Water case law in Québec 4: defining fish habitat
In Québec (Procureur général) v. Lauzon (in French), the defendant requests ministerial authorisation to excavate the bed of a natural stream running through his property to create an artificial lake on his land. Permission is refused on a preliminary basis and the defendant does not push the matter further.
Some years later, the defendant decides, without applying for an authorisation, to excavate another location on his property in order to create an artificial lake that is filled with water flowing from a nearby wetland. The artificial lake also has hydrological links to the natural stream mentioned earlier.
Within a year of the excavation, an inspector from the Ministry catches fishes in the artificial lake. The defendant is charged with an infraction in strict liability for a contravention to section 35(1) of the federal Fisheries Act. Article 35 reads as follows:
35. (1) No person shall carry on any work or undertaking that results in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat.
2) No person contravenes subsection (1) by causing the alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat by any means or under any conditions authorized by the Minister or under regulations made by the Governor in Council under this Act.
The defendant principally argues that the artificial lake and its hydrological connections are not a fish habitat. A fish habitat is defined by the Fisheries Act as follows:
34. (1) (...)“fish habitat” means spawning grounds and nursery, rearing, food supply and migration areas on which fish depend directly or indirectly in order to carry out their life processes
The Court finds that the defendant contravened to the Fisheries Act. The permanent presence of fishes does not have to be demonstrated by the prosecution. The water environment needs only be susceptible to use as a habitat by fish. An intermittent stream can be a fish habitat.
This decision takes a more hydrologically and biologically sound position than other recent case law that does not considers surface waters where fishes are present as «fish habitat» under the Fisheries Act.
This entry was posted on at 7:47 AM and is filed under Case Law, Québec, Québec water case law. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response.
- No comments yet.
VIP Followers
Info recommended by:
Webpages of law
Popular entries
-
Several in-the-know readers have passed along an incendiary anonymous memo making the rounds among administrators and trustees regarding fin...
-
(BY HUGO) Environmental Defence Canada recently published a report, Down the Drain: Water Conservation in the Great Lakes Basin , that shows...
-
To paraphrase Mark Harris , it seems that Scott Rothstein continues to rule our world. Here's the latest: 1. Bill Scherer sues the fir...
-
(BY HUGO) The Ministry of Sustainable Development, Environment and Parks has published 2 new project regulations . One is to amend the Regul...
-
Acting NLRB General Counsel Lafe Solomon has issued a report on social media cases. Anyone who fails to consider the NLRA in general and the...
-
(BY HUGO) On 27 October 2010, Professor Jake Peters from the USGS Georgia Water Science Centre will give a conference on inter-state tension...
-
The AFL-CIO blog claims a new study shows the excise tax on "Cadillac" health plans would affect significantly more non-union w...
-
So who else is going to the Federation Judicial Reception tonight: This year’s Judicial Reception will recognize three outstanding legal pr...
-
When I first read this story about a potential conflict of interest involving the "extremely Floridian" GrayRobinson that is bei...
-
My students and readers of this blog know my support for Dana Corp 's approach to ensure that employees' right to select union r...