This case was heard in the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island.

Brookfield Gardens Inc. ("Brookfield") was charged under the federal Fisheries Act with having unlawfully deposited or permitted the deposit of a deleterious substance in waters frequented by fish or in any place under conditions where the deleterious substance may enter such water. After an initial trial in which Brookfield was acquitted, the Crown appealed the Trial Judge’s decision on a number grounds, including its belief that the Trial Judge had rejected, misapprehended, or overlooked evidence included in an Agreed Statement of Facts and had engaged in speculation or conjecture that was not supported by the evidence.

In order for the Trial Judge’s decision to be overturned, the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island had to find that the Judge had made a “palpable and overriding error” in her factual findings or had erred in her interpretation or application of the law. After considering the Trial Judge’s decision, the Court held that the Judge had erred in rejecting, misapprehending, or overlooking evidence, and had also erred by engaging in speculation or conjecture that was not supported by the evidence. It also held that the Judge had erred in her interpretation and application of the defence of due diligence. For these reasons, the Court held that the trial verdict was unreasonable, and it ordered a new trial.

View the Decision on CanLII: https://www.canlii.org/en/pe/pesctd/doc/2017/2017pesc5/2017pesc5.html

Disclaimer:
Case briefs in our Resource Library are drafted by law students who work or volunteer with East Coast Environmental Law, and East Coast Environmental Law does not guarantee their fullness or accuracy. Library users should not rely on case briefs as comprehensive accounts of the issues, facts, reasoning, or outcomes at stake in any given case. 

If you require more detailed information about a court decision or legal issue, please consider using our Environmental Law Inquiry Service to request information from our staff.