A trial judge may impose a sentence which reflects both the general and specific aspects of the elements of deterrence. Further, Section 79.2 of the Fisheries Act provides for the imposition by the court, of any of a number of orders related to remediation, advertising of facts of the offence, performance of community services, posting of bonds etc. Depending on the particular circumstances of a case, prosecuting counsel may be instructed to make representation to the court for maximum deterrent effect. Some environmental offences result from a momentary lapse of attention, poor design or maintenance, or a failure of management to acquaint themselves or staff with new or amended statutes. Other offences are the result of deliberate actions to delay installation of pollution abatement equipment, to confound efforts by staff and consultants to attempt to meet compliance deadlines, or to mislead government officials concerning their commitment to and progress toward timely compliance.
Every prosecution is unique.
Therefore there are often no direct precedents in Canadian experience. Nevertheless, there may have been other prosecutions under CEPA or the Fisheries Act for similar offences. As an example, when considering potential sentence for the prosecution of Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Limited, the case considered to be most relevant was that of R. v. Tioxide in which the defendant was charged for the continuous discharge of effluent resulting from the manufacture of paint pigments into the St. Lawrence River. In this case, federal and provincial government officials had attempted for some time to motivate the company to install effluent treatment facilities without success. The company and its Directors were charged with 39 counts of violations of the Fisheries Act.