Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• EVR Operations Limited sought judicial review of a decision by the Environmental Appeal Board upholding a $140,000 administrative monetary penalty imposed for failing to ensure a contractor's mechanic was adequately trained under the Health Safety and Reclamation Code for Mines in British Columbia.
   
• Central to the case was whether a mechanic employed by contractor MAXAM Explosives Inc. qualified as a "worker" within the meaning of the Mines Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 293, thereby triggering the petitioner's training obligations under part 1.11.1(1) of the Code.
   
• Disputed was whether the administrative contravention gave rise to strict liability — permitting a due diligence defence — or absolute liability, which does not.
   
• Procedural fairness was also at issue: the petitioner argued it was required to make submissions on penalty before a finding of culpability had been made, constituting a structural unfairness in both the Delegate's and the Board's process.
   
• Justice Walker upheld the Board's interpretation that "worker" extends to contractor employees present at the mine, applying the modern approach to statutory interpretation and reading the Act, regulations, and Code as an integrated scheme.
   
• All three grounds of the petition were dismissed, with the court confirming the contravention was one of absolute liability and that no procedural unfairness had been established.

Facts of the case

EVR Operations Limited (formerly operating as Teck Coal Ltd.) owns and operates the Greenhills Operations mine, a steelmaking coal operation near Elkford, British Columbia, operating under a permit issued by the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation. The petitioner retained MAXAM Explosives Inc. ("MAXAM") as a contractor to provide highly specialized explosive services at the site. MAXAM's work required the use of 20-ton prill trucks with wheels consisting of inflatable tubes mounted on 24-inch, multi-piece split rims. An independent, offsite tire company performed all maintenance and repairs on the rims and tires, returning the assembled wheels to MAXAM for installation. MAXAM employed mechanics to remove and reinstall the wheels as necessary, and these mechanics performed much of their work in a workshop located within the Greenhills Operations facility.

On January 28, 2019, one of the prill trucks arrived at the workshop with a flat tire. A mechanic employed by MAXAM — a journeyman red-seal certified mechanic — was replacing the wheel with a fully inflated replacement wheel when the replacement wheel exploded, leaving the mechanic with life-altering injuries (the "Workplace Incident"). The incident prompted investigations by the petitioner, MAXAM, and the Ministry. The Ministry's investigation resulted in a Report to Statutory Decision Maker in Recommendation of Administrative Hearing (the "Report to SDM"), recommending that an administrative monetary penalty be imposed on the petitioner for breaching parts 1.11.1(1) and (2) of the Code — specifically, for failing to assess risks and ensure workers were adequately trained in the safe replacement of split-rim wheel assemblies, particularly when tires are fully inflated.

On June 8, 2021, a delegate of the Chief Inspector of Mines (the "Delegate") provided the petitioner with notice of an opportunity to be heard (the "OTBH Notice"). The petitioner delivered submissions on November 16, 2021. The Delegate issued his decision on January 28, 2022, finding on a balance of probabilities that the petitioner had contravened part 1.11.1(1) of the Code, but not subsection (2). The Delegate found that "worker" in part 1.11.1(1) was not limited to those in a direct employment relationship with the petitioner, and that the petitioner had an obligation to ensure all workers at the site were adequately trained. Beginning with a base penalty amount of $200,000 — reflecting that the gravity of the non-compliance was "major" and the real or potential adverse effects were "very high" — the Delegate applied reductions for corrective efforts by the petitioner and by MAXAM, ultimately imposing an administrative monetary penalty of $140,000 (the "Penalty").

The petitioner appealed to the Environmental Appeal Board pursuant to s. 36.7 of the Mines Act. The appeal proceeded by way of a hearing de novo, concluding on January 24, 2023. The Board issued its decision on December 30, 2024 (Decision No. EAB-EMA-22-A001(a)), confirming the outcome of the Delegate's determination. The Board found that "worker" in part 1.11.1(1) of the Code was not limited to those directly employed by the petitioner but included all workers employed at the mine, including the MAXAM mechanic. It further concluded that due diligence was not available as a defence to the contravention, applying the analytical framework from R. v. Sault Ste. Marie, [1978] 2 SCR 1299, and finding the administrative penalty regime operated on an absolute liability basis. The Board also found no procedural unfairness in the Delegate's process, noting that the petitioner had sufficient basis to understand the case it had to meet, and that even if some unfairness had occurred, the de novo hearing before the Board cured it.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The case turned on the interplay among the Mines Act, the Health Safety and Reclamation Code for Mines in British Columbia, and the Administrative Penalties (Mines) Regulation, B.C. Reg. 47/2017. Part 1.11.1(1) of the Code requires a mine manager to ensure that workers are adequately trained to do their job or are working under the guidance of someone with competency in both the job and giving instruction. Part 1.11.2 requires the manager to maintain a record of all training workers and supervisors have received, and make that record available to an inspector upon request. Under s. 36.1 of the Act, the Chief Inspector or their delegate may, on a balance of probabilities, find a contravention and, under s. 36.2, impose an administrative monetary penalty. Section 7(1) of the Regulation prescribes an upper limit of $500,000 for penalties relating to contraventions of part 1.11.1 of the Code. Section 2 of the Regulation sets out the factors the Chief Inspector must consider before imposing a penalty, including the gravity and magnitude of the contravention, its real or potential adverse effects, and the person's efforts to prevent or correct the contravention.

The definition of "worker" under s. 1 of the Act — "a person who is an employee but does not include a supervisor" — was central to the dispute. "Employee" is defined in the Code as "all persons employed at a mine," and "employer" as "owner, agent, or manager as defined in the Mines Act." The petitioner argued that "worker" referred only to those in a direct employment relationship with the mine owner, while the respondent maintained that reading "worker" and "employee" consistently — in light of the broad Code definition — included contractor employees present at the mine.

Reasoning and analysis

Justice Walker, applying the correctness standard of review under s. 59(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, S.B.C. 2004, c. 45, addressed all three grounds of challenge.

On the "worker" issue, the court held that the Board correctly concluded the MAXAM mechanic was a "worker" within the meaning of the Act. Applying the modern approach to statutory interpretation as re-affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Nguyen, 2026 SCC 10 — requiring that the words of the Act be read in their entire context, harmoniously with the scheme and objectives of the legislation — Justice Walker found that reading "worker" and "employee" consistently was dispositive. The Code defines "employee" broadly as "all persons employed at a mine," and the Act defines "worker" as a person who is an employee but does not include a supervisor. Reading these definitions together, the MAXAM mechanic, who was employed at the mine and was not a supervisor, fell within the definition of "worker." The petitioner's argument that "worker" referred only to those in a direct employment relationship with the mine owner was found to ignore the Code's broad definition of "employee," create an unworkable void in health and safety accountability for contractor injuries, and be inconsistent with the integrated legislative scheme reflected in ss. 24–26 of the Act, which impose compliance obligations on mine owners regardless of contractor arrangements.

On the due diligence issue, the court upheld the Board's conclusion that the administrative contravention was one of absolute liability. Justice Walker agreed that application of the Sault Ste. Marie framework — examining the overall regulatory pattern, the subject matter of the legislation, the importance of the penalty, and the precision of language — led to the rebuttal of the presumption of strict liability. Significantly, the Regulation explicitly recognizes that due diligence (framed as the person's efforts to prevent or correct the contravention) is relevant to the quantum of the penalty, not to the question of whether the contravention has been made out. This legislative distinction, together with the existence of other British Columbia administrative penalty regimes that expressly provide for a due diligence defence — such as the Forest and Range Practices Act, S.B.C. 2002, c. 69, and the Wildlife Act, S.B.C. 2004, c. 31 — supported the conclusion that had the legislature intended due diligence to be available as a defence here, it would have said so.

On the procedural fairness issue, the court found the Board's conclusion that the Delegate's process was not unfair to be without error. The OTBH Notice and associated materials gave the petitioner sufficient information to understand the case against it and the need to make submissions about a potential administrative monetary penalty. Applying the Baker factors, and noting that the petitioner itself had requested a second-stage hearing if a contravention was found — demonstrating it understood the process — the court found no structural fairness defect. Even if any unfairness had occurred at the Delegate stage, the de novo hearing before the Board, where the petitioner had full opportunity to address both the contravention and the quantum of the penalty, cured any such defect.

Ruling and overall outcome

The judicial review petition was dismissed. The respondents — the Environmental Appeal Board and the Chief Inspector of Mines — were successful in upholding both the finding of contravention and the $140,000 administrative monetary penalty imposed on EVR Operations Limited. No costs order is referenced in the judgment.