R. v. Clearbrook Grain and Milling Date:, 2010 BCPC 371

Citation: R. v. Clearbrook Grain and Milling Date: 20101215 2010 BCPC 0371 File No: 68774-2C Registry: Abbotsford IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. CLEARBROOK GRAIN AND MILLING REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE C.J. ROUNTHWAITE Counsel for the Crown: M. Bozick Counsel for the Defendant: D. Renwick Place of Hearing: Abbotsford , B.C. Date of Hearing: December 13, 2010 Date of Judgment: December 15, 2010 [ 1 ] THE COURT : Clearbrook Grain and Milling Company is a large mill that mixes feed for livestock and poultry.

It runs 24 hours a day, six days per week and offers a four-hour turnaround time. In other words, the farmer places the order, the mill mixes the feed and delivers it, all in the space of four hours. Obviously, time is of the essence. [ 2 ] Clearbrook Grain has pled guilty to three offences under Section 10(1) of the Feeds Act . These offences were spread out over a three-year period, 2006, 2007 and 2008, and all relate to manufacturing feed that contained ingredients that were not allowed by regulation or did not conform with prescribed standards.

As I understand it, certain medicated ingredients that are used in feed for some animals cannot be present in feed for other animals. This is all regulated by way of a Compendium of Medicated Ingredients and the Feeds Act regulations. The aim is to protect animals that consume the feed and humans who consume animal products. [ 3 ] Turning to Clearbrook Grain and Mill, these three offences have occurred when non-medicated feed for one type of poultry, for example, has been mixed immediately after a medicated feed being mixed for another type of poultry.

Small amounts of the first medicated ingredient have contaminated that second production. [ 4 ] The defendant company has referred to these being miniscule amounts, but it is obvious that both the mixing process and the regulations deal with very precise, specific amounts. There is a zero tolerance for any amount of medicated ingredient ending up in food

intended for animal species of another type. [ 5 ] The ways of correcting this problem seem relatively simple, although I understand that it has taken the company three years to find the final solution. I have been told that the correction has been done through sequencing and flushing. I am not going to go into detail with respect to those; the lawyers have both explained it to me very carefully. [ 6 ] It is obvious that the company has worked closely with the authorities to correct the situation and spent, I am told, considerable dollars upgrading the mill.

However, I am concerned that it has taken them three years and three separate offences before finding that solution. [ 7 ] Canadian regulations are for the protection and safety of Canadians. In my view, it is irrelevant what other countries or jurisdictions do. Regulations are for Canadians and they need to be followed by Canadians. They need to be taken extremely seriously. [ 8 ] The message needs to be sent, both to this mill and to all other mills, that they need to follow the specifics of the regulations. I refer to the decision found in tab 2 of the materials, a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal R. v.

Cotton Felts Ltd. 1982 CanLII 3695 (ON CA) , 2 CCC (3rd) 287 , particularly paragraph 19. The court says this with respect to regulatory statutes: They ensure standards of conduct, performance and reliability by various economic groups and make life tolerable for all. To a very large extent, the enforcement of such statutes is achieved by fines imposed on offending corporations.

The amount of the fine will be determined by a complex of considerations including the size of the company involved, the scope of the economic activity in issue, the extent of actual and potential harm to the public and the maximum penalty prescribed by statute. Above all, the amount of the fine will be determined by the need to enforce regulatory standards by deterrence. [ 9 ] That decision quotes at paragraph 21, again a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal R. v.

Kmart Canada Ltd. (1982) 1982 CanLII 3811 (ON CA) , 66 CCC (2nd) 329 : The fine must not be tantamount to a licence fee to commit illegal activity, but must be sufficiently substantial to warn others that such illegal activity will not be tolerated. [ 10 ] Crown in this case seeks a fine of $20,000 to be divided with respect to the three counts. Defence argues that $7500 is more in the range. I am more persuaded I have to say, by the submissions of Crown that a sizable fine in the range of $20,000 is required for the principles of deterrence, both specific and general.

However, in this case, the guilty plea has saved the system, as I understand it, from a multi-day trial. That is certainly an indication of remorse, as is, even more effectively, the fact that the company has corrected the problem since 2008, and is now in compliance with the regulation. Given the guilty plea and the correction, I find that the fine can be reduced to $15,000, and I order that payable $5,000 for each count. [ 11 ] How much time will it take to pay the $15,000 fine? [ 12 ] MR. RENWICK: Three months, if I may, Your Honour. [ 13 ] THE COURT: Three months to pay.

Time to pay is extended for a period of three months. Mr. Friesen, on behalf of the company, will have to go to the Court Registry to sign the time to pay slip and then he's free to go. [ 14 ] MR. RENWICK: Thank you. [ 15 ] MR. BOZIC: With respect to the counts where there have been no guilty pleas, Crown directs a stay of proceedings. [ 16 ] THE CLERK: Thank you. [ 17 ] MR. RENWICK: Thank you, Your Honour. [ 18 ] THE CLERK: And you're also staying the ones on Mr. Friesen -- [ 19 ] THE COURT: Yes. [ 20 ] THE CLERK: His personal charges? [ 21 ] THE COURT: Yes. Thank you. _______________________ C.J.

Rounthwaite Provincial Court Judge