Building manager requested a review from Environmental Protection Tribunal of Canada
The Federal Court has dismissed the judicial review application of a company that received two administrative monetary penalties (AMPs) under the Environmental Violations Administrative Monetary Penalties Act, 2009 (EVAMPA) for halocarbons released from chiller systems in two buildings it managed.
The court explained that halocarbons are greenhouse gases contributing to ozone layer depletion and climate change. The EVAMPA aims to address climate change and the harmful impacts of human activities on the environment.
In BGIS Global Integrated Solutions Canada LP v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FC 1213, the EVAMPA AMPs alleged breaches of s. 3(a) of the Federal Halocarbon Regulations, SOR/2003-289, as repealed by Federal Halocarbon Regulations, SOR/2022-110.
The applicant requested a review of the AMPs. The applicant asserted that complying with s. 3(a) of the 2003 regulations was impossible because of the chillers’ nature and technological limitations.
The applicant argued that the absolute liability regime under s. 11(1)(a) of EVAMPA went against the right to the presumption of innocence under s. 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and offended the principles of natural justice under s. 7 of the Charter.
In November 2023, the Environmental Protection Tribunal of Canada (EPTC) affirmed the two AMPs.
Through a judicial review application, the applicant alleged that the EPTC’s decision was unreasonable and that the EVAMPA proceeding was criminal by nature. The applicant argued that the EPTC incorrectly or unreasonably found that s. 11(1)(a) of EVAMPA did not contradict s. 11(d) of the Charter and engagement of the s. 7 principles of natural justice did not require a mental element.
Tribunal ruling upheld
The Federal Court dismissed the application. According to the court, while the EPTC’s decision was brief, it addressed the applicant’s allegations of impossibility.
The court ruled that s. 11(d) of the Charter was inapplicable as EVAMPA’s absolute liability regime was not criminal, and this case did not engage s. 7 of the Charter since the applicant failed to allege a deprivation of the rights to life, liberty, or personal security.
The court then addressed the applicant’s arguments. First, the applicant said EVAMPA AMPs aim to attain compliance with environmental legislation within the briefest time possible and with no further breaches. The applicant noted that the EPTC had previously accepted environmental protection as an important public purpose.
The court held that EVAMPA fell under administrative matters seeking to protect the public in line with a statutory policy, rather than matters of dishonesty, fraud, or immorality falling within criminal law’s scope.
The court noted that:
- EVAMPA’s public purpose of environmental protection does not, by itself, convert proceedings into criminal matters
- A violation such as the one alleged against the applicant is not an offence, as provided by s. 13(2) of EVAMPA
- Parliament treats AMPs as a way to tackle less serious environmental violations efficiently, as an alternative to criminal proceedings
Second, the applicant alleged that the Supreme Court of Canada had previously considered environmental protection a valid criminal law purpose, as it did in R v Hydro-Québec, 1997 CanLII 318 (SCC), [1997] 3 SCR 213.
The court noted that the Supreme Court in Hydro-Québec assessed whether the environmental legislation addressing the dumping of toxic substances fell within the federal jurisdiction of criminal law in pith and substance.
In that case, the majority decided that the environment was a subject permeating various areas of constitutional responsibility on the federal and provincial levels, rather than a subject matter of legislation under the Constitution Act, 1867. The majority concluded that the law on toxic substances was within criminal law’s scope.
In this case, however, the Federal Court determined that the Hydro-Québec ruling did not automatically mean that any environmental legislation would be criminal in nature.
Third, the applicant pointed out that s. 27(3) of EVAMPA credited AMPs to the environmental damages fund. The applicant added that EVAMPA AMPs aimed to hold violators accountable to society and affordably restore harm to the natural environment and wildlife conservation.
The court disagreed with this argument. The court noted that the fact that the law credited AMPs to this fund instead of the consolidated revenue fund was another sign that EVAMPA proceedings were not criminal in nature.
