When you’re starting to drown between employee concerns, payroll duties and helping your CEO -- HR Insider is there to help get the logistical work out of the way.
Need a policy because of a recent regulatory change? We’ve got it for you. Need some quick training on a specific HR topic? We’ve got it for you. HR Insider provides the resources you need to craft, implement and monitor policies with confidence. Our team of experts (which includes lawyers, analysts and HR professionals) keep track of complex legislation, pending changes, new interpretations and evolving case law to provide you with the policies and procedures to keep you ahead of problems. FIND OUT MORE...
Victory In $130 Million Wildfire Act Case

McCarthy Tétrault recently achieved a complete victory on behalf of Blue Goose Cattle Company Ltd. and one of its directors in a $130 million B.C. Wildfire Act cost-recovery case. The decision vindicates the respondents and applies multiple Wildfire Act defences, including due diligence and lack of causation. As British Columbia brings Wildfire Act claims with increasing frequency, the case offers useful guidance to businesses that operate in areas prone to wildfires.

Background

The B.C. Wildfire Act and Wildfire Regulation create a cost recovery scheme that permits British Columbia to recover certain costs if a person contravenes the Act or the Regulation in a way that results in a wildfire, subject to various defences.

In early 2024, British Columbia brought a $130 million claim against Blue Goose and one of its directors in relation to a wildfire near Lillooet, B.C. British Columbia alleged that the respondents contravened the Regulation and caused the fire by not doing enough to prevent trees from touching a power line. The respondents had only a few months to prepare a defence given the Act's pending three-year limitation period.

Decision

McCarthy Tétrault achieved a complete victory on behalf of the respondents.

The decision-maker determined that the respondents had not contravened the Regulation because they had taken reasonable steps to manage vegetation, including by engaging service providers to assess and manage vegetation as necessary. The decision-maker found that these reasonable steps triggered the due diligence defence under s. 29 of the Act.

The decision-maker also determined that British Columbia had not meet its burden to prove that the respondents caused the fire. The decision-maker rejected British Columbia's theory of causation based on cross-examination of British Columbia's expert, and the respondents' expert evidence that the power line presented only a negligible risk of causing a fire.

The decision-maker dismissed the case completely and made no order against the respondents.

To view the original article click here

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Authors: Canadian ERA Perspectives, Nicholas Hughes, Patrick Williams, Connor Bildfell

McCarthy Tétrault LLP