Canadian Maritime Law Update: 2013

The Canadian Maritime Law Update has appeared annually or bi-annually since 1992. This article reviews legislative and case law developments in 2011, 2012 and the first half of 2013. The defendant was charged with violating s. 118 of the CSA and pled guilty. On sentencing, the Provincial Court held...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of maritime law and commerce 2013-10, Vol.44 (4), p.501-501
Main Authors: Southcott, Richard F, Walsh, Kimberley A, Scruton, Steven A, Breneman, Ian J
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Amendments
Authorship
Certification
Conventions
Councils
Criminal pleas
Criminal sentences
Deterrence
Emission standards
Emissions control
Environmental protection
Fines & penalties
Fisheries
Fishing
Hazards
Jurisdiction
Laws
Legislation
Maritime law
Native peoples
Recreation
Regulation
Risk
Risk assessment
Safety
Shipping industry
Sulfur
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The Canadian Maritime Law Update has appeared annually or bi-annually since 1992. This article reviews legislative and case law developments in 2011, 2012 and the first half of 2013. The defendant was charged with violating s. 118 of the CSA and pled guilty. On sentencing, the Provincial Court held that denunciation and deterrence were the primary aims of sentencing under safety legislation such as the GSA. A company's safety record would be considered, but general deterrence also plays a role in sentencing, as does proportionality. The Court characterized the defendant as having taken an action notwithstanding its apprehension of the danger, but also as having miscalculated the risks. The Court assessed this flawed risk assessment as an aggravating factor. For mitigating factors, the Court noted the defendant's guilty plea, but put much more weight on the defendant's conduct after the incident. After assessing the size of the company, the potential harm, and the maximum possible sentence, the Court fined the defendant $75,000.
ISSN:0022-2410
2162-4127