Law360 Canada ( April 27, 2026, 9:38 AM EDT) -- Appeal by Mossman from an order that dismissed his conviction appeal, allowed the Crown’s appeal from his acquittals, and remitted several counts for retrial. The appeal concerned whether secondary liability under ss. 121(1) of the Environmental Management Act and 78.2 of the Fisheries Act required the Crown to prove that Mossman, a director, officer, and mine manager of Banks Island Gold Ltd. (BIG), knew of the circumstances surrounding BIG’s commission of various environmental offences. The Crown charged Mossman and a colleague with Failure to Report Offences, Discharge Offences, and Exceedance Offences, alleging both principal and secondary liability. At trial, the trial judge acquitted Mossman of the Failure to Report and Discharge Offences due to doubts about his knowledge and involvement but convicted him on the Exceedance Offences based on his responsibility for ensuring environmental monitoring and compliance. On his summary conviction appeal, the judge held that the trial judge erred by requiring proof of Mossman’s knowledge of the breaches for secondary liability and by failing to assess whether, given his responsibilities and control, he could be liable by act or omission. The judge therefore upheld the convictions on the Exceedance Offences and remitted the remaining counts. Before the Court of Appeal, Mossman argued that acquiescence required subjective knowledge, that secondary liability must differ from primary strict liability offences, and that fairness required the Crown to prove he knew of the surrounding circumstances that constituted BIG’s actus reus. The Crown maintained that regulatory offences were presumptively strict liability offences and that neither statute displaced that presumption....