1. Stan Koebels Severance Package
No Record of poor performance, or performance review
Cheaper to pay severance than prolong the court battle
Vacation pay owed of $34, and approximately one years pay in exchange for resignation
Buyout approximately $90, range
The vast majority of the community is outraged by the settlement

2. Criminal Proceedings The Investigation OPP criminal investigation
Charges laid after the public inquiry
OPP investigation completely separate from inquiry proceedings
OPP investigation began shortly after the outbreak
Interviews with the public
Large OPP trailer / flushing made more difficult due to seizure distribution mapping

3. Charges Against the Koebels
Public Endangerment
Fraud
Breach of Trust
Prosecution and Defense very different views

4. Public Endangerment
Failure to discharge a legal duty which results in the lives, safety or health of the public being endangered
Disinfection, running well seven without chlorination for 12 days
Failure to discharge legal duty to monitor samples and test the water

5. Public Endangerment
Deliberate practice for decades not sampling, mislabelling and falsifying residuals
Failure to maintain accurate records and then to provide inaccurate records to authorities
Failure to report un-chlorinated water entering the distribution system

6. Common Nuisance
Much more serious offence than the average person might think
Endangering lives health and safety of the public
Cause injury to any person
If guilty sentence of not more than two years
Small annoying problem/ not something most people would link to death

7. Public Reaction to Charges
Wide range of responses from community
Some believed the brothers were uneducated in water management and meant no harm
They were let down by those in a supervisory capacity
Others believed years of fraudulent practices and misleading investigators added to levels of illness and death

8. Charges... PUC Municipal Council Mayors Private Lab Health Unit
Spills Action
MOE

9. Why Weren’t Others Charged
Public wondered why other individuals involved were not charged
Citizens wondered about political and legal considerations
PUC commission lacked water education and were mislead by Stan
Private Lab, lack of compulsory notification regulations
Private Lab, no mandatory enforcement of certification or accreditation

10. Why Weren’t Others Charged
Municipal council relied on PUC commission to deal with poor practices
MOE voluntary compliance, lack of funding, understaffing, Poor staff education
Health Unit, no control over management of water pre-tap, lack of test results, misled by Stan

11. Factors in Sentencing
Judges explanation took over two hours to present
63 impact statements, with a number read by family members to the court
Loss, pain and suffering, stress, medical costs
In some cases moving to new communities due to stress or medical treatment
Lives that will never be restored
Loss of bowel function, Failed attempts to return to work

12. Factors in Sentencing Cooperation of the Koebels
Judge noted the emotional toll on the Koebels and their families, including financial stress and threats
Willingness to cooperate with the inquiry
Both willing to plead guilty saving the court money and less media attention for traumatized victims

13. Factors in Sentencing Exposure to harm versus actual injury
Sentenced for the offence of Public Nuisance, endangering by creating a risk of harm to the public
Not charged with an offence which relates to direct harm or death to the victim
Exposure to harm or risk does not equal actual injury or damage
Did not actually commit murder or attack any one

14. Factors in Sentencing Denunciation of conduct
Need to denounce, conduct as a message to others in positions of authority and trust
Deterrence message directed to those well beyond water operations
Consideration of those who had the opportunity to act but did not

15. Factors in Sentencing Gravity of criminal conduct
Many causes of the Water Tragedy that were unrelated to criminal conduct
Deaths and injuries can not be linked directly but illustrate the extent to which the public was impacted by their actions
Water inquiry not relied on for facts upon which sentences were imposed
Sentences based on their knowledge and intentions in May 2000

16. Factors in Sentencing Bad practices, criminal consequences
Long track record of non-compliance with duties imposed on him
Failed to ensure that employees understood the basic precautions necessary to protect the water supply
Both Koebels knew bacteria in water could have bad consequences
Moral culpability with knowledge of contaminated water and increasing illness in the community
Stan knew bacteria was bad in water, even if he didn’t know e-coli could cause illness and death

17. Factors in Sentencing
When crisis was in full force both men failed in there obligation to provide accurate information needed to determine the cause of the outbreak
Even though they were unqualified they were still capable of providing complete answers and accurate information
Neither man did so when it was most crucial

18. The Defence Characterized Koebels as upstanding civic minded men
They meant no harm
Spared the victims a lengthy trial
They were the scapegoats of the crisis as MOE and others didn’t do their jobs
Asked for conditional discharges with no criminal records

19. The Prosecution
Sentences should send a clear and sharp message to those employed in occupations as guardians of public safety
Their is a real risk that you may be sent to jail for failing to carry out prescribed duties

20. Frank Koebels Sentence
Conditional sentence, six months house arrest
Followed by three months of night curfew
200 hrs of community service
Mislabelling samples
Helping with cover up
However not responsible for delay of boil water advisory
Did not receive training or information that his brother had

21. Stan Koebels Sentence One year prison sentence
Judge rejected conditional sentence for parole
Stan put health and lives at risk
When crisis hit he did not provide complete information
He contributed to the delay of the boil water advisory, causing additional illness
Tried to cover up wrong doing with inaccurate documentation

23. Drinking Water Convictions In Canada
Municipality of West Elgin
Three certified operators involved in alteration of records
Log books falsified
Failure to report dangerously low chlorine residuals

24. Drinking Water Convictions In Canada
Lead operator sentenced to 30 days jail time
Operators license surrendered
$15,000
Municipality fined $129,000
Two other operators involved fined $6,000 and $4,500 respectively, these operators were then transferred to other departments
Cost of Municipal fines totalled $22.63 per resident in the municipality

25. MOE Investigation
MOE investigation took six years to discover fraudulent practices
MOE was being provided with false records when chlorine residuals dropped
No lab results indicating contaminated water during this period
2010 Annual inspection Log Books appeared to be altered

26. No Footprints in the Snow
Mid sized community
Manager suspects operator is not recording actual chlorine residuals
On one occasion operator claims to have attended well site to acquire samples, however no footprints were evident in the snow fall from the previous day
Manager believes he can not trust the operator with this extremely important duty
Employee is reassigned to non water related duties
Were the managers actions acceptable / knowledge, intention, removing threat to water

27. 2014-15 Ontario Chief Drinking Water Inspectors Report
Vast majority of systems operators doing an excellent job
However 17 cases with convictions, total of 20 water systems, $161,000 in fines
Non-municipal year round residential systems, apartments on wells, resorts, campgrounds
Operators altering chlorine residuals and fines levied, failures in honesty and practice

28. Saskatchewan 2003
In 2004 former water operator charged with producing false information in waterworks operating records
Investigation began after complaints by village officials were received by Saskatchewan environment enforcement staff
It is believed that water quality was not affected
Operator was fired

29. Fisheries Act
Control waste discharges from industries and municipalities, preventing the deposit of harmful substances into water frequented by fish
Operators should be aware of both provincial and federal regulations and lists of microbial, chemical, physical and radiological parameters
Federal regulations directly applicable to First Nations Lands and Communities
Tap water on trial convictions in Ontario

30. Federal Fisheries Act Conviction
1999, City of Hamilton, Ontario, charged for allowing PCBs and toxic ammonia to enter a creek, leaking from a landfill
City ordered to take measures to eliminate the problem
City then fined $450,000 largest financial penalty in Canadian history
Costly fisheries act convictions in Alberta to both municipalities and corporations

31. Susan McRory – Prosecution Myths
Municipalities don’t understand that criminal law applies to them
Municipalities like many other corporations don’t understand that criminal responsibility extends beyond the person who did the dirty deed
Municipalities think that they can’t be charged
Municipalities think that they won’t be charged

32. Municipal Councils, Mayors, CAOs Are Not Immune From Prosecution
Not financially responsible for acts taken in good faith under civil law
Criminal Law punishment used to deter future criminal actions
Municipalities can not shift risk to others

33. Municipalities Think They Can’t Be Charged
Person committing the offence will be charged?
Charges can extend beyond the employee that made the mistake
Municipalities obligated to create a system to supervise the employee
Create a system to ensure that serious mistakes are not made
Training, performance reviews, audits

34. Municipalities Think They Won’t Be Charged
Why would the province charge a Municipality?
Municipalities can be and are charged
Would this mean taking money from a Municipalities funds and simply transferring them to the province?
Creative sentencing, often utilized, municipality may have to engage in an undertaking to fund an environmental project , or possibly share their situation with other municipalities to prevent future violations