. [ 12 ] The corporate defendant points out that the co-accused Fanny Liang and her husband Denny Liang, also known as Haowen Liang, purchased the business in 2010. They were husband and wife at that time. Mr. Liang ran the day-to-day operations and Ms. Liang was the sole Director of the company for all but two months of their ownership.

In 2011, their marriage began to fail and this has had an effect on day-to-day business operations. Waste material built up on the site and serious cash flow problems arose. Waste was not moved from the site in a timely manner. Customer invoices were also not being paid in a timely manner, causing serious cash flow problems for the business. In September of 2012 the company was purchased by new owners. Under new ownership the company diligently implemented new business practices. A substantial shareholder loan was used to inject new funds into the business.

The site has been paved to ensure accurate weighing of material onsite. Improvements to daily operations onsite have been implemented, waste is moved off in a timely way and more employees are involved. Business is turned away if it will result in licence breaches. Greater scrutiny is applied to loads coming onto the site. The defendant company says the new management is diligently working to comply fully with the licence requirements. [ 13 ] The financial and accounting records of the company for the period of the offending conduct are incomplete. The defendant asserts the company was in fact in debt.

It owed a large amount to the Canada Revenue Agency and has been losing money since as it attempts to put the operation on a solid footing. The former management had a large balance of overdue accounts receivable, affecting cash flow negatively. New management has commenced proceedings against a large client in the Supreme Court to recover $74,000. Exhibit 4, tabs 1 and 2 include materials showing the state of accounts receivable. Tab 2 sets out other financial obligations of the company to, for example, Canada Revenue Agency and the shareholder loan exceeding $1,000,000.

Various financial statements of the company are included in tab 4 and purport to show losses through 2013. The District notes these are unaudited documents of a self-

reporting nature. [ 14 ] Tab 3 of Exhibit 4 is a tabulation by the corporate defendant intended to show the amount of excess waste delivered to the site on the dates in issue and to provide a calculation of average revenue per tonne delivered for each day. It is supported by a ledger-type document for each offending date, listing deliveries to the site by customer. It is asserted that this tabulation shows amounts of waste exceeding the 80 tonne daily limit were delivered each day except January 21, 2011.

The revenue earned was $229,203 on the dates in issue in 2011 and the defendant asserts $79.58 was the average charge per tonne. In 2012, the facility received over its allowable daily limit on each of the dates alleged except the last date, according to the tabulation. The total revenue earned was $94,104 and the average price charged per tonne delivered was $80.46, according to those documents. This tabulation does not assist in determining the amount of excess material which accumulated onsite because it does not indicate what was being moved offsite each day, if anything.

Thus it does not appear to displace the approximate calculations by the District as they apply to Counts 4 and 5. [ 15 ] In the course of submissions it was pointed out that the inspectors who attended on each alleged violation date took measurements to establish the volume of the material onsite. The amounts set out for each date in tab 3 of Exhibit 4 presented by the corporate defendant is added to what was already onsite, and in any event in virtually every case the amounts substantially exceeded the amounts allowed for daily delivery to the site. [ 16 ] Ms. Liang was unrepresented in these proceedings.

In her submissions she said that the District's estimates for the excessive quantities of material onsite are unreliable. She asserts that they far exceed what the site could accommodate, in several specific examples. She pointed out August 18, 2011 where it is alleged the 37,782 cubic metres of material valued at $104,000 was delivered. She said the site could not accommodate such an amount. That figure of 37,782 cubic metres onsite on that date appears to be an error. It is an amount that far exceeds any other date, and yet the dollar value is less than the dollar value for much smaller quantities.

An example is September 2nd, 2011 when 6,152 cubic metres is valued at $169,320. Ms. Liang further said that revenues varied from $800 daily in the low winter months, to $15,000 in the higher summer months. The business averaged $5,000 daily revenue, she said. She said that costs, including government levies and charges at landfills and fixed expenses made profit margins very narrow, nowhere near what the District alleges.

She pointed out that the inspectors relied on visual estimates of volume that do not reflect compacting or the effect of rain or the weight of material onsite. [ 17 ] Counsel for the District provided a sketch marked Exhibit 5 to show how the piles of waste material are measured in order to arrive at an estimate of the volume in cubic metres onsite. That diagram demonstrates that the calculation is generous in favour of the defendant company. [ 18 ] Ms. Liang said from time to time the site shut for a day or two in order to move loads offsite to comply with the licence and directions from the District.

The prosecuting authority noted that indeed warnings were given on a number of occasions in order to attempt to bring the business into compliance. In respect to unauthorized material onsite, Ms. Liang said that it was not always possible to identify illicit material until after a load was dumped at the site and sorted through. She said the unacceptable material was sorted out but not moved offsite as quickly as the inspectors believed it should be. She says that although she accepts responsibility, confirmed with her guilty pleas, she believes some of these violations were unavoidable. Ms.

Liang did not provide any documentation or financial reports to support her submissions. Ms. Liang acknowledged that the company did not report as quickly as it should have under the licence. She noted that her marriage failed during this period and her instructions were not always followed by staff, who took direction from her former husband. She asserts some of those people stole from the company during this period. [ 19 ] Ms. Liang described her personal circumstances. She is now divorced.

She said that her former husband had failed to fulfil financial obligations to her arising from the divorce and he is not paying child support for the two children. She is now working and taking home about $2,200 a month, with substantial obligations in raising two children. She said she came to Canada with $2,000,000. The collapse of the business reduced her to near bankruptcy. Her home was foreclosed.

She asks that I impose lesser fines than the global $2,100 sought by the prosecuting authority here, which would reflect better her financial circumstances. [ 20 ] I am now going to refer to the recent history of the company, as I understand it from the submissions. Although the company was sold in 2012, it was sold to friends of Ms. Liang. The new ownership took over in or about November of 2012. Ms. Liang had borrowed money from the new owners for business purposes before she sold the business, and the sale of the business was part of the process of paying off that loan.

However, it was not sufficient to cover the entire loan and I take it from her submissions that she remains in debt to the new owners. She remained with the business during a transition period but is no longer involved. [ 21 ] Counsel for the defendant company advised that the new owners were not aware of the jeopardy the company faced in relation to these licence violations at the time that they acquired the business. The Information was not laid until October 18, 2013, almost a year after the purchase. Counsel for the District, on the other hand, advised the authorities were in communication with Ms.

Liang at a late date and were not aware of the change of ownership until after these charges were laid. The District says in these circumstances the fines should not be tempered on the basis the new owners were unaware of the violations at the time of the purchase, or on the basis that it is the successor company and its new owners who are acting appropriately, endeavouring to ensure compliance with the licence since that takeover. The District further says the fines imposed should not be tempered by the argument that the person who is most culpable, Mr. Liang, is not before the court.

The District says that to temper the fines for any of these reasons may recognize a lessened specific deterrence concern respecting the new owners but is contrary to company law principles. The District argues that general deterrence is a significant sentencing concern in public welfare cases such as this.

To allow a company to avoid fines by a change of ownership is contrary to the concept of corporate responsibility and would be a dangerous step which fails to fully address general deterrence principles. [ 22 ] The prosecuting authority has provided several sentencing authorities which address sentencing principles in cases like this. Each case, of course, must be resolved by the application of proper principles to the particular facts of the case and the circumstances of the particular offender. A number of the authorities involve joint submissions.

None of the authorities provided address the circumstances of this case, where the corporate offender has now been taken over by new ownership which asserts it is unrelated to the directing mind of the former business at the time of the offending conduct. The corporate defendant says this is significant in assessing culpability. The corporate defendant says this should work as a significant factor to temper the fines to be imposed on the business.

[23] Sentencing in these cases begins from the accepted proposition that these offences are environmental and public welfareoffences. The enforcement of licence violations in environmental cases was put in context in the following statement by Judge Gill ofthis court in R. v. Super Save Disposal, 2005 BCPC 732 , 2005 BCPC 0732. In that case Judge Gill stated: In the early 1990s there was a serious problem in the GVRD created by operators of landfills, transfer stations, and other facilities thathandle solid waste.

Sites were operated without any regard to environmental protection, or municipal zoning, waste was collected inamounts in excess of what would be appropriate on the site, some sites were simply abandoned, and in one case there was a significantgarbage fire. [24] The

preamble to the bylaw includes the following: The goal of the new regulatory system is to ensure proper management of privately operated facilities by specifying operatingrequirements so as to protect the environment and public health, to protect the region's land base in accordance with the hostmunicipality's zoning and land use policies, to ensure that regional and municipal facilities and private facilities operate to equivalentstandards and to achieve the objectives of the solid waste management plan. [25] The courts have recognized that there is a strong need to deter, both generally and specifically, those individuals in the wastemanagement industry when violations occur in order to ensure to the greatest extent possible the achievement of the objectives of thelegislation and the licensing regime, the protection of public health and safety and protection of the environment.

Facilities such as this,if not properly managed and controlled, can create a significant fire risk, health risk and can foul waterways and land with toxicsubstances. Fines must be imposed which are sufficiently significant, relative to the offending conduct and its extent and the size of thebusiness, that they achieve this purpose and are not simply a cost that an offender is prepared to absorb if caught in order to earn as muchprofit as possible. [26] Guidance for a sentencing court in setting appropriate fines has been provided in cases such as R. v. United Hill Mines, 1980 YJ10; R. v.

Terroco Industries, 2005 ABCA 141 which was adopted by the Court of Appeal in this province in R. v.

Brown, 2010 BCCA225. [27] Courts in this province have identified relevant considerations to be the criminality of the conduct, its extent and timeframe; theextent of unsuccessful enforcement efforts before proceedings; efforts to comply by the offender with the legislation and licences; theextent of environmental damage, if any; remorse, including pleas of guilty and the presence of corporate officers in court asacknowledgement of that offending conduct; profits realized through the violations in issue and past offending history. Those principlesare reflected in cases such as R. v.

Zellstoff Celgar Limited Partnership et al, 2012 BCPC 295 at para. 14; R. v. Dulay, 2006 BCPC 673;GVSDD v. 551727 B.C. Ltd., 2006 BCPC 435 , 2006 BCPC 0435; and R. v.

Super Save Disposal Inc., supra, all decisions ofthe Provincial Court. [28] The corporate defendant says I should also be considering the unusual circumstances of new owners acquiring the offendingbusiness substantially after the offending conduct occurred, their determination to comply with the licence since then, and the financialinstability of the business which would be further stressed by substantial fines in the order sought by the District in this case. [29] The regulatory scheme here recognizes that businesses such as the corporate offender in this case enter into and participate inthe business in order to earn a profit.

There is a public interest in such businesses taking on this role. It serves a public interest inproviding means and processes by which waste material generated in the community can be safely disposed of. The regulatory scheme isin place to ensure that process is conducted by qualified and capable operators in a safe way, in a way that ensures public concerns forpublic health and environmental protection are met. It is important that fines which deter improper conduct are imposed.

The finesimposed must not be just a cost to be absorbed in the headlong pursuit of greater profit, but acts as an effective deterrent to this operatorand to others in the business. That is why fines often start from a determination of the profit earned from the illicit activity. Theprosecuting authority often does not have reliable information about the profit, so it is forced to try to make reasonable estimates basedon the information available. These points are made in cases such as R. v. Cotton Felts Ltd. (1982), (ON CA), 2 CCC(3d) 287 (Ont. CA) and adopted in the Supreme Court in this province in R. v.

Alpha Manufacturing Inc., 2005 BCSC 1644 (Gray, J.) [30] It is difficult to be sure what the profit earned in this case was. The prosecuting authority has used calculations which aregenerous to the company in an effort to estimate what the profit might reasonably have been. Ms. Liang asserts that the business wasnever profitable because it was poorly managed such that materials were accepted but due to cash flow problems were not efficientlymoved offsite, and in any event the cost of doing business including overhead and charges at downstream disposal sites exceeded theprice per tonne earned.

She says the business was further hamstrung because its accounts were not routinely collected, leaving largeoutstanding unpaid balances. To some extent at least, it appears the company is attempting to collect in respect to some of these throughlitigation. Thus, the defendant appears to say that at least one source of profit, that being the difference between the tipping fee chargedat their site and their costs of subsequent handling did not materialize. [31] A second source of revenue is the onward sale of recyclable material. There is no information about this revenue source.

Ibelieve I am correct in saying the prosecuting authority here has not tried to rely on this revenue source in advancing its profit estimatebecause of the absence of reliable or available information. [32] In the present case the prosecuting authority has, based on the estimates in Exhibit 2, concluded an appropriate conservativefigure to apply is $2,000 in profit on the tipping charge for excessive waste each day. There is no dispute, of course, that excess wastewas onsite.

The calculations provided by the corporate offender at tab 3 of Exhibit 4 demonstrate substantial excess quantities onsiteduring the relevant dates in 2011 and 2012. The proposed average charge per tonne offered by the corporate defendant is very nearlythat proposed by the District when the $3 levy per tonne is deducted. By my rough calculation, using the defendant company's figures inthat tab, about $5,116 of revenue was earned each day on that excessive waste beyond the legitimate revenue earned on the 80 tonnes

permitted under the licence. [ 33 ] I must be careful to ensure in this analysis that poor operating practices by the company in handling and accepting excessive waste and in failing to move it in a timely way and failing to take appropriate steps to ensure its bills were paid in a timely way do not overshadow the offending conduct and somehow temper these significant licence violations. [ 34 ] This was a company in the waste disposal business to make a profit. I conclude it accepted excessive waste to further that purpose. There is no evidence otherwise.

There is no compelling evidence beyond the bald assertions of Ms. Liang that during the relevant period it did not make any money from these excessive amounts of waste which it accepted on its site. If it were routinely losing money, I would have expected it to close or to stop accepting material it could not handle for a profit or to raise its tipping fee. In the absence of any other reliable information, in my view the $2,000 figure for profit estimated by the prosecuting authority is a reasonable figure.

I view the assertions by the defendant company that under new management it is determined to act in full compliance with the licence to be a positive expression which addresses concern for specific deterrence going forward.

However, the assertion that the fine should be reduced because new management is in place unconnected to the violations before the court, is not consistent with proper sentencing principles applicable to corporate responsibility and does not adequately address concerns for general deterrence in public welfare cases. [ 35 ] Further, in the present case although the new owners assert they did not know of the earlier violations until much later, they were not entirely disconnected to the prior owners, particularly Ms. Liang. They knew Ms.

Liang and provided her with a loan to assist the business and when she was unable to repay that loan, they took over the company. Those dealings would provide an opportunity to at a minimum see the state of the site evidenced in photographs before me, and to ask questions. They knew there were issues before or at the time they took over the company and that would certainly provide an opportunity to inquire of the District about those circumstances. I note here that the company was in and out of compliance.

It appears there were occasions when it had shut down in order to bring itself into compliance, but then accepted excessive waste again to the point the District determined it must proceed to prosecution. I note there is no environmental damage said to have actually occurred, although the risk of that occurring is the concern. [ 36 ] Representatives of the new management were present in court on the first day of sentencing submissions. I take account of the assertions that in their effort to comply the new management asserts that it has not yet earned a profit.

I have considered the assertion that a substantial fine risks the viability of the business and puts jobs at risk. This is not among the largest of businesses in this industry, based on the submissions of counsel and the cases provided. [ 37 ] Although there was no environmental damage, I view the culpability of this corporate defendant to be high. In these circumstances I find that culpability flows with the business, despite new ownership. The violations of the excessive waste onsite provisions of the licence covered by Count 4 in respect of the company occurred on 24 separate dates during 2011 and 2012.

The excessive amounts involved based on what I take to be the reasonable estimates of the District are significant. The delivery data provided by the corporate defendant does not work any significant mitigation of the District's calculations. [ 38 ] The District has been generous in an effort to determine a daily profit and then to propose a fine.

The guilty pleas and the stated intent of the new management to fully comply contribute to the specific deterrence concerns and the company's own circumstances and relative size require some recognition in the outcome, but not to the extent proposed by the corporate defendant. [ 39 ] I conclude on Count 4 respecting the corporate defendant, a total fine of $42,000 reflecting $1,750 per day over the 24 dates on which the company was in violation, provide the appropriate balance.

In respect of Count 1 relating to the 11 dates within the offence period during which the unauthorized materials were onsite, I view there to have been a significant level of culpability demonstrated. A variety of materials were involved. I note, for example, asbestos was present on the site on one date, which is of a particular concern as a hazardous material and was the subject of concern in a case called G.V.S.D.D. v. Mr. Bin Disposal Ltd. and Denny Liang, also known as Haowen Liang , Richmond Provincial Court Registry No. 57358-1, a decision of Judge Fratkin of this court in Richmond on December 21st of 2012.

A joint submission for $70,000 against the company was accepted by the court. That decision is provided at tab 5 of the District's book of authorities. I note parenthetically here that Mr. Liang was the principal of that company. [ 40 ] The District seeks fines based on the same $2,000 figure per day, totalling for the 11 days within that offence period $22,000. The relative amounts of those unauthorized materials present each day is not provided. I cannot say whether the amounts involved were relatively large or relatively small. I conclude an appropriate fine to be $16,500, reflecting $1,500 per day.

Total fines against the corporate defendant under Counts 1 and 4 is therefore $58,500. [ 41 ] In respect of Ms. Liang, I take account of her personal circumstances. I impose fines of $500 on each of the three counts, totalling $1,500. (REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED)