How a Clearwater logging company mostly talked its way out of a $250,000 fine

A BC logging company, that logged an area weeks after its permit expired, has largely managed to talk its way out of a $250,000 fine issued by the Ministry of Forests.

According to an Oct. 20 BC Forest Appeals Commission decision, Clearwater company Wadlegger Logging and Construction was issued the fine after the company logged eight hectares after its licence ran out.

The decision said company owners Joseph and Hans Wadlegger had a four-year cutting licence to log an area near Clearwater, but continued cutting trees down in the weeks after the licence expired.

The licence expired in December 20210, and a month later, Ministry of Forests staff arrived at the site and found the area had been logged.

The brothers testified they weren’t aware the permit had expired.

Nevertheless, the Ministry issued a $250,000 fine, saying the area was logged five weeks after the permit expired.

The company appealed, arguing that there was no economic benefit for them, and they had fully cooperated with the investigation.

They said the COVID-19 pandemic had put an end to daily in-person meetings and internal communications had suffered. 

The company said there was no environmental harm done or public safety issues, stumpage was paid for all the timber, and they didn’t profit from their mistake.

However, the Ministry disagreed, arguing that cutting down eight hectares of forest over five weeks was not a “trifling” matter and was a significant and serious offence.

The Ministry added that it was also dealing with pandemic restrictions, and accused the company of cutting the trees down deliberately, although later changed its tune, saying it was “highly negligent” but not deliberate.

While the Ministry of Forests called the offence serious, the Appeal Board didn’t agree.

“I recognize that eight hectares and at least 2,000 cubic metres is not an insignificant amount. However, given that the unauthorized harvest occurred wholly within the area previously permitted for harvest… and that the evidence before me does not indicate any damage or impact to environmental values, I find the magnitude of the contravention to be low,” the Forest Appeals Commission said in the decision.

Wadlegger wanted the penalty reduced to $1,000, but the Appeal Commission wouldn’t go that low.

“A penalty serves this purpose by encouraging compliance with the regulations and maintaining the public and First Nations’ confidence in the regulatory framework,” the Commission said.

Ultimately, it dropped the fine from $250,000 to $16,000.