A B.C. Supreme Court judge has ruled that the province failed to prove that two forest companies are liable for a 2010 wildfire southeast of Vanderhoof.

Justice Bruce Greyall determined that the fire was started by lightning and not by Barlow Lake Logging Ltd., which was a harvesting contractor of Vancouver-based forestry giant Canfor.

According to Greyall's decision, the fire lasted for several weeks, burning 6,100 hectares of Crown land. That's about 1.5 times the size of Stanley Park. 

The cost of the fire was $5.5 million. This included suppression efforts, replanting and reforestation, and lost wood taxes to the provincial treasury.

The wildfire triggered an evacuation alert for 30 homes near Greer Creek and at one point, there were 60 firefighters, six helicopters, and two air tankers fighting the blaze.

The province sued the two forest companies, alleging that they were responsible for the fire. Canfor countersued, alleging that the B.C. government "did not take sufficient action to suppress or extinguish" the wildfire.

"Canfor has not established the Province's conduct in fighting the Fire constituted a substantial departure from the basic principles of firefighting," Greyall wrote in his decision.

One-hour fire watch didn't occur 

Canfor had a licence in cutblock 85B, where the fire started. The licence included an indemnity clause, the judge noted, for any "cost, expense or loss" to the province caused by acts of omission by the licensee or its contractors.

There were several pieces of heavy equipment in the cutblock, including four feller bunchers.

"One of the feller bunchers was parked near the location of the Fire when the spotter plane arrived over the Fire," Greyall wrote in the decision. "The parties agree the operation of a feller buncher constitutes a high risk activity and a potential cause of fire."

The logging harvester kept firefighting equipment in a trailer on its site. It was also required to maintain a one-hour fire watch after completion of what were deemed "high-risk activities" in the cutblock.

According to the ruling, "a one-hour fire watch was not conducted as required".

"The Province argues a fire watcher, properly conducting his or her duties under the Regulation, would have been able to utilize Barlow’s resources to extinguish or at least control the Fire on the afternoon of June 18 and to report it to the Ministry such that it would been actioned earlier and would not have spread," Greyall wrote.

However, the judge concluded that the province failed to prove that the fire would have been discovered and reported "prior to the expiry of the fire watch period" had a fire watch taken place.

Lightning reported in the area

When Barlow employees left the cutblock at 4:15 p.m. on June 18, 2010, they saw no signs of fire. The initial fire report to the Prince George Fire Station occurred at 5:17 p.m. At that time, it was 0.1 to 0.2 hectares.

"The pilot testified the report could have taken 15 minutes to complete," Greyall wrote, before adding "I am of the view the pilot over-stated the time required to complete the report."

The pilot's first photo of the fire was stamped at 5:20 p.m., the judge noted.

In court, the province maintained there was "strong circumstantial evidence" that the fire was started by the use of a fire buncher and that the operator failed to remain with his equipment after turning off the engine.

The province also claimed that "sawdust or other flammable forest debris" were dislodged from the machine into the forest floor, causing the fire.

The defendants pointed to lightning as the likely cause, with Barlow employees saying they saw a bolt during heavy rainfall around 5 p.m.

"I find the evidence of the Barlow and Canfor employees to be consistent and credible," Greyall wrote. "The issue of lightning on the Cut Block was reported to Ministry investigators during the course of their investigation within days of the Fire."