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
-
500 Coke employees lost their health insurance the day after they went on strike. The union has sued under ERISA , claiming the action wa...
-
The average cost of family health insurance coverage rose 3% to $13,770 in 2010, while at the same time the employee's share of the c...
-
Two weeks ago, a Florida man was arrested for logging on to his Facebook account and requesting that his estranged wife list him as a "...
-
Well kids I plan to scoot out of here shortly, to begin my long solemn weekend regimen of prayer , reflection , and expanding my abdomen , s...
-
(BY HUGO) Linda Gyulai reports in the Montreal Gazette here that the City of Montreal and Génieau have begun arbitration to settle the com...
-
There are four house bills that propose changes to the current custody statute. However, H.1306 and H.2684 are practically the same, though...
-
According to a New York Times article , the New York State legislature recently approved legislation that would allow No-Fault divorces in N...
-
(BY HUGO) A report from MARSH Canada, A Review of Water-Related Opportunities and Threats , outlines insurance issues in the sector to ensur...
-
There are two ways to ask this question: Can I start dating while my divorce case is pending? and Should I start dating while my divorce cas...
-
UPDATE: There is pending legislation for major changes to the alimony statute in Massachusetts. The Alimony Reform Act of 2011 was filed on...