## Facts

- A 1992 fire in the Stone Creek area of British Columbia burned about 1,491 hectares of forest, including tenure areas and environmentally sensitive zones where logging was restricted or prohibited.
- The fire began from Canadian Forest Products Ltd.’s controlled burning of logging debris; courts found the company negligent.
- The Province conducted suppression and rehabilitation efforts; some damaged timber was salvage-logged at reduced value, and other timber in sensitive areas was left for ecological reasons.
- The Province sought damages for: (1) suppression and rehabilitation costs; (2) lost stumpage revenue from harvestable timber; and (3) loss of non-harvestable/protected timber, including an added “environmental value” component and broader public environmental loss.
- The trial court found contributory negligence by the Province in firefighting and apportioned liability 50/50; it awarded suppression and rehabilitation costs but rejected stumpage loss and the protected-trees/environmental premium claims.
- The Court of Appeal revised apportionment to 70% Canfor / 30% Province and adjusted aspects of damages; both sides appealed.

## Issues

1. How should damages for loss of “harvestable” Crown timber be valued given the Province’s stumpage and forest-tenure pricing regime, including Comparative Value Pricing (CVP)?
2. Whether the Province could recover for loss of non-harvestable/protected trees, including an additional “environmental premium.”
3. Whether Canadian common law recognizes a parens patriae-type claim permitting the Province to recover damages for public environmental loss beyond its proprietary interests.
4. Whether suppression and restoration expenditures were recoverable, and how contributory negligence affected recovery.
5. Whether the Court of Appeal’s apportionment of fault should stand.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and cross-appeal in part.
- Suppression and restoration/rehabilitation costs were recoverable in tort, subject to contributory negligence apportionment.
- Damages for harvestable timber were available as the Crown’s economic loss as landowner, but valuation had to reflect the Province’s actual tenure and pricing framework; the Crown was not automatically entitled to full “auction” value.
- The claimed environmental premium for non-harvestable/protected trees was not awarded on the record.
- The Court did not recognize, on these facts, a general free-standing parens patriae claim for broad public environmental damages; the possibility was left open for future cases.
- The 70% (Canfor) / 30% (Province) apportionment was largely maintained.

## Legal Principles

- When suing for damage to its proprietary interests in public lands and resources, the Crown generally proceeds as an ordinary landowner and may recover conventional tort damages for physical injury to property.
- Reasonable fire-suppression and restoration expenditures caused by a defendant’s negligence are recoverable, but recovery is reduced by the plaintiff’s contributory fault.
- Valuation of lost harvestable timber must reflect the plaintiff’s real economic position; where a public owner’s return is mediated by a statutory/regulatory pricing and tenure system, that regime is relevant to quantification and may prevent overcompensation.
- Environmental losses can, in principle, be compensable in tort, including non-market harms, but a claimant must prove a legally cognizable head of loss and provide a reliable, objective method of quantification; unsupported “premiums” are insufficient.
- A broad claim to recover damages for diffuse public environmental harm (as distinct from proprietary loss) was not established on the facts; recognition of such claims may require clearer doctrinal development or legislative direction.

## Conclusion

The Court confirmed the Crown’s ability to recover ordinary tort damages for harm to public lands, including suppression and restoration costs and properly valued harvestable-timber losses, while rejecting an unsupported environmental premium for protected timber and declining to award broad public environmental damages under a general parens patriae theory on the record presented.


British Columbia v. Canadian Forest Prods. Ltd., [2004] 2 S.C.R. 74 (Can.)