Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 150, Number 15: Environmental Violations Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations
April 9, 2016
Statutory authority
Environmental Violations Administrative Monetary Penalties Act
Sponsoring department
Department of the Environment
REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT
(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)
Issues
Currently, federal environmental legislation administered by the Department of the Environment (the Department) is enforced using a variety of measures, including written warnings, tickets and prosecution. However, the existing range of enforcement measures may not always be appropriate in the circumstances of an offence to effectively encourage compliance or deter future non-compliance. Written warnings may not be sufficient to promote ongoing compliance, particularly when the risk of prosecution is perceived to be low. Prosecution is expensive and time-consuming and, therefore, often impractical for less serious offences. Tickets issued under the Contraventions Act are available only for designated contraventions and only in provinces where an implementation agreement has been signed by the federal and provincial governments. (see footnote 1)
Background
The proposed Environmental Violations Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations (the proposed Regulations) would be made under the authority of the Environmental Violations Administrative Monetary Penalties Act (EVAMPA). EVAMPA was enacted by section 126 of the Environmental Enforcement Act (EEA) and came into force on December 10, 2010. (see footnote 2) In addition to creating the authority for an administrative monetary penalties (AMPs) regime, the EEA also modernized and harmonized the fine regimes and sentencing provisions of nine Acts under the responsibility of the Minister of the Environment. (see footnote 3)
The purpose of EVAMPA is to establish a fair and efficient system of AMPs. AMPs encourage greater compliance and have become an increasingly common feature of federal and provincial enforcement regimes in Canada. AMPs provide a financial disincentive to non-compliance with designated legislative requirements and are an administrative alternative to other enforcement measures, which may not be effective or available in all situations.
AMPs are intended to be a supplement to existing enforcement measures and to provide an alternative, in some circumstances, to prosecution in court. Therefore, a person, ship or vessel cannot be subject to both an AMP and prosecution for the same violation, and an AMP carries no possibility of imprisonment.
The proposed Regulations are necessary to implement the AMPs regime authorized by EVAMPA, as key details of the regime must be prescribed by regulation. Subsection 5(1) of EVAMPA provides the Governor in Council with the authority to make regulations designating violations of federal environmental legislation that may be enforced by means of an AMP, specifying the method of determining the amount of an AMP and setting out other procedural details of the AMPs regime, such as how the relevant documents would be served.
Objectives
The objective of the proposed Regulations is to implement an AMPs regime applicable to specified legislation administered by the Department, in order to give enforcement officers a new tool to help achieve higher levels of compliance with federal environmental legislation and, as a result, improve environmental protection in Canada.
Description
Designation
The proposed Regulations would apply to the following six “environmental Acts” administered by the Department: the Antarctic Environmental Protection Act; the Canada Wildlife Act; the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (Parts 7 and 9); the International River Improvements Act; the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994; and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act.
EVAMPA also applies to the Canada Water Act, which is administered by the Department, to four Acts administered by Parks Canada (the Canada National Parks Act; the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act; the Rouge National Urban Park Act; the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park Act), and to certain sections of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, which is administered by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. However, the proposed Regulations would only apply to the six environmental Acts administered by the Department that are mentioned in the previous paragraph.
Only designated violations of the six environmental Acts administered by the Department could be enforced by means of an AMP. Designated violations — listed in schedules to the proposed Regulations — would include
- contraventions of specified provisions of the environmental Acts and regulations made under those Acts;
- contraventions of specified directions and orders; and
- failure to comply with specified conditions of a permit, licence or other authorization.
Most offences under each applicable Act and regulation would be designated, meaning that AMPs would be available to enforce a wide spectrum of violations. Exceptions would include offences that require proof that an alleged offender possessed a certain mental state when the prohibited act was committed, such as those offences that explicitly require an act to be committed “knowingly” or “wilfully.” For example, provisions requiring that no person shall knowingly provide false or misleading information would not be designated as violations under the proposed AMPs regime. (see footnote 4) These offences would be excluded from the proposed AMPs regime on the basis that they are better dealt with by means of other enforcement measures, such as prosecution, where a full assessment of the mental state of the alleged offender may be conducted.
Method used to determine the amount of an AMP
The proposed Regulations would specify the method of determining the amount of an AMP in a given situation. The baseline penalty amount applicable to a violation would vary depending on the type of violation and the identity of the violator. Each designated violation would be classified as either Type A, B or C, according to the regulatory significance of the violation.
Type A violations would represent less serious compliance issues and would typically be administrative in nature. For example, the Migratory Birds Regulations require the holder of an avicultural permit to keep records and to submit an annual report containing prescribed information. (see footnote 5) Under the proposed Regulations, failure to meet either of these requirements would make the permit holder liable to an AMP for a Type A violation.
Type B violations would represent more serious compliance issues and would create a risk of harm to the environment or constitute an obstruction of authority. For example, section 125 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 prohibits the disposal of a substance at sea unless certain conditions are met. (see footnote 6) Since the disposal of a substance at sea may or may not result in environmental harm, contravening this provision would be classified as a Type B violation. If harm actually occurs, the violator would be liable to an increased penalty due to the application of the “environmental harm” aggravating factor, which is described further below.
Type C violations would represent the most serious compliance issues and, by their nature, would always result in harm to the environment. For example, under the Wildlife Area Regulations, no person shall dump or deposit any rubbish, waste material or substance that would degrade or alter the quality of the environment in any wildlife area. (see footnote 7) This type of action is inherently harmful to the environment and would be classified as a Type C violation accordingly.
The baseline penalty amount for a Type A, B or C violation would be different depending on whether the violator is (1) an individual; or (2) any other person (e.g. a corporation or government department), or ship or vessel. The proposed Regulations would also set out three aggravating factors: history of non-compliance, environmental harm, and economic gain. If any of these aggravating factors apply to a violation, a set amount would be added to the baseline penalty amount.
Table 1 illustrates the applicable baseline penalty amounts and demonstrates how the aggravating factors would be applied. If the violator has a history of non-compliance as set out in the proposed Regulations within the five-year period prior to the occurrence of the violation in question, or if the violation in question caused environmental harm, then the baseline penalty amount would increase by the amount set out in the table. For Type C violations, the “environmental harm” aggravating factor would not apply because these violations are inherently harmful to the environment. If the violator has derived any economic gain from the violation, the amount of the AMP would be increased by one of two predetermined amounts, depending on whether the economic gain resulted from the avoided financial cost of obtaining a required permit, licence or other authorization, or whether any other economic gain resulted from the violation, such as additional income, profits or other benefits being realized.
Table 1: Method used to determine the amount of an AMP (see note *)
| Identity of Violator | Type of Violation | Baseline Amount | Aggravating Factors (Added to the Baseline AMP Amount if Present) | Maximum Penalty | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| History of Non-compliance | Harm to Environment | Economic Gain | |||||
| Only Avoided Financial Cost of Obtaining a Required Authorization Present | Other Economic Gain Present | ||||||
| Individual | A | $200 | +$600 | +$300 | +$50 | +$200 | $1,300 |
| B | $400 | +$1,200 | +$600 | +$100 | +$400 | $2,600 | |
| C | $1,000 | +$3,000 | +$0 (see note **) | +$250 | +$1,000 | $5,000 | |
| Other person, ship or vessel | A | $1,000 | +$3,000 | +$1,500 | +$250 | +$1,000 | $6,500 |
| B | $2,000 | +$6,000 | +$3,000 | +$500 | +$2,000 | $13,000 | |
| C | $5,000 | +$15,000 | +$0 (see note ***) | +$1,250 | +$5,000 | $25,000 | |
- Note *
A violation that is committed or continued on more than one day constitutes a separate violation for each day on which it is committed or continued. - Note **
By their nature, Type C violations would always result in harm to the environment; hence, for these violations, there would not be an additional amount added to the baseline AMP amount due to the “environmental harm” aggravating factor. - Note ***
By their nature, Type C violations would always result in harm to the environment; hence, for these violations, there would not be an additional amount added to the baseline AMP amount due to the “environmental harm” aggravating factor.
When a violation occurs and an AMP is identified as the most appropriate enforcement option, the baseline penalty amount would be predetermined, based on the identity of the violator and whether the violation is classified by the proposed Regulations as a Type A, B or C violation. No discretion would exist to vary the baseline penalty. The enforcement officer would also assess whether any of the three aggravating factors are present. If any of the aggravating factors apply, the applicable amount would be added to the baseline penalty amount. The amount of the penalty for any given violation would be the sum of the baseline amount, plus any additional amounts that apply due to the existence of aggravating factors.
Under EVAMPA, the amount of a single penalty cannot exceed the maximum penalty of $5,000 in the case of an individual, or $25,000 in the case of any other person, or ship or vessel. However, section 12 of EVAMPA states that a violation that is committed or continued on more than one day constitutes a separate violation for each day on which it is committed or continued.
Methods of service and requests for review
The proposed Regulations would indicate the method by which a notice of violation under subsection 10(1) of EVAMPA would be served. A notice of violation could be served in person, or through registered mail, courier, fax or other electronic means. The proposed Regulations would also set out requirements for proof of service.
In accordance with section 15 of EVAMPA, a person, ship or vessel that is served with a notice of violation may, within 30 days after the day on which the notice is served, make a request to the Chief Review Officer, established under section 244 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, for an administrative review of the penalty, the facts of the alleged violation, or both. The proposed Regulations would specify those persons who would be able to request a review on behalf of a ship or vessel, specifically the owner, operator or master, or the authorized representative of the owner or operator of the ship or vessel.
“One-for-One” Rule
The “One-for-One” Rule does not apply to regulatory changes that do not impose new administrative costs on business. Regulations amending fines and penalties, such as those implementing an AMPs regime, are examples of regulatory changes that do not impose new administrative costs on business. (see footnote 8) Thus, the “One-for-One” Rule would not apply to the proposed Regulations.
Small business lens
Taxes, fees, levies and other charges (penalties) constitute transfer payments from one group to another and are therefore not considered to be administrative or compliance costs, whether they are intended as incentives to foster compliance and change behaviour, or whether their purpose is to recover the costs of providing a service. (see footnote 9) Given that the proposed AMPs regime would not result in an increase in administrative or compliance costs for any person or business, the small business lens does not apply to the proposed Regulations.
Consultation
Consultation prior to publication of the proposed Regulations in the Canada Gazette, Part I
In the summer of 2011, the Department conducted an online consultation in conjunction with the release of a consultation document (the “2011 consultation package”). (see footnote 10) The purpose of this consultation was to obtain feedback on the design of the proposed AMPs regime. Specifically, comments were solicited regarding the violations of environmental legislation that would be subject to AMPs and the methodology for determining the amount of an AMP. The Department notified indigenous peoples, provincial and territorial governments, stakeholders from environmental and industry groups, as well as other federal government departments, of the consultation process at the beginning of the consultation period. Notice of this consultation was also posted on the Department's Web site.
During the summer 2011 consultation, the Department received comments related to the design and implementation of the proposed AMPs regime from various partners and stakeholders, including indigenous peoples, industry, and government organizations. These comments are summarized below.
Comment: Some stakeholders were interested in the implementation or the operational framework of the proposed AMPs regime. For example, some questioned how the aggravating factors would be applied, suggesting that it would be unfair to apply the “history of noncompliance” aggravating factor to corporations that may have multiple facilities and engage in several different regulated activities.
Response: While the implementation of the proposed AMPs regime was not the subject of the summer 2011 consultation, the questions and comments received during this consultation were taken into consideration as Departmental officials developed the policies required to implement the proposed AMPs regime. An overview document providing a description of the operational framework of the proposed AMPs regime is available on the Department's Web site. (see footnote 11)
Comment: Some stakeholders provided general comments regarding which contraventions should be subject to the AMPs regime. It was suggested that only clear, unambiguous contraventions should be subject to AMPs, and that contraventions involving less serious (Type A) violations, technical or complex issues, or permit, licence or other authorization conditions, should not be subject to AMPs. Some stakeholders expressed the view that AMPs should not apply to situations involving the “incidental take,” or the inadvertent harming, killing, disturbance or destruction, of migratory birds, or their nests, eggs or shelters, under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994. (see footnote 12)
Response: Violations have been designated where the ability to use an AMP to respond to a contravention is expected to provide a useful alternative to existing enforcement measures. For this reason, the proposed Regulations would designate a wide spectrum of violations, including less serious violations, violations of technical or complex provisions, and failure to comply with permit, licence or other authorization conditions. The Department is not proposing to broadly designate violations in order to use an AMP in response to every contravention. Rather, AMPs would be one of several enforcement measures available to the Department to bring violators back into compliance as quickly as possible, and could be used to address situations in which a written warning may not be sufficient or the contravention is not serious enough to warrant prosecution.
With respect to the issue of incidental take, the provision of the Migratory Birds Regulations that prohibits the disturbing, destruction or taking of migratory bird nests, eggs and shelters would not be designated by the proposed Regulations as a provision for which an AMP could be issued. (see footnote 13) The Department currently works cooperatively with individuals, other government organizations and industry stakeholders to achieve compliance with the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 and associated regulations in order to minimize the risk of the effects of incidental take on migratory birds in Canada.
Comment: Several stakeholders commented on the proposed method of determining the amount payable for a violation. Some stakeholders suggested the use of more specific criteria to determine the amount of an AMP, such as a violator's knowledge of or intent to commit a violation. Other stakeholders called for the use of mitigating factors to reduce the amount of the AMP in certain circumstances.
Response: The proposed method used to determine the amount of an AMP is intended to be a simple and straightforward calculation based on factors that can be measured, observed, or otherwise easily determined or calculated, allowing AMPs to be used in a consistent, fair and efficient manner. For these reasons, no aggravating or mitigating factors, other than those originally proposed (history of non-compliance, environmental harm and economic gain), have been added since the publication of the 2011 consultation package.
Some stakeholders suggested that the mental state of the violator should be taken into account in determining the amount of the AMP. However, the mental state of the violator is not easily measured, observed, or otherwise determined or calculated. Consideration of the mental state of the violator would therefore detract from the design of AMPs as a fair and efficient measure. Consequently, the mental state or intent of the violator is not used as a factor in determining the amount of an AMP.
Comment: The 2011 consultation package proposed different penalty amounts for small and large corporations. Some stakeholders noted that the distinction between small and large corporations was unclear.
Response: The proposed Regulations would contain only two categories of violators: (1) individuals, and (2) other persons, ships and vessels. All corporations are considered “other persons.” The proposed distinction between small and large corporations set out in the 2011 consultation package mirrored the distinction between small and large corporations, in the context of fines imposed by a court, found in the Acts amended by the EEA. However, while a court is well positioned to determine whether a corporation meets the statutory definition of a “small revenue corporation” when making a sentencing decision, this determination would be more difficult in the context of AMPs and could lead to inconsistent penalties. All corporations would therefore be subject to the same baseline penalties under the proposed Regulations.
Comment: Some stakeholders requested clarification about how and when the aggravating factors would increase the amount of the penalty. Specifically, more information was requested about the definition of history of non-compliance and the proposed method for calculating economic gain.
Response: The approach in the proposed Regulations to history of non-compliance and economic gain has evolved since the 2011 consultation. The proposed Regulations would constrain the definition of “history of noncompliance” to any enforcement action taken within the five-year period prior to the occurrence of the current violation that concerns the violator in question and relates to federal environmental legislation specified in the proposed Regulations. In this context, enforcement measures that would be considered “enforcement action,” when applied, would be limited to tickets, AMPs, environmental protection alternative measures, injunctions and prosecutions. In addition, under the proposed Regulations, economic gain would not be calculated on a case-by-case basis, as proposed in the 2011 consultation package. Rather, the amount of the penalty would be increased by a fixed amount, depending on whether the violator avoided the cost of a permit, licence or other authorization, or realized some other economic gain by committing the violation (e.g. additional income, profits or other benefits realized). This approach would contribute to consistency in the application of a fair and efficient AMPs regime.
Comments received since the summer 2011 consultation
Since the summer 2011 consultation, the Department has engaged in ongoing consultations with interested parties, and information concerning the proposed AMPs regime has continued to be available on the Department's Web site. Ongoing consultations between Departmental officials and interested stakeholders included meetings with five organizations and several federal government departments, updates presented at five conferences, and replies to six individual requests, between fall of 2011 and spring of 2015. Stakeholder comments since the summer 2011 consultation have focused almost exclusively on the status of the proposed Regulations and when the AMPs regime authorized by EVAMPA would come into force.
Rationale
AMPs would provide a new, complementary means of responding to contraventions of federal environmental legislation. AMPs would provide an alternative to existing enforcement measures, such as written warnings, the use of tickets under the Contraventions Act, and prosecution. The introduction of a financial disincentive such as AMPs is expected to increase the overall rate of compliance with specified federal environmental legislation, especially in situations where other enforcement measures may not be available or appropriate, or where the regulated community perceives the risk of prosecution to be low.
For example, a written warning might not provide enough of a deterrent effect, while prosecution might be too severe. In addition, the use of tickets under the Contraventions Act and associated regulations is presently only available in provinces in which an implementation agreement has been signed by the federal and provincial governments. (see footnote 14)
AMPs could encourage compliance by potential violators who might otherwise decide not to comply with legislative requirements because they believe the risk of prosecution is low. A notice of violation under the proposed Regulations could be issued swiftly, unlike some other enforcement measures that require court proceedings and that typically take months to complete. AMPs would provide a financial disincentive to violating designated legislative requirements, thereby encouraging greater compliance and reducing risks to the environment. It is expected that overall compliance with the federal environmental legislation administered by the Department would increase, since regulated parties would recognize there is a greater potential under the proposed Regulations that they would receive a monetary penalty if they are found to be in non-compliance.
The proposed Regulations are not expected to impose any incremental administrative or compliance costs on the public or industry stakeholders. AMPs would constitute monetary transfer payments from violators of specified federal environmental legislation to the Environmental Damages Fund (EDF), a specified purpose account administered by the Department on behalf of the Government of Canada. (see footnote 15) In accordance with the Canadian Cost-Benefit Analysis Guide: Regulatory Proposals, transfer payments should not be regarded as providing economic benefits or imposing economic costs. (see footnote 16) Thus, AMPs are not classified as benefits or costs in this analysis.
As a result of implementing the proposed Regulations, some cost savings are anticipated through the enforcement of legislative requirements using administrative processes and reviews, rather than judicial proceedings, where an administrative response is appropriate given the nature of the violation. The estimated cost to the Department's Enforcement Branch of a prosecution of average complexity relating to federal environmental legislation is about $20,000, which only takes into account the time and other resources spent by the Enforcement Branch as a result of court proceedings. On the other hand, the average cost to the federal government per administrative review is approximately $5,000, based on the average expenditures per review of the office of the Chief Review Officer since 2010 in respect of environmental protection compliance orders.
Further, the operations of federal enforcement officers would not change significantly as a result of the proposed AMPs regime, but these officers would require additional training concerning the use of AMPs. It is therefore expected that the Department's Enforcement Branch would incur minor training costs associated with the development of learning material and regional deliverables.
The AMPs regime would provide an important alternative to existing measures available to enforcement officers. Overall, the proposed AMPs regime is expected to increase compliance with federal environmental legislation and thus improve environmental protection in Canada. However, it is very hard to accurately forecast how many AMPs would be imposed each year, making it difficult to quantify the anticipated environmental benefits. While it is also challenging to estimate the annual number of requests to the Chief Review Officer for administrative reviews of AMPs, this number is anticipated to be low, potentially yielding net cost savings for society in the form of avoided judicial proceedings. For these reasons, the establishment of an AMPs regime in Canada by means of the proposed Regulations is preferred to maintaining the status quo.
Strategic environmental assessment
As required by the Cabinet Directive on the Environmental Assessment of Policy, Plan and Program Proposals, a preliminary scan was conducted which concluded that there would be no expected important environmental effects, either positive or negative; accordingly, a strategic environmental assessment is not required. (see footnote 17)
Implementation, enforcement and service standards
The proposed Regulations would come into force on the day on which they are registered. They would implement the AMPs regime authorized by EVAMPA, thereby allowing the Department to use an alternative measure to enforce specified federal environmental legislation. Given that the proposed Regulations would not alter any requirements contained in the provisions of federal environmental legislation, no compliance and enforcement strategy specific to the proposed Regulations would be necessary. An AMP would simply be an additional enforcement measure that would be used by enforcement officers.
The enforcement measure that is employed in any particular situation involving a contravention of federal environmental legislation would be determined in accordance with the Department's compliance and enforcement policies. (see footnote 18) In respecting these policies, enforcement officers would apply the proposed Regulations as they apply existing legislation administered by the Department — in a manner that is fair, predictable and consistent, with an emphasis on prevention of damage to the environment, conservation and protection of natural resources. AMPs that are issued would be tracked, along with other enforcement measures, using the Department's existing enforcement database and systems.
Contacts
Laura Farquharson
Executive Director
Legislative Governance Division
Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Directorate
Environmental Stewardship Branch
Department of the Environment
351 Saint-Joseph Boulevard
Gatineau, Quebec
K1A 0H3
Fax: 819-420-7391
Email: ec.legis.gov.ec@canada.ca
Yves Bourassa
Director
Regulatory Analysis and Valuation Division
Economic Analysis Directorate
Strategic Policy Branch
Department of the Environment
200 Sacré-Cœur Boulevard
Gatineau, Quebec
K1A 0H3
Email: ec.darv-ravd.ec@canada.ca
PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT
Notice is given that the Governor in Council, pursuant to section 5 (see footnote a) of the Environmental Violations Administrative Monetary Penalties Act (see footnote b), proposes to make the annexed Environmental Violations Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations.
Interested persons may make representations concerning the proposed Regulations within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. All such representations must cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice, and be addressed to Laura Farquharson, Executive Director, Legislative Governance, Environment Canada, Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0H3 (fax: 819-420-7391; email: ec.legis.gc.ec@canada.ca).
Ottawa, March 24, 2016
Jurica Čapkun
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council
Environmental Violations Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations
Interpretation
Definition of Act
1 In these Regulations, Act means the Environmental Violations Administrative Monetary Penalties Act, unless otherwise indicated.
Violations
Provisions of Environmental Acts and regulations
2 (1) The contravention of a provision of an Environmental Act or of any of its regulations that is set out in column 1 of Schedule 1 is designated as a violation that may be proceeded with in accordance with the Act.
Orders and directions
(2) The contravention of any order or direction made under a provision of an Environmental Act or of any of its regulations that is set out in column 1 of Schedule 2 is designated as a violation that may be proceeded with in accordance with the Act.
Conditions of permit, licence or authorization
(3) The failure to comply with a condition of a permit, licence or other authorization issued under an Environmental Act or of any of its regulations that is referred to in a provision set out in column 1 of Schedule 3 is designated as a violation that may be proceeded with in accordance with the Act.
Type of violation
3 The contravention of a provision set out in column 1 of Schedule 1, of an order or direction made under a provision set out in column 1 of Schedule 2 or of a condition referred to in a provision set out in column 1 of Schedule 3 is classified as a Type A, B or C violation in accordance with column 2 of the respective Schedule.
Penalties
Formula
4 The amount of the penalty in respect of each violation is to be determined by the formula
W + X + Y + Z
where
W is the baseline penalty amount determined under section 5;
X is the history of non-compliance amount, if any, as determined under section 6;
Y is the environmental harm amount, if any, as determined under section 7; and
Z is the economic gain amount, if any, as determined under section 8.
Baseline penalty amount
5 The baseline penalty amount for a violation is the amount set out in column 3 of Schedule 4 that corresponds to the identity of the violator and the type of violation committed as set out in columns 1 and 2, respectively, of that Schedule.
History of non-compliance amount
6 (1) If the violator has a history of non-compliance, the history of non-compliance amount is the amount set out in column 4 of Schedule 4 that corresponds to the identity of the violator and the type of violation committed as set out in columns 1 and 2, respectively, of that Schedule.
History of non-compliance
(2) A violator has a history of non-compliance if, in the five years preceding
- (a) the commission of a violation relating to any Division of Part 7 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 or any regulation made under that Division, they were subject to an enforcement action in relation to that Division or any of those regulations;
- (b) the commission of a violation relating to Part 9 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 or any regulation made under that Part, they were subject to an enforcement action in relation to that Part or any of those regulations; or
- (c) the commission of a violation relating to any Environmental Act, other than the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, or a regulation made under one of those Acts, they were subject to an enforcement action in relation to that Act or any of that Act's regulations.
Meaning of enforcement action
(3) For the purpose of subsection (2), enforcement action means the imposition of a ticket, penalty, conviction or injunction or the use of environmental protection alternative measures.
Environmental harm amount
7 If the violation has resulted in harm to the environment, the environmental harm amount is the amount set out in column 5 of Schedule 4 that corresponds to the identity of the violator and the type of violation committed as set out in columns 1 and 2, respectively, of that Schedule.
Economic gain amount
8 (1) Subject to subsection (2), if the violation has resulted in economic gain to the violator, including an avoided financial cost, the economic gain amount is the amount set out in column 6 of Schedule 4 that corresponds to the identity of the violator and the type of violation committed as set out in columns 1 and 2, respectively, of that Schedule.
Avoided cost of authorization only
(2) If the only economic gain in which the violation has resulted is the avoidance of the cost of obtaining a permit, licence or other authorization, the economic gain amount is the amount set out in column 7 of Schedule 4 that corresponds to the identity of the violator and the type of violation committed as set out in columns 1 and 2, respectively, of that Schedule.
Service
Manner of service
9 (1) A notice of violation referred to in section 10 of the Act is to be served by
- (a) in the case of an individual,
- (i) leaving a copy of it with the individual at any place or with someone who appears to be an adult member of the same household at the individual's last known address or usual place of residence or, in the case of a person under the age of 18, with a parent or other person having custody of them or exercising parental authority over them, or
- (ii) sending a copy of it by registered mail, courier, fax or other electronic means to the recipient's last known address or usual place of residence;
- (b) in the case of a person other than an individual,
- (i) leaving a copy of it at the person's head office or place of business or that of their authorized representative, or
- (ii) sending a copy of it by registered mail, courier, fax or other electronic means to the person's head office or place of business or that of their authorized representative; and
- (c) in the case of a ship or vessel,
- (i) delivering a copy of it personally to the master or another person who is, or appears to be, in charge of the ship or vessel,
- (ii) fixing a copy of it to the ship or vessel so it is prominently in view,
- (iii) sending a copy of it by registered mail, courier, fax or other electronic means to the owner or operator of the ship or vessel or the owner's or operator's authorized representative or to their head office or place of business, or
- (iv) leaving a copy of it with one of the persons or at one of the places referred to in subparagraph (iii).
Proof of service
(2) Service may be proven by
- (a) an acknowledgement of service signed by or on behalf of the person or ship or vessel served, specifying the date and location of service;
- (b) a certificate of service, signed by the person who effected the service and in a form approved by the Minister, stating that service was carried out on the person or ship or vessel named in the certificate and indicating the means and day on which service was effected; or
- (c) a record of electronic transmission setting out the date and time of transmission.
Date service effective
(3) In the absence of an acknowledgement of service or a certificate of service, service is considered effective,
- (a) in the case of service by registered mail or courier, on the 10th day after the day on which the notice is sent, as indicated on the receipt issued by the postal or courier service; and
- (b) in the case of service by fax or other electronic means, on the day on which it is sent, as indicated on the record of transmission.
Request for Review
On behalf of ship or vessel
10 For the purpose of section 15 of the Act, a review may be requested on behalf of a ship or vessel by
- (a) its owner;
- (b) its operator or master; or
- (c) an authorized representative of its owner or operator.
Coming into Force
Registration
11 These Regulations come into force on the day on which they are registered.
SCHEDULE 1
(Subsection 2(1) and section 3)
Violations — Provisions
PART 1
International River Improvements Act and its Regulations
DIVISION 1
| Item | Column 1 Provision |
Column 2 Violation Type |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 4 | B |
| 2 | 13(12) | B |
| 3 | 14(2) | A |
| 4 | 16(a) | A |
| 5 | 16(b) | A |
| 6 | 24(1) | B |
| 7 | 31 | B |
DIVISION 2
| Item | Column 1 Provision |
Column 2 Violation Type |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3(2) | A |
PART 2
Canada Wildlife Act and its Regulations
DIVISION 1
| Item | Column 1 Provision |
Column 2 Violation Type |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 9(2) | B |
| 2 | 11.12(a) | A |
| 3 | 11.12(b) | A |
| 4 | 11.91(1) | B |
DIVISION 2
| Item | Column 1 Provision |
Column 2 Violation Type |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3(1)(a) | B |
| 2 | 3(1)(b) | B |
| 3 | 3(1)(b.1) | B |
| 4 | 3(1)(c) | B |
| 5 | 3(1)(d) | B |
| 6 | 3(1)(e) | B |
| 7 | 3(1)(f) | A |
| 8 | 3(1)(g) | A |
| 9 | 3(1)(h) | B |
| 10 | 3(1)(i) | C |
| 11 | 3(1)(j) | A |
| 12 | 3(1)(k) | B |
| 13 | 3(1)(l) | B |
| 14 | 3(1)(m) | C |
| 15 | 5(a) | A |
| 16 | 5(b) | A |
| 17 | 8 | B |
| 18 | 8.2 | A |
| 19 | 8.3(1) | A |
| 20 | 8.3(2) | A |
PART 3
Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act and its Regulations
DIVISION 1
| Item | Column 1 Provision |
Column 2 Violation Type |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 6(1) | B |
| 2 | 6(2) | B |
| 3 | 6(3) | B |
| 4 | 7(1) | B |
| 5 | 7(2) | B |
| 6 | 14.2(a) | A |
| 7 | 14.2(b) | A |
DIVISION 2
| Item | Column 1 Provision |
Column 2 Violation Type |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 9(1) | A |
| 2 | 9(2) | A |
| 3 | 19 | A |
PART 4
Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 and its Regulations
DIVISION 1
| Item | Column 1 Provision |
Column 2 Violation Type |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 5(a) | B |
| 2 | 5(b) | C |
| 3 | 5.1(1) | C |
| 4 | 5.1(2) | C |
| 5 | 5.2(b) | A |
| 6 | 7(1.1) | B |
| 7 | 7(1.3) | B |
| 8 | 8.1(6) | B |
| 9 | 8.1(7) | A |
| 10 | 8.3(a) | A |
| 11 | 8.3(b) | A |
| 12 | 11.24(1) | B |
DIVISION 2
| Item | Column 1 Provision |
Column 2 Violation Type |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 4(2)(b) | A |
| 2 | 4(6)(a)(i) | A |
| 3 | 4(6)(a)(ii) | A |
| 4 | 4(6)(b) | A |
| 5 | 4(10) | A |
| 6 | 4(11)(a)(i) | A |
| 7 | 4(11)(a)(ii) | A |
| 8 | 4(11)(b) | A |
| 9 | 5(1) | B |
| 10 | 5(2) | B |
| 11 | 5(3) | B |
| 12 | 5(4) | B |
| 13 | 5(9) | B |
| 14 | 5(12)(a) | A |
| 15 | 5(12)(b) | A |
| 16 | 6(b) | B |
| 17 | 7 | B |
| 18 | 9 | B |
| 19 | 10(1) | B |
| 20 | 10(2) | B |
| 21 | 10(3) | A |
| 22 | 10(4) | B |
| 23 | 11(1) | A |
| 24 | 12(1) | B |
| 25 | 12.1(2) | B |
| 26 | 13(1) | A |
| 27 | 13(2)(a) | A |
| 28 | 13(2)(b) | A |
| 29 | 13(2)(c) | A |
| 30 | 13(3) | C |
| 31 | 14(1) | B |
| 32 | 14(3) | A |
| 33 | 15(1)(a) | B |
| 34 | 15(1)(b) | B |
| 35 | 15(1)(c) | B |
| 36 | 15(1)(d) | B |
| 37 | 15(1)(e) | B |
| 38 | 15(2) | B |
| 39 | 15(3) | B |
| 40 | 15.1(1)(a) | B |
| 41 | 15.1(1)(b) | B |
| 42 | 16(1) | B |
| 43 | 16(1.1)(a) | B |
| 44 | 16(1.1)(b) | B |
| 45 | 17(a) | B |
| 46 | 17(b) | B |
| 47 | 19(3)(a) | A |
| 48 | 19(3)(b) | A |
| 49 | 19(3)(c) | A |
| 50 | 20(1)(a) | B |
| 51 | 20(1)(b) | C |
| 52 | 20(1)(c) | B |
| 53 | 20(3)(a) | A |
| 54 | 20(3)(b) | A |
| 55 | 20(4) | B |
| 56 | 21 | B |
| 57 | 22 | A |
| 58 | 24(3) | B |
| 59 | 26(4) | A |
| 60 | 26(5)(a) | A |
| 61 | 26(5)(b) | A |
| 62 | 27(2) | B |
| 63 | 27(3)(a) | B |
| 64 | 27(3)(b) | B |
| 65 | 27(5) | B |
| 66 | 27(6) | A |
| 67 | 29 | A |
| 68 | 30 | A |
| 69 | 31(1) | A |
| 70 | 31(2) | B |
| 71 | 31(3) | A |
| 72 | 32(3) | C |
| 73 | 33 | C |
| 74 | 34 | A |
| 75 | 37(3) | C |
DIVISION 3
| Item | Column 1 Provision |
Column 2 Violation Type |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3(2)(a) | B |
| 2 | 3(2)(b) | B |
| 3 | 3(2)(c) | B |
| 4 | 4(1)(a) | B |
| 5 | 4(1)(b) | B |
| 6 | 5(1) | B |
| 7 | 6 | B |
| 8 | 8 | B |
| 9 | 8.1 | B |
| 10 | 10(1) | C |
PART 5
Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 and its Regulations
DIVISION 1
| Item | Column 1 Provision |
Column 2 Violation Type |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 117 | B |
| 2 | 123(1) | B |
| 3 | 123(2) | B |
| 4 | 124(1) | B |
| 5 | 124(1.1) | B |
| 6 | 124(2) | B |
| 7 | 124(3) | B |
| 8 | 125(1) | B |
| 9 | 125(2) | B |
| 10 | 125(2.1) | B |
| 11 | 125(3) | B |
| 12 | 125(3.1) | B |
| 13 | 125(4) | B |
| 14 | 125(5) | B |
| 15 | 126(1) | B |
| 16 | 126(1.1) | B |
| 17 | 126(2) | B |
| 18 | 126(3) | B |
| 19 | 130(4) | A |
| 20 | 139(1) | B |
| 21 | 142(1) | B |
| 22 | 142(2) | B |
| 23 | 144 | B |
| 24 | 150(3) | B |
| 25 | 150(4) | B |
| 26 | 152 | B |
| 27 | 153(1)(a) | B |
| 28 | 153(1)(b) | A |
| 29 | 153(1)(c) | A |
| 30 | 153(1)(d) | A |
| 31 | 153(1)(e) | A |
| 32 | 153(1)(f) | A |
| 33 | 153(1)(g) | A |
| 34 | 153(1)(h) | A |
| 35 | 154 | B |
| 36 | 155(5) | B |
| 37 | 155(6) | A |
| 38 | 157(1) | A |
| 39 | 157(5) | A |
| 40 | 157(7) | A |
| 41 | 159(1) | A |
| 42 | 162(3) and (4) | A |
| 43 | 169(1)(a) | A |
| 44 | 169(1)(b) | B |
| 45 | 169(1)(c) | B |
| 46 | 169(3) | A |
| 47 | 171 | C |
| 48 | 172(1) | A |
| 49 | 179(1)(a) | A |
| 50 | 179(1)(b) | B |
| 51 | 179(1)(c) | B |
| 52 | 179(3) | A |
| 53 | 181 | C |
| 54 | 182(1) | A |
| 55 | 185(1)(b) | A |
| 56 | 186(2) | B |
| 57 | 188(2) | A |
| 58 | 189(1) | B |
| 59 | 212(1)(a) | A |
| 60 | 212(1)(b) | B |
| 61 | 212(1)(c) | B |
| 62 | 212(3) | A |
| 63 | 213(3) | B |
DIVISION 2
| Item | Column 1 Provision |
Column 2 Violation Type |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 4 | A |
| 2 | 5(1) | A |
| 3 | 5(2) | A |
DIVISION 3
| Item | Column 1 Provision |
Column 2 Violation Type |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 8 | A |
DIVISION
| Item | Column 1 Provision |
Column 2 Violation Type |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 11(1) | A |
| 2 | 11(2) | A |
| 3 | 11(3) | A |
DIVISION 5
| Item | Column 1 Provision |
Column 2 Violation Type |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 5(3) | A |
| 2 | 6(1) | A |
| 3 | 6(2) | A |
| 4 | 7 | A |
| 5 | 8(a) | A |
| 6 | 8(b) | A |
| 7 | 8(c) | A |
| 8 | 9(3) | A |
| 9 | 12 | A |
| 10 | 18 | A |
| 11 | 21 | A |
| 12 | 24(1) | A |
| 13 | 24(2) | A |
| 14 | 24(3) | A |
| 15 | 25(1) | A |
| 16 | 26(1) | A |
| 17 | 26(2) | A |
DIVISION 6
| Item | Column 1 Provision |
Column 2 Violation Type |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 5(1) and (2) | A |
| 2 | 5(4) | A |
| 3 | 5(5) | A |
| 4 | 5(7) | A |
| 5 | 5.1(1) and (2) | A |
| 6 | 5.1(3) | A |
| 7 | 6(1) | A |
| 8 | 6(2) | A |
| 9 | 6(3) | A |
DIVISION
| Item | Column 1 Provision |
Column 2 Violation Type |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3 | A |
| 2 | 4(1) | A |
| 3 | 4(2) | A |
| 4 | 4(3) | A |
| 5 | 4(4) | A |
| 6 | 4(5) | A |
| 7 | 4(6) | A |
| 8 | 4(7) | A |
DIVISION 8
| Item | Column 1 Provision |
Column 2 Violation Type |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 5(1) | A |
| 2 | 27 | A |
| 3 | 29(1) | C |
| 4 | 29.1(1) | C |
| 5 | 30(2) | C |
| 6 | 32(1) | A |
| 7 | 32(2) | A |
| 8 | 32(2.1) | A |
| 9 | 32(3) | A |
| 10 | 32(4) | A |
| 11 | 32(5) | A |
| 12 | 32.6(1) | C |
| 13 | 32.6(2) | A |
| 14 | 32.7(1) | A |
| 15 | 32.7(2) | A |
| 16 | 32.7(3) | A |
| 17 | 32.7(4) | A |
| 18 | 32.7(5) | A |
| 19 | 33 | A |
| 20 | 37(1) | A |
| 21 | 37(2) | A |
| 22 | 37.1 | A |
| 23 | 38(1)(a)(i) | A |
| 24 | 38(1)(a)(ii) | A |
| 25 | 38(1)(b) | A |
| 26 | 38(1)(c) | A |
| 27 | 38(2) | A |
| 28 | 38(3) | A |
| 29 | 38.1 | A |
| 30 | 39(1) | A |
| 31 | 39.1(1) | A |
| 32 | 40(1) | A |
| 33 | 42 | A |
| 34 | 42.1 | A |
| 35 | 45(2) | A |
| 36 | 45(3) | A |
DIVISION 9
| Item | Column 1 Provision |
Column 2 Violation Type |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3(a) | C |
| 2 | 3(b) | C |
| 3 | 3(c) | C |
| 4 | 4(1) | A |
| 5 | 4(2) | A |
| 6 | 5(1) | C |
| 7 | 5(2) | C |
| 8 | 6(1) | A |
| 9 | 7(1) | A |
| 10 | 7(2) | A |
| 11 | 8(1) | A |
| 12 | 8(2) | A |
| 13 | 8(3) | A |
| 14 | 8(4) | A |
| 15 | 9(1) | A |
| 16 | 9(2) | A |
| 17 | 9(3) | A |
| 18 | 10(1) | A |
| 19 | 10(2) | A |
| 20 | 10(3) | A |
| 21 | 11(1) | A |
| 22 | 12(a) | A |
| 23 | 12(b) | A |
| 24 | 13 | C |
| 25 | 14(2)(a) | A |
| 26 | 14(2)(b) | A |
| 27 | 15 | A |
| 28 | 16 | A |
| 29 | 17(a) | A |
| 30 | 17(b) | A |
| 31 | 18(1) | A |
| 32 | 19 | A |
| 33 | 20 | A |
| 34 | 21 | A |
| 35 | 22(1) | A |
| 36 | 23 | A |
| 37 | 24(1) | A |
| 38 | 25(a) | A |
| 39 | 25(b) | A |
| 40 | 26(1)(a) | A |
| 41 | 26(1)(b) | A |
| 42 | 27 | C |
| 43 | 28(2)(a) | A |
| 44 | 28(2)(b) | A |
| 45 | 29 | A |
| 46 | 30(1) | A |
| 47 | 31(1) | A |
| 48 | 31(2) | A |
| 49 | 32(a) | A |
| 50 | 32(b) | A |
| 51 | 33 | A |
| 52 | 36(1) | A |
| 53 | 36(2) | A |
| 54 | 36(3) | A |
| 55 | 36(4)(a) | A |
| 56 | 36(4)(c) | A |
DIVISION 10
| Item | Column 1 Provision |
Column 2 Violation Type |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 4(1) | A |
| 2 | 15 | A |
| 3 | 18 | A |
| 4 | 19(1) | A |
| 5 | 22 | A |
| 6 | 26(2) | A |
| 7 | 26(3) and (4) | A |
DIVISION 11
| Item | Column 1 Provision |
Column 2 Violation Type |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 4(1) | A |
| 2 | 13.1 | A |
| 3 | 15 | A |
| 4 | 15.1 | A |
| 5 | 18(1) | A |
| 6 | 18(2) | A |
| 7 | 18(3) | A |
| 8 | 19(1) | A |
| 9 | 21 | A |
| 10 | 25(2) | A |
| 11 | 25(3) | A |
DIVISION 12
| Item | Column 1 Provision |
Column 2 Violation Type |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 7(6) | A |
| 2 | 9(a) | A |
| 3 | 9(b) | B |
| 4 | 9(c) | B |
| 5 | 9(d) | A |
| 6 | 9(e) | A |
| 7 | 9(f) | A |
| 8 | 9(g) | B |
| 9 | 9(h) | B |
| 10 | 9(i) | B |
| 11 | 9(j) | B |
| 12 | 9(k) | B |
| 13 | 9(l)(i) | A |
| 14 | 9(l)(ii) | A |
| 15 | 9(m) | B |
| 16 | 9(n) | B |
| 17 | 9(o) | B |
| 18 | 9(p) | B |
| 19 | 11(1) | A |
| 20 | 11(2) | A |
| 21 | 11(3)(a) | A |
| 22 | 11(3)(b) | A |
| 23 | 11(4) | A |
| 24 | 11(5)(a) | A |
| 25 | 11(5)(b) | A |
| 26 | 11(6)(a) | A |
| 27 | 11(6)(b) | A |
| 28 | 11(6)(c) | A |
| 29 | 13 | A |
| 30 | 14 | A |
| 31 | 16(a) | A |
| 32 | 16(b) | B |
| 33 | 16(c) | A |
| 34 | 16(d) | A |
| 35 | 16(e) | A |
| 36 | 16(f) | B |
| 37 | 16(g) | B |
| 38 | 16(h) | B |
| 39 | 16(i) | B |
| 40 | 16(j) | B |
| 41 | 16(k)(i) | A |
| 42 | 16(k)(ii) | A |
| 43 | 16(l) | B |
| 44 | 16(m) | B |
| 45 | 16(n) | B |
| 46 | 16(o) | B |
| 47 | 18(1) | A |
| 48 | 18(2)(a) | A |
| 49 | 18(2)(b) | A |
| 50 | 18(2)(c) | A |
| 51 | 18(3)(a) | A |
| 52 | 18(3)(b) | A |
| 53 | 18(4) | A |
| 54 | 18(5) | A |
| 55 | 18(6)(a) | A |
| 56 | 18(6)(b) | A |
| 57 | 18(6)(c) | A |
| 58 | 18(6)(d) | A |
| 59 | 20 | A |
| 60 | 21 | A |
| 61 | 22(a) | A |
| 62 | 22(b) | B |
| 63 | 22(c) | B |
| 64 | 22(d) | B |
| 65 | 22(e) | B |
| 66 | 22(f) | B |
| 67 | 22(g) | B |
| 68 | 22(h) | A |
| 69 | 22(i)(i) | A |
| 70 | 22(i)(ii) | A |
| 71 | 25(1) | A |
| 72 | 25(2) | A |
| 73 | 25(3) | A |
| 74 | 27 | A |
| 75 | 30(1) | A |
| 76 | 30(2) | A |
| 77 | 30(3)(a) | A |
| 78 | 30(3)(b) | A |
| 79 | 30(4) | A |
| 80 | 30(5) | A |
| 81 | 30(6)(a) | A |
| 82 | 30(6)(b) | A |
| 83 | 30(6)(c) | A |
| 84 | 30(6)(d) | A |
| 85 | 32 | A |
| 86 | 34(2)(a) | A |
| 87 | 34(2)(b)(i) | A |
| 88 | 34(2)(b)(ii) | A |
| 89 | 34(2)(c) | A |
| 90 | 35(2)(a) | A |
| 91 | 35(2)(b)(i) | A |
| 92 | 35(2)(b)(ii) | A |
| 93 | 35(2)(c) | A |
| 94 | 36(1) | A |
| 95 | 36(2) | A |
| 96 | 36(3) | A |
| 97 | 38(2) | A |
DIVISION 13
| Item | Column 1 Provision |
Column 2 Violation Type |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3(1) | C |
| 2 | 3(2) | C |
| 3 | 3(3) | C |
| 4 | 3(4) | C |
| 5 | 4(a) | A |
| 6 | 4(b) | A |
| 7 | 5 | B |
| 8 | 6 | B |
| 9 | 7 | B |
| 10 | 8 | B |
| 11 | 9(1) | B |
| 12 | 9(2) | A |
| 13 | 10(1) | B |
| 14 | 11 | B |
| 15 | 12 | B |
| 16 | 13 | B |
| 17 | 14(1) | B |
| 18 | 14(2) | B |
| 19 | 14(3) | B |
| 20 | 14(4) | B |
| 21 | 14(5) | B |
| 22 | 15(1) | B |
| 23 | 16 | A |
| 24 | 17 | A |
| 25 | 18 | A |
| 26 | 19 | A |
| 27 | 22 | A |
| 28 | 23 | A |
| 29 | 25 | A |
| 30 | 26 | A |
| 31 | 27 | A |
| 32 | 28(1) | A |
| 33 | 28(2) | A |
| 34 | 28(4) | A |
| 35 | 28(5) | A |
| 36 | 28(6) | A |
| 37 | 28(7) | A |
| 38 | 29(a) | A |
| 39 | 29(b)(i) | A |
| 40 | 29(b)(ii) | A |
| 41 | 30 | A |
| 42 | 31(1) | A |
| 43 | 31(2) | A |
| 44 | 33(1) | A |
| 45 | 33(2) | A |
| 46 | 34(1) | A |
| 47 | 34(2) | A |
| 48 | 35(1) | A |
| 49 | 35(2) | A |
| 50 | 36(1) | A |
| 51 | 36(2) | B |
| 52 | 37(1) | A |
| 53 | 37(2) | B |
| 54 | 38 | B |
| 55 | 39 | A |
| 56 | 40(1) | B |
| 57 | 40(2) | A |
| 58 | 43 | A |
| 59 | 44(1) | A |
| 60 | 44(2) | A |
| 61 | 44(3)(a) | A |
| 62 | 44(3)(b) | A |
| 63 | 44(3)(c) | B |
| 64 | 44(4) | A |
| 65 | 44(5) | A |
| 66 | 45(1) | A |
| 67 | 45(2) | A |
| 68 | 46 | A |
DIVISION 14
| Item | Column 1 Provision |
Column 2 Violation Type |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 4(3) | A |
| 2 | 9(1) | A |
| 3 | 9(2) | A |
| 4 | 11(2) | A |
| 5 | 19(1) | A |
| 6 | 19(2) | A |
| 7 | 22.1(2) | A |
| 8 | 22.1(3) | A |
| 9 | 25(1) | A |
| 10 | 25(2) | A |
| 11 | 25(5) | A |
| 12 | 26 | A |
| 13 | 28(1) | A |
| 14 | 28(2) | A |
| 15 | 29 | A |
| 16 | 30 | A |
| 17 | 31 | A |
| 18 | 32(1) | A |
| 19 | 32(2) | A |
| 20 | 32(3) | A |
| 21 | 32(4) | A |
| 22 | 32(5) | A |
| 23 | 32(6) | A |
| 24 | 32(7) | A |
| 25 | 32(8) | A |
| 26 | 32(9) | A |
| 27 | 32(10) | A |
| 28 | 33 | A |
| 29 | 34(1) | A |
| 30 | 34(2) | A |
| 31 | 34(3) | A |
| 32 | 34(4) | A |
| 33 | 35(1) | A |
| 34 | 35(2) | A |
| 35 | 36(1) | A |
| 36 | 36(2) | A |
| 37 | 38(1) | A |
| 38 | 38(2) | A |
| 39 | 39 | A |
DIVISION 15
| Item | Column 1 Provision |
Column 2 Violation Type |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 4(1) | A |
| 2 | 19(2) | A |
| 3 | 21(1) | A |
| 4 | 21(5) | C |
| 5 | 22(2) | C |
| 6 | 26(4) | A |
| 7 | 30(3)(b) | A |
| 8 | 33(1) | A |
| 9 | 33(2) | A |
| 10 | 33(3) | A |
| 11 | 33(4) | A |
| 12 | 35(1) | A |
| 13 | 35(2) | A |
| 14 | 39(1) | A |
| 15 | 39(2) | A |
| 16 | 40(1) | A |
| 17 | 40(2) | A |
| 18 | 40(3) | A |
| 19 | 40.1 | A |
| 20 | 44(2) | A |
DIVISION 16
| Item | Column 1 Provision |
Column 2 Violation Type |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 27(1) | A |
| 2 | 27(3) | C |
| 3 | 29(2) | A |
| 4 | 31(2) | A |
| 5 | 31(4) | C |
| 6 | 32(2) | C |
| 7 | 33(1) | A |
| 8 | 33(2) | A |
| 9 | 33(3) | A |
| 10 | 33(4) | A |
| 11 | 33(5) | A |
| 12 | 34 | A |
| 13 | 36(1) | A |
| 14 | 36(2) | A |
| 15 | 36(3) | A |
| 16 | 37(1) | A |
| 17 | 39 | A |
| 18 | 43(2) | A |
| 19 | 43(3) and (4) | A |
DIVISION 17
| Item | Column 1 Provision |
Column 2 Violation Type |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 4(1) | A |
| 2 | 11(1)(a) | A |
| 3 | 11(1)(b) | B |
| 4 | 11(1)(c) | A |
| 5 | 13(3) | A |
| 6 | 13(4) | A |
| 7 | 13(8) | A |
| 8 | 17(4)(a) | A |
| 9 | 20(5) | C |
| 10 | 21(2) | A |
| 11 | 23(2) | A |
| 12 | 28 | A |
| 13 | 29(6) | C |
| 14 | 31(4) | B |
| 15 | 45(1) | A |
| 16 | 45(6) | C |
| 17 | 46(1) | C |
| 18 | 46(2) | C |
| 19 | 48(1) | A |
| 20 | 48(2) | A |
| 21 | 48(3) | A |
| 22 | 48(4) | A |
| 23 | 48(5) | A |
| 24 | 48(6) | A |
| 25 | 48(7) | A |
| 26 | 48(8) | A |
| 27 | 48(9) | A |
| 28 | 51 | A |
| 29 | 52 | A |
| 30 | 56(1) | A |
| 31 | 56(2) | A |
| 32 | 56(3) | A |
| 33 | 57 | A |
| 34 | 58 | A |
| 35 | 59(1) | A |
| 36 | 59(2) | A |
| 37 | 59(3) | A |
| 38 | 59.1 | A |
| 39 | 63(2) | A |
PART 6
Antarctic Environmental Protection Act and its Regulations
DIVISION 1
| Item | Column 1 Provision |
Column 2 Violation Type |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 7(1) | B |
| 2 | 8 | B |
| 3 | 9(1) | B |
| 4 | 10(1) | B |
| 5 | 11 | B |
| 6 | 12(1)(a) | B |
| 7 | 12(1)(b) | C |
| 8 | 12(1)(c) | B |
| 9 | 12(1)(d) | B |
| 10 | 12(1)(e) | B |
| 11 | 12(1)(h) | C |
| 12 | 12(1)(i) | C |
| 13 | 13(1) | B |
| 14 | 14 | C |
| 15 | 15 | B |
| 16 | 16 | B |
| 17 | 17(1) | B |
| 18 | 17(2) | B |
| 19 | 18(1) | B |
| 20 | 18(2) | C |
| 21 | 18(3) | C |
| 22 | 20 | C |
| 23 | 30(13) | B |
| 24 | 30(14)(a) | A |
| 25 | 30(14)(b) | A |
| 26 | 31(2) | A |
| 27 | 32(7) | B |
| 28 | 35(6) | B |
| 29 | 37(4) | B |
| 30 | 37(5) | A |
| 31 | 37.06(1) | B |
| 32 | 39(a) | A |
| 33 | 39(b) | A |
| 34 | 46(8)(a) | A |
| 35 | 46(8)(b) | A |
| 36 | 47(2) | A |
| 37 | 48 | B |
DIVISION 2
| Item | Column 1 Provision |
Column 2 Violation Type |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 12(1)(a) | A |
| 2 | 12(1)(b) | A |
| 3 | 12(1)(c) | A |
| 4 | 12(1)(d) | A |
| 5 | 12(1)(e) | A |
| 6 | 12(1)(f) | A |
| 7 | 12(1)(g) | A |
| 8 | 12(2)(a) | A |
| 9 | 12(2)(b) | A |
| 10 | 12(3)(a) | A |
| 11 | 12(3)(b) | A |
| 12 | 12(4) | A |
| 13 | 13 | A |
| 14 | 23 | B |
| 15 | 24 | B |
| 16 | 31 | B |
| 17 | 32 | A |
| 18 | 33 | B |
| 19 | 36 | A |
| 20 | 37 | C |
| 21 | 38 | B |
| 22 | 39 | B |
| 23 | 40 | B |
| 24 | 41 | B |
| 25 | 42(1) | B |
| 26 | 45 | A |
| 27 | 46 | A |
| 28 | 47 | A |
SCHEDULE 2
(Subsection 2(2) and section 3)
Violations — Orders or Directions
PART 1
| Item | Column 1 Provision |
Column 2 Violation Type |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 8.1(1) | B |
| 2 | 8.1(2) | B |
PART 2
| Item | Column 1 Provision |
Column 2 Violation Type |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 119(1) | B |
| 2 | 148(1) | B |
| 3 | 157(4) | A |
| 4 | 169(5) | B |
| 5 | 173(1) | B |
| 6 | 179(5) | B |
| 7 | 183(1) | B |
| 8 | 212(4) | B |
PART 3
| Item | Column 1 Provision |
Column 2 Violation Type |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 30(7) | B |
| 2 | 30(8)(a) | B |
| 3 | 37.01 | B |
| 4 | 46(3) | B |
SCHEDULE 3
(Subsection 2(3) and section 3)
Violations — Conditions of Permit, Licence or Authorization
PART 1
| Item | Column 1 Provision |
Column 2 Violation Type |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 129(1)(a) | B |
| 2 | 129(1)(b) | B |
| 3 | 129(1)(c) | B |
| 4 | 129(1)(d) | B |
| 5 | 129(1)(e) | B |
| 6 | 129(1)(f) | B |
| 7 | 129(1)(g) | B |
| 8 | 129(1) — condition other than those described in paragraphs (a) to (g) | A |
PART 2
| Item | Column 1 Provision |
Column 2 Violation Type |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 21(4) | A |
PART 3
| Item | Column 1 Provision |
Column 2 Violation Type |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 4(1) | A |
SCHEDULE 4
(Section 5, subsection 6(1) and sections 7 and 8)
| Item | Column 1 Violator |
Column 2 Violation Type |
Column 3 Baseline Penalty Amount ($) |
Column 4 History of Non-compliance Amount ($) |
Column 5 Environmental Harm Amount ($) |
Column 6 Economic Gain Amount ($) |
Column 7 Economic Gain Amount — Authorizations Only ($) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Individual | (a) A | 200 | 600 | 300 | 200 | 50 |
| (b) B | 400 | 1,200 | 600 | 400 | 100 | ||
| (c) C | 1,000 | 3,000 | 0 | 1,000 | 250 | ||
| 2 | Other person or ship or vessel | (a) A | 1,000 | 3,000 | 1,500 | 1,000 | 250 |
| (b) B | 2,000 | 6,000 | 3,000 | 2,000 | 500 | ||
| (c) C | 5,000 | 15,000 | 0 | 5,000 | 1,250 |
[15-1-o]