Director and Officer Liability for Environmental Offences

Explore other chapters in the Mining Disputes Insights Series 2026.

Key takeaways

• Directors, officers, and agents can be criminally liable for environmental offences committed by their corporations under “secondary liability” provisions — even without knowledge of the underlying offence.
• Courts will focus on control, not awareness or intent, when assessing individual liability in regulatory regimes.
• Participation in highly regulated industries such as mining carries heightened personal legal risk, making due diligence and active oversight critical safeguards.

Why this matters

The British Columbia Court of Appeal’s decision confirms that directors and officers can face personal criminal liability for environmental offences committed by their corporations — even without knowledge of the underlying conduct. For participants in highly regulated industries such as mining, the ruling reinforces that control, not awareness, is the key driver of exposure, making active oversight and due diligence essential.

Overview

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in R. v. Mossman, 2026 BCCA 75, confirming that a director, officer, or agent can be criminally responsible for their corporation’s actions under secondary liability provisions in environmental legislation — even if they lack knowledge of the circumstances surrounding a corporation’s regulatory offence. Control is what matters.

The Court of Appeal confirmed that individuals who choose to participate in regulated industries (like mining) accept heightened legal risk.

The appeal arose from a long-running prosecution involving the Yellow Giant Mine operated by Banks Island Gold Ltd. (“BIG”). Mr. Mossman was BIG’s director, president, and chief operating officer. He was also the designated mine manager responsible for day-to-day operations.

Mr. Mossman faced charges in three categories tied to BIG’s operations:

• discharging substances above permitted limits (the “Exceedance Offences”)
• failing to report spills and discharges to regulators (the “Failure to Report Offences”)
• unlawfully discharging mine waste into the environment (the “Discharge Offences”)

Mr. Mossman was charged under section 121(1) of British Columbia’s Environmental Management Act (“EMA”) and section 78.2 of the federal Fisheries Act. These “secondary liability” provisions impose personal liability on corporate actors who “authorize, permit, or acquiesce” in their corporation’s offences.

The appeal focused on a narrow but consequential legal question: must the Crown prove an individual knew the facts behind the corporation’s offence — including the conduct that constituted the offence — to secure a conviction under these provisions?

The Court of Appeal’s decision

Mr. Mossman argued that secondary liability provisions should not be interpreted so broadly that he would be held criminally responsible simply because of his position within the corporation. He argued that would be unfair given the quasi-criminal consequences under the EMA and the Fisheries Act.

In his submission, while a company may be liable without proof of intent, an individual officer should be convicted only if the Crown proves that they knew about the risky or unlawful conduct and chose not to act.

The Court of Appeal unanimously rejected those arguments and dismissed the appeal. It confirmed that, in the context of regulatory offences, the Crown is not required to prove subjective knowledge of the circumstances giving rise to the offence. Instead, the focus is on whether the individual had the authority, responsibility, or control necessary to prevent the contravention and failed to do so.

In drawing this distinction, the Court emphasized the regulatory nature of environmental offences and the Legislature’s intent to place heightened responsibility on those who manage or oversee regulated activities.

Practical implications for directors and officers

Control – not knowledge – is the trigger for liability

The Court emphasized the difference between regulatory offences and traditional criminal offences. In the regulatory context, the law places more responsibility on people who choose to run or manage regulated activities (like mining). This “licensing justification” reflects the expectation that such individuals are best positioned to prevent harm, and the law uses the risk of personal liability to encourage active oversight and compliance.

In practical terms, “control” can cover any area where a person could reasonably foresee a risk of harm and had the ability to prevent it, but failed to do so. That can be enough to impose secondary liability.

For directors of mining companies, there are a few salient reminders:

• Due diligence is essential. Because the Crown does not need to prove knowledge, directors, officers, and other corporate agents should clearly understand their roles, responsibilities and decision-making authority – and ensure those responsibilities are actively managed.
• Be cautious when expanding your role. Taking on informal or additional responsibilities outside a formal position may be viewed by a court as assuming control, along with the related legal risk.
• “Hands-off” is not a defence. Liability is not based on title alone, but remaining unaware of the risks that fall within one’s responsibilities may still expose individuals to prosecution.
• Documentation matters. Courts will focus on what you controlled and whether reasonable steps were taken to prevent harm. Active oversight and documented compliance efforts are critical risk-mitigation tools.

Conclusion

R. v. Mossman confirms that secondary liability provisions in environmental legislation are designed to reach beyond corporations and attach personal responsibility to those who control regulated activities. For directors and officers in the mining sector, the decision reinforces that due diligence and proactive oversight are not merely best practices — they are often the primary means of avoiding personal criminal exposure.

For guidance on director and officer liability, regulatory risk management, or environmental compliance strategies in the mining sector, please contact a member of our Global Metals & Mining or Environmental Law teams. 

Our Mining Disputes Insights Series highlights recent court decisions, legal developments and policy shifts that are influencing how capital is deployed, how transactions are structured, and how projects are advanced and defended when challenged. Each article offers focused insight on a specific pressure point or recent development, with an emphasis on practical consequences for mining companies, investors, and other market participants. Across the series, we explore questions that matter to both operational and deal teams.

For a closer look at developments affecting the mining sector and guidance on addressing challenges and opportunities, check out our Mining Prospects blog.