Nick Was a Foreperson Working for Capital City Construction Ltd

Nick was a foreperson working for Capital City Construction Ltd at the site of a major home renovation that Capital City Construction was doing.He was supervised by a site manager who came by two or three times per day to check on how things were going.The site manager set the schedule for the work,hired the workers,and ensured that the site met all applicable safety standards.Nick was responsible for supervising the workers and all the work done on the site.He decided how they should carry out their tasks at the site.One day,a large pile of painted boards was torn off the house.Because the paint contained lead,it was an offence under an environmental statute to leave them on the site.The statute provides for a "due diligence" defence.Nick knew that it would cost his employer a lot to take the boards to the dump and have them disposed of.He decided to throw the boards into a crawl space under the house.The site supervisor knew that there were boards painted with lead paint on the house,but did not enquire regarding how they had been disposed of.A building inspector found them and Nick was charged and convicted under the statute.Capital City Construction had a policy that it insisted that all its employees read,which said that no employee may break the law.Is Capital City Construction also liable for the offence?

A) Yes.Capital City Construction is responsible because Nick thought he was acting for the benefit of the corporation.
B) No.The site manager was responsible for ensuring compliance with environmental standards and he was not the one who committed the offence.
C) No.The site manager did not know that Nick was going to commit the offence and so could not have prevented him from doing so.
D) Yes.Nick was responsible for determining how the work was done within the parameters set by the site manager,so he was responsible for managing the business of corporation in relation to the activity that constituted the offence.As a result,Nick was the directing mind and will of the corporation,and Capital City Construction could be liable.The corporation cannot rely on the due diligence defence because arguably it failed to act reasonably in the circumstances in its supervision of Nick.
E) No.Capital City Construction had a policy that it insisted that all its employees read,which said that no employee may break the law.