$90K in fines for environmental offences upheld for Williams Lake man

$90K in fines for environmental offences upheld for Williams Lake man Published 3:18 pm Monday, July 13, 2026 An appeal by a heavy equipment contractor to reduce $90,000 in fines for environmental offences west of Williams Lake has been dismissed.

$90K in fines for environmental offences upheld for Williams Lake man Published 3:18 pm Monday, July 13, 2026 An appeal by a heavy equipment contractor to reduce $90,000 in fines for environmental offences west of Williams Lake has been dismissed. In Williams Lake Supreme Court on Tuesday, July 7, Judge Edlyn Laurie dismissed Bryce Bayliff’s appeal seeking a reduction in fines as Bayliff alleged he is unable to pay them due to financial and health circumstances.

In addition, the Crown’s request to increase the fines by $63,930 – the amount they said Bayliff benefited from the offences – was also dismissed. Bayliff, according to a Supreme Court judgment posted July 8, previously pleaded guilty to offences under the Fisheries Act and Forest Range and Practices Act in provincial court, and was sentenced to pay $90,000 in fines, within six years. He argued the total fine should be reduced to less than $40,000.

In Laurie’s reasons for judgement it was noted that Bayliff conceived a project in 2019 that involved clearing trees and other wild vegetation to extend hayable land within two district lots, including along the Klinaklini River, located approximately 25 kilometres west of Williams Lake. Bayliff convinced the landowner to agree to the project. In 2019 and 2020, he cleared over 31 acres of vegetation within riparian habitat, stacked trees within riparian habitat areas and in the river, and infilled portions of side-channel fish habitat with trees and portions of the river with rocks.

In addition, Bayliff damaged an additional 42.62 acres of Crown land by clearing Crown timber and excavating a hill and peatlands. These works harmed fish habitat contrary to the Fisheries Act and violated the Forest Range and Practices Act, Laurie noted, with Bayliff accruing monetary benefit from the offences. Before he was sentenced in May 2024, Bayliff self-testified that, in conducting the works, he was motivated in part by mitigating the erosion on the river banks caused by wildfires in 2017 that burned most, if not all, the trees and vegetation in the district lots and adjacent Crown lands.

He also testified that the section was not a fish habitat prior to carrying out his work, and was not connected to the main stem of the river. Bayliff stated he was paid by the hour and not by the acre as alleged by the Crown, and was unable to pay the $200,000 in fines sought by the Crown, as his company made little to no profit in 2019 and 2020, and he had personal financial obligations and significant health problems. An agreed statement of facts indicated the estimated footprint of the unlawful works resulting in riparian area destruction, instream habitat destruction and instream habitat alteration is 126,680 square metres.

At the May 28, 2024, sentencing, the judge noted Bayliff had a history with conservation officers and had been given education letters and directions as far back as 2016. He also had a prior record and prior dealings with Fisheries. The sentencing judge, however, was unclear about the harm to fish habitat, as there was no evidence of “before-and-after numbers” for fish in the area, and they found that the damage caused by wildfires almost certainly harmed fish habitat.

They were not satisfied that Bayliff could pay fines amounting to $200,000, even with time to pay and imposed a total fine of $90,000 payable in six years. In dismissing Bayliff’s appeal, Laurie found the sentencing judge did not err and Bayliff did not demonstrate a basis for appellate intervention.