The Rural Voice, 1993-07, Page 18RIPLEY
ELEVATORS
a division of
Thompson Feed & Supply
are now
receiving
WHEAT
CANOLA
Buyers of
Barley, Oats
& Mixed Grain
Ripley Ont.
Elevator 519-395-5959
Mill 519-395-5955
Res. 519-395-5550
OMAN FARMS
YORKSHIRE
LANDRACE
DUROC
HAMPSHIRE
Wayne Fear and Sons
ROP Performance tested;
gilts and boars from a
herd with very good
mothering ability.
OS F 1 York x Landrace
gilts. open or bred
available on a regular basis.
.1.o
YORK, LANDRACE
HAMPSHIRE,
DUROC, AND
DUROC x HAMP
BOARS
For Breeding Stock
CaII Wayne or Paul at:
Farm (519) 887-6477 - Evenings Paul
Fax (519) 887-9837
Evenings (519) 887.9190 - Wayne
Don Ruttan Q.S. Representative
519-887-9884
Farm 6 miles West of Brussels on Huron County Rd 016
14 THE RURAL VOICE
Agrilaw
What is `due diligence' for the farmer?
Contaminating the environment is
an offence punishable by fine and
imprisonment. The fact that the
person charged did not intend to
discharge the
contaminant or
cause harm to
the environment
docs not
constitute a
defence to such
a charge. Upon
a prosecution
under most
environmental
protection
statutes, the only
possible defence
is that the person
charged took all
reasonable steps
to prevent the incident giving rise to
the charge. This is the defence of
"due diligence".
A farmer constructed a concrete
holding tank to contain liquid
manure. Adjacent to the holding tank
was a shallow drainage ditch which
discharged into a nearby river.
Accumulation of manure slop in the
vicinity of the tank loading ramp was
flushed down the drainage ditch and
into the river following an
abnormally heavy rainfall. In a
prosecution of the farmer for
contamination of the river, the court
was satisfied that:
"the defendant had constructed a
modern and efficient manure
handling system with the dual
purpose of obtaining the
maximum benefit from the
manure generated in its farming
operation and of preventing the
nutrients from being flushed by
rainwater down into the ... river."
However, in assessing the farmer's
defence of "due diligence", the Court
found:
"There is an absence of evidence
of due diligence and, indeed, there
is, if anything, evidence of a lack
of diligence. (The farmer and a
friend) were both aware of the
potential hazard created by the
slop of manure from the loading
area and the accumulation of
manure caused by the blow -off
problem. Indeed, the lack of
diligence with regard to the blow-
off area is further confirmed by
evidence that, after the event, (the
farmer) finally took action to cure
that defect in his system so as to
deflect the manure from the
transfer system and contain it
within the tank...
Specifically, the accused
`permitted' a quantity of manure
to flow into the ... river by means
of the ditch created and
maintained by the defendant.
While the quantity of manure
discharged in that manner had not
been established as being what has
been referred to in the evidence as
a `major spill', nevertheless there
is ample evidence that the quantity
was significant and, bearing in
mind the background stress in the
rivers and streams at that location
and at that time of year, I am
satisfied ... that the permitted
discharge was such as `might'
impair the quality of the river."
The farmer's defence of "due
diligence" failed and he was
convicted. What steps can a farmer
take now to better the chances of
succeeding on a "due diligence"
defence should he be subject to
environmental prosecution in the
future?
In assessing the defence of "due
diligence", our courts have begun to
define standards and criteria. Among
the factors which a court will
consider in deciding whether "due
diligence" has been established are:
• has the accused identified
potential environmental risks and
implemented appropriate technology
and management systems to limit
such risks?
• has the accused obtained ongoing
legal advice concerning
environmental liability?
• are the accused's operations
conducted in accordance with
existing laws and regulations?
• is the accused participating in
appropriate training to identify and