Franklin Office Park Realty Corp. v. Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection, 995 N.E.2d 785

Franklin Office Park Realty Corp. challenges an $18,225 DEP penalty for improper asbestos-containing roof shingles.
DEP imposed the penalty without prior written notice of noncompliance, invoking the wilfulness exception under G. L. c. 21A, § 16.
Hearing officer found Franklin’s agents (Orton and Meehan) knew or should have known the shingles likely contained asbestos and thus conduct was wilful.
Franklin sought judicial review; Superior Court found some findings lacked substantial evidence and DEP’s statutory interpretation unreasonable.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that wilfulness requires knowledge or should-have-known operative facts; affirmed DEP’s sanction to the extent based on those findings, reversed on other grounds.
Case remanded with judgment entered for DEP to the extent supported by the hearing officer’s knowledge-based findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
What does wilful and not the result of error mean in § 16?	Franklin: knowledge of operative facts required.	DEP: wilfulness does not require knowledge of the facts or law.	Wilfulness requires knowledge or should-have-known operative facts.
Should agency deference apply where statute is ambiguous?	Statute unambiguous; agency interpretation not entitled to deference.	Deference due if statute ambiguous and agency has expertise.	Statute unambiguous; agency interpretation not entitled to substantial deference.
Can penalty without notice be sustained if knowledge of asbestos presence is found?	Without knowledge of asbestos, wilfulness may not be shown.	Penalty without notice valid when wilful and not the result of error.	Penalty affirmed to the extent supported by knowledge/findings of asbestos likelihood.

Goldberg v. Board of Health of Granby, 444 Mass. 627 (Mass. 2005) (look to legislative intent; unambiguous statute limits agency deference)
Boston Police Patrolmen’s Ass’n, Inc. v. Boston, 435 Mass. 718 (Mass. 2002) (statutory interpretation guiding agency review standards)
Commonwealth v. Belanger, 30 Mass. App. Ct. 31 (Mass. App. Ct. 1991) (practical interpretation of statutory knowledge obligations)
United States v. Murdock, 290 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1933) (contextual definition of willfulness in statutory interpretation)
Spies v. United States, 317 U.S. 492 (U.S. 1943) (contextual approach to interpreting willfulness)
Commonwealth v. Kingston, 46 Mass. App. Ct. 444 (Mass. App. Ct. 1999) (wilfulness considerations in tax/obligation contexts)
Commonwealth v. Brooks, 366 Mass. 423 (Mass. 1974) (statutory language read in light of surrounding terms)
DiFiore v. American Airlines, Inc., 454 Mass. 486 (Mass. 2009) (rejects unreasonable interpretations inconsistent with statutory purpose)
Wolfe v. Gormally, 440 Mass. 699 (Mass. 2004) (construe statutes to give effect to all provisions)