YouTube M Gmail CNC College of New Cal... N Netflix G Google 03 Mail - kaurp57@cn. Launch Meeting - Z. Question 1 of 1 Chapter 14 Shared Writing: R. v. Gwail Wood Products Ltd., et al 2017 There is a minimum of 140 characters required to post and earn points. If submitted, your response can be viewed by your classmates and instructor, and you can participate in the class discussion. This exercise is based on End-of-Chapter case "R. v. Gwaii Wood Products Lid., et al 2017 BCPC 6". The defendants, including the property owner Gwai and its logging and road construction contractors Howe Sound and Crosby Contracting, made gross revenues of over $2,000,000 as the result of logging in the Haida Gwaii islands, BC, but caused considerable damage to the fish habitat. The corporations did not respond to Fisheries Officers when told that logging the banks of riparian areas and constructing roads on a tributary and in wetland areas was disrupting fish habitats, nor did they show remorse when criminally charged. The court pointed out that environmental protection legislation is grounded on social welfare concerns of the greater Canadian community, and that a corporate accused can avoid liability if it can show it has taken all reasonable care. Under the Fisheries Act, the maximum fine is $300,000 per offence. In this case, there were 20 offences which could therefore, have resulted in up to $6 million in fines. The property can also be seized under the Fisheries Act. What is an appropriate fine? What should be done with the fines? Should Gwail have to give the property to a conservation entity? What could the defendants have done differently to avoid liability? Show all