Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• BGIS challenged administrative monetary penalties issued for environmental violations related to halocarbon leaks.

• The Environmental Protection Tribunal of Canada rejected BGIS’s impossibility defence under EVAMPA.

• BGIS argued that the absolute liability regime under EVAMPA violated Charter sections 7 and 11(d).

• The Federal Court held that the Charter protections do not apply as the penalties were regulatory, not criminal.

• The Court found the Tribunal's decision reasonable and in line with administrative law standards.

• Costs were not determined; parties were invited to submit arguments within 30 days.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and halocarbon violations

BGIS Global Integrated Solutions Canada LP, a property management company contracted by Public Services and Procurement Canada, managed two federal buildings in Winnipeg: the Canadian Grain Commission (CGC) Building and the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) Building. Both properties experienced leaks of halocarbons—a class of greenhouse gases regulated under federal law—from their chiller systems in 2018 and 2019. BGIS subcontracted Trane (Southampton-Trane Air Conditioning) to handle technical maintenance.

Each leak released over 100 kilograms of halocarbons. Although BGIS reported the incidents and conducted repairs, it was issued two administrative monetary penalties (AMPs) of $5,000 each under the Environmental Violations Administrative Monetary Penalties Act (EVAMPA) for contravening paragraph 3(a) of the now-repealed Federal Halocarbon Regulations, SOR/2003-289. BGIS requested a review of these penalties before the Environmental Protection Tribunal of Canada (EPTC), which upheld the violations.

Legal challenges and constitutional arguments

BGIS’s primary argument before the Federal Court was that it should not be held liable because compliance with the regulation was technologically impossible. It relied on common law defences under subsection 11(2) of EVAMPA and challenged the absolute liability regime, asserting it violated sections 7 (life, liberty, and security of the person) and 11(d) (presumption of innocence) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The EPTC found that the defence of impossibility requires absolute impossibility, which BGIS failed to prove. It also ruled that AMPs are regulatory in nature and do not engage Charter section 11(d). Further, the tribunal held that no deprivation of liberty or security of the person occurred, meaning section 7 was not engaged.

Federal Court ruling

Madam Justice Go of the Federal Court dismissed the judicial review. The Court affirmed that EVAMPA’s AMP regime is administrative, not criminal, and does not trigger the constitutional protections argued by BGIS. The judge emphasized that the proceedings were regulatory, aimed at compliance and environmental protection, not punishment. The Court also found the EPTC’s reasoning on the impossibility defence to be adequate and reasonable, even though it did not explicitly mention all evidentiary details.

Outcome and next steps

The Court upheld the $10,000 in penalties against BGIS. No damages were awarded, and the issue of legal costs was left open, with both parties invited to make submissions within 30 days. The ruling confirms the strict liability nature of environmental regulatory enforcement in Canada and clarifies the limits of Charter protections in administrative contexts.