MV Marathassa acquitted of all charges in 2015 English Bay oil spill

A judge has cleared the MV Marathassa of all charges related to a 2015 fuel spill in English Bay.

The spill, which took place on April 8, 2015, leaked more than 2,700 litres of fuel oil into Burrard Inlet.

READ MORE: Three years after English Bay fuel spill, Vancouver says it’s seen no compensation

The ship was charged with discharging a pollutant into the waters and failing to implement its pollution emergency plan.

But a judge found the defects that caused the spill were not foreseeable to the owner or crew of the Marathassa.

WATCH: Coverage of the 2015 English Bay oil spill

English Bay oil spill review

02:22

English Bay oil spill review

06:28

Vancouver Aquarium study effects of English Bay oil spill

02:18

Coast guard claims 90% of 2700 litres of fuel cleaned up

01:40

MV Marathassa being towed to dock for further testing

08:55

English Bay fuel spill questions remain

02:05

Wildlife affected by English Bay oil spill

02:24

English Bay oil spill

Justice Kathryn Denhoff ruled the Marathassa did its due diligence and the Crown was unable to prove it failed to comply with “requirements to assist with containment of the oil spill.”

The judge also found the ship did implement its pollution emergency plan “by taking samples of the fuel oil in the water and by assisting with containment.”

In a statement issued Friday Evening, the City of Vancouver said it still had more than half a million dollars in claims for costs incurred as a result of the spill, which it would continue to pursue.

“The city is disappointed to learn that the charged related to this oil spill have been dismissed,” said the statement.

“The city’s claim for compensation is under the Marine Liability Act which imposes a different standard of liability tan the quasi-criminal charges brought under different statutes that were the subject matter of [Thursday’s] court decision. Accordingly, the city does not anticipate that the court’s decision will have any impact on its cost recovery claims.”

R v MV Marathassa – Reasons… by on Scribd