Advertisement

Crown changes charges in Harrietsfield pollution case, delays prosecution until September

RDM Recycling's activities are linked to contaminated ground water in Harrietsfield. Companies involved with the site have not followed government clean up orders. Marieke Walsh / Global News

The prosecution of the Harrietsfield contamination case has been put on hold until next month and one of the charges has been dropped.

Chris Hansen, spokesperson for the Public Prosecution Service, confirmed to Global News that the case had been put over to Sept. 13 in Halifax Provincial Court for plea.

The case was originally set to go before the court on Monday.

In an email Monday, Hansen said the charges had been consolidated into “two Informations with one count each” both of which fall under failure to comply with a ministerial order.

The charge of releasing substances causing an adverse effect has been dropped from the case.

Breaking news from Canada and around the world sent to your email, as it happens.

READ MORE: Nova Scotia takes over prosecution of Harrietsfield pollution case

In April, Marlene Brown, a resident of Harrietsfield filed papers to lay charges against two numbered companies for “releasing substances causing an adverse effect into the environment” and for failing to comply with two ministerial cleanup orders.

Story continues below advertisement

Last month, Global News learned the province’s Public Prosecution would take over the case.

The provincial government says the defunct RDM Recycling site is leaching contaminants into the groundwater which is reaching the wells of nearby homes.

WATCH: After years of living with unsafe drinking water, Harrietsfield residents ‘forced’ to lay charges

Click to play video: 'After years of living with unsafe drinking water, Harrietsfield residents ‘forced’ to lay charges'
After years of living with unsafe drinking water, Harrietsfield residents ‘forced’ to lay charges

In February, Environment Minister Margaret Miller issued cleanup orders to the two numbered companies that operated the site between 2002 and 2013.

The orders replaced another one issued in 2010.

According to Kaitlyn Mitchell, a lawyer with Ecojustice, the companies have never fully complied with any of the orders.

With files from Marieke Walsh, Global News

Advertisement

Sponsored content

AdChoices