Question

Pollute-it, an Ontario corporation, has been charged under environmental laws because the corporation discharged industrial waste into a nearby stream. Fred Rodrigues, a director of Pollute-it, has also been charged. Fred may successfully defend the charge by using the following defence:

1. he "tried" to ensure the company did not pollute.
2. he exercised care and diligence.
3. he acquiesced in the matter but did not encourage the pollution.
4. he followed the same techniques as the company upstream did.
5. ultimately protecting the environment was not in the best interest of the corporation with respect to its profitability.

Answer 1

In the provided case, Pollute It was charged under environmental law for discharging industrial waste. The director of the corporation, Fred, was also charged along with the corporation. He can defend himself by proving that he exercised care and diligence while dealing with industrial waste. It is the only defense he has to save himself. Once he proves that he exercised care and diligence, it would fall into an accidental damage category and he would be discharged. Therefore, the correct option is (B). All other options are wrong as none of them can be used as a defence.