After inspections of a water treatment plant, the plant was issued an enforcement order based on various violations of its approval. The person who operated the plant and his company were charged with six violations of the EPEA related failing to comply with that order. The court dismissed the charges against the company, but convicted the operator and rejected his due diligence defence. Responsibility for non-compliance with the order rested solely on the operator. He wasn’t entitled to “pick and choose” which specific conditions of the enforcement order he would abide by but was expected take all reasonable measures to ensure compliance with all of its provisions, concluded the court [R. v. Dockman and Associates Ltd.,  ABPC 112 (CanLII), May 10, 2017].