This is actually quite astounding as a decision. A valve malfunction causes an oil spill and the judge rules it wasn’t a deliberate spill so they aren’t guilty under the law.
You can almost can consider it as a lack of maintenance has been validated as a methodology. SMH
That Captain and Chief Engineer are laughing their butts off in relief and disbelief right now.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/ ... ironmental

To be honest, it's like saying not mentally fit to stand trial is not a valid thing.
It is ridiculously abused, but it as a concept is valid.

Maybe this is one of those things that needs to have the hammer down on it, just to prevent abuse.
I can see it now. Chiefs complaining about spares/technicians needing to come onboard, Superintendant saying "just send it" in any condition of the vessel, and then the Chief gets strangled if stuff like this happens. The other chance is that Chiefs never get scared enough to say "this is unseaworthy, fire me or fix it but screws ren't turning"

There are a lot of details missing, I can see the intentional and unintentional debate for sure, and can certainly be argued - and certainly highlights a need for more precise laws. I am positive that the ship's crew had no slight intention to have an oil spill - I know, its a Greek ship..., regardless, its interesting to see the wranglings amidst the political and popular commentary. But on the same token, a ship owner has to be held accountable for providing proper equipment, competent crew, training and supervision to its workings.

Its all really a house of cards; I believe that's why people, in general, have little faith in the established processes and those that continue to perpetuate them. Makes you wonder where the Crown is getting its counsel on technical matters, probably some well placed MBA and hyper educated person, who probably have never seen a ship either that, or the laws are certainly not world class as the governments claims them to be.

I think it is to force the government into strengthening laws, but it is appalling.
If maintenance is such that a ship has a spill of fuel, should we have a legal mind say, but it wasn't intentional?
Well no. I never went on watch saying, well today I think I'll have a spill out on deck and into the Arctic Ocean so I can charged and lose my livelihood.
I went on watch with the mind set that I better not have a spill and do everything in my power to avoid it, malfunctioning equipment or not.
I seriously think that anywhere but BC this would never happen. It is beyond belief that a company is not being held responsible for their equipment.

Vessel Pollution and Dangerous Chemicals Regulations (SOR/2012-69)

Exceptions to prohibited discharges
5 For the purposes of section 187 of the Act and sections 7, 29, 67, 82, 95, 100 and 126, substances may be discharged, and for the purposes of subsection 109(1) and section 110.6, substances may be emitted, if

(c) the discharge is a minimal and unavoidable leakage of oil that occurs as a result of the operation of an underwater machinery component;

This covers a leaky stern tube seal.