Ontario assessing how ruling by province’s top court could impact endangered species litigation

A complex legal battle involving a North Bay construction company accused of damaging a threatened species habitat has reached a resolution — at least for the time being. Last week, the Court of Appeal in Ontario rejected the province’s attempt to reopen the case against Consolidated Homes Limited. This decision has implications for the prosecution of future cases under the Endangered Species Act.

The case centered around the company’s actions in 2018, when they used heavy machinery to remove vegetation near Circle Lake, potentially damaging the habitat of Blanding’s turtles. The government argued that the wetland shores of Circle Lake were crucial for the turtles’ nesting, temperature regulation, and protection from predators.

During the trial, the company contended that there was no direct evidence that Blanding’s turtles inhabited the specific area they disturbed. They pointed out that while the broader Circle Lake region was known to be a potential habitat for the turtles, there was no official warning specific to the area in question.

To prove the habitat status under the Endangered Species Act, the government presented testimony from a biologist and images of Blanding’s turtles at Circle Lake from 2007, 2017, and 2022. However, the company argued that this evidence did not directly link the turtles to the disturbed area at the time of the offense.

The expert testimony relied on a Ministry of Natural Resources document describing the turtles’ habitat, which the company disputed as not legally binding. The Court of Appeal eventually sided with the company, questioning the weight of the evidence given that sightings occurred before and after the alleged offense, not at the exact location of the construction work.

Despite the province’s attempt to appeal, a third judge declined to reopen the case, stating that it did not hold wider public interest. This decision raised concerns among environmental groups and legal experts about the high standard of evidence required to prosecute such cases.

Katie Krelove, an advocate for the Wilderness Committee, highlighted the challenge of gathering direct evidence of endangered species presence. She emphasized the disconnect between scientific evidence and legal standards, noting that the ruling could set a precedent for future habitat protection cases.

In response to the Court of Appeal’s decision, the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks is reviewing potential impacts. The outcome of this case underscores the importance of balancing environmental conservation with legal requirements in protecting endangered species habitats.