An Abbotsford company has won its appeal of a decision in which they were fined $8,900 after they used laundry detergent to clean roof moss, resulting in runoff building up in Clayburn Creek.
The Environmental Appeal Board ruling on Thursday (Aug. 1) ruled in favour of the company, MKY Holdings, saying they should not have been issued the fine.
The incident in question took place in April 2021 at the Sage townhouse complex on Blauson Boulevard.
The appeal board documents indicate that the company used approximately 290 kilometres of granular detergent – previously identified as Tide – to kill the root system of the moss.
A heavy rainfall followed, after which foam was seen in the nearby fish-bearing Clayburn Creek. The property’s perimeter drain system led directly to the creek, the appeal documents state.
The documents indicate that the company tried to mitigate the release of the detergent residue by hiring a septic tank service to hydro vacuum the residue from the property’s catch basins and storm sewer system.
A report from measurements taken in May 2021 showed no “persistent, long-term impact” to the creek.
The Ministry of Environment and Climate Change investigated the matter and concluded that MKY Holdings had contravened the Integrated Pest Management Act (IPMA) by using an “unregistered pesticide.”
But the Environmental Appeal Board ruled that the laundry detergent does not qualify as a pesticide under the IPMA or the Pest Control Products Act.
David Bird, chair of the appeal board panel, said although moss can be classified as a pest, there was insufficient evidence to support the argument that laundry detergent is represented or sold for the purpose of “preventing, destroying, repelling or mitigating a pest.”
“It is common knowledge that detergent is manufactured for the purpose of laundering textiles, as it has been marketed to the public for this purpose,” he said.
Bird said there was also insufficient evidence to conclude that the detergent “has properties expected to cause unreasonable harm to human health or the environment such that it should fall into the definition of a pest control product.”
Bird said the environment ministry could have considered other regulatory frameworks – such as the Environment Management Act or the Water Sustainability Act – when considering penalties for the potential impacts of the detergent in a fish-bearing creek.
However, he said the appeal was of a decision made under the IMPA, and that was all he could consider when assessing if MKY Holdings contravened the law.
Bird concluded that the environment ministry had “no jurisdiction” to issue the administrative penalty under the IPMA.
RELATED: Company fined $8,900 for detergent mistake that made mess of Abbotsford waterway
