C-61.01 - Natural Heritage Conservation Act

Full text
80. (Replaced).
2002, c. 74, s. 80; 2021, c. 1, ss. 43 and 44; 2022, c. 8, s. 24.
80. In determining the penalty, the judge may take into account aggravating factors such as
(1)  the seriousness of the harm or damage, or of the risk of harm or damage, to biological diversity, including to human beings;
(2)  the particular nature of the area or natural setting affected, for example, whether the feature affected is unique, rare, significant or vulnerable;
(3)  the intentional, negligent or reckless nature of the offence;
(4)  the foreseeable character of the offence or the failure to follow recommendations or warnings to prevent it;
(5)  the cost to society of repairing the harm or damage;
(6)  the dangerous nature of the substances resulting in the offence;
(7)  the behaviour of the offender after committing the offence, in particular whether the offender attempted to cover up the offence or omitted to take rapid measures to prevent or limit the consequences or remedy the situation;
(8)  the increase in revenues or decrease in expenses that the offender obtained, or intended to obtain, by committing the offence or by omitting to take measures to prevent it; and
(9)  the failure to take reasonable measures to prevent the commission of the offence or limit its effects despite the offender’s financial ability to do so, given such considerations as the size of the offender’s undertaking or the offender’s assets, turnover or revenues.
A judge who, despite the presence of an aggravating factor, decides to impose the minimum fine must give reasons for the decision.
2002, c. 74, s. 80; 2021, c. 1, ss. 43 and 44.
80. (Amendment integrated into c. D-13.1, s. 21).
2002, c. 74, s. 80.