B.C. court rules forestry company must pay $343,000 cost of 2016 wildfire suppression

  • 📰 CHEK_News
  • ⏱ Reading Time:
  • 21 sec. here
  • 2 min. at publisher
  • 📊 Quality Score:
  • News: 12%
  • Publisher: 55%

ایران اخبار اخبار

ایران آخرین اخبار,ایران سرفصلها

A B.C. judge has upheld more than $343,000 in cost-recovery fines that were handed to a forestry company for starting a wildfire in 2016.

Softwood lumber is pictured at Tolko Industries in Heffley Creek, B.C., Sunday, April, 1, 2018.

The court heard that four so-called holdover fires were reported by Tolko to the BC Wildfire Service for starting active fires in the spring of 2016. However, Supreme Court Justice Michael Brundrett says in his decision that the commission made a mistake when it interpreted “fire” to mean “wildfire,” separating the intentional act of starting the burn pile from the wildfire that resulted from it.

 

از نظر شما متشکرم. نظر شما پس از بررسی منتشر خواهد شد.
این خبر را خلاصه کرده ایم تا بتوانید سریع آن را بخوانید. اگر به خبر علاقه مند هستید، می توانید متن کامل را اینجا بخوانید. ادامه مطلب:

 /  🏆 59. in İR

ایران آخرین اخبار, ایران سرفصلها

Similar News:همچنین می توانید اخبار مشابهی را که از منابع خبری دیگر جمع آوری کرده ایم، بخوانید.

B.C. court rules forestry company must pay $343,000 cost of 2016 wildfire suppressionVANCOUVER — A British Columbia Supreme Court judge has upheld more than $343,000 in cost-recovery fines that were handed to a forestry company for starting a wildfire in 2016. A decision posted Monday says the wildfire near Nazko, in central B.C.
منبع: timescolonist - 🏆 15. / 75 ادامه مطلب »

B.C. court rules forestry company must pay $343,000 cost of fighting 2016 wildfireA B.C. Supreme Court judge has upheld more than $343,000 in cost\u002Drecovery fines that were handed to a forestry company for starting a wildfire in 2016.
منبع: VancouverSun - 🏆 49. / 61 ادامه مطلب »

B.C. court rules forestry company must pay $343,000 cost of 2016 wildfire suppressionSupreme Court Justice Michael Brundrett says in his decision that the Forest Appeals Commission made a mistake when it interpreted ‘fire’ to mean ‘wildfire,’ separating the intentional act of starting the burn pile from the wildfire that followed
منبع: globeandmail - 🏆 5. / 92 ادامه مطلب »