The latest development in the case of Gold Rush reality TV star Anton “Tony” Beets unfolded late last week.

Like a dramatic episode with a cliff-hanger ending, audiences will have to wait until later next month to find out how much Beets and Tamarack Inc. will be fined for convictions under the Yukon Waters Act.

Last Friday, defence lawyer Andre Roothman and Crown prosecutor Megan Seiling presented arguments for sentencing in the case.

Given their vastly different submissions, however, Judge Peter Chisholm has reserved decision on sentencing until Aug. 25 in territorial court in Whitehorse.

In May, Beets was found guilty of permitting the deposit of waste into a water management system and not reporting it.

Mining company Tamarack was found guilty of the same two charges plus two additional charges for breach of a water licence.

The first two charges each carry a maximum fine of $100,000, one year in jail or both.

The latter two charges each carry a maximum fine of $15,000, six months in jail or both.

Seiling argued that Beets should be fined $10,000 and Tamarack $40,000.

Roothman argued that a fine of $1,500 for Beets and $10,000 for Tamarack would be more appropriate.

The charges stem from an incident in October 2014, captured in the episode “Hundreds of Ounces” on season five of the reality series.

Gasoline is shown being poured into a dredge pond and lit on fire at a mining site near the Indian River in the Dawson mining district.

In the episode, the narrator dramatically describes the event as a “Viking baptism”, intended to give luck to the dredge.

Beets appears on screen outlined by the flames and shouts, “I told you guys, ‘come hell or high water,’ didn’t I?”

Mark Favron was a contract welder employed by Beets at the time of the incident. He testified during trial that on a whim, he came up with the idea and was responsible for pouring the gasoline.

Favron testified that when he asked Beets for permission to do so, he replied that he “didn’t give a f---.”

Favron pled guilty to two charges and paid a fine of $1,725 for his participation in the incident.

In her submissions for sentencing, Seiling argued that Beets and Tamarack failed to prevent the incident from happening when they very well could have.

“He allowed it to happen, and then exploited it for entertainment purposes,” she said.

She added that it makes the Yukon look like “cowboy country”, where anyone is invited to exploit resources without regulations.

As well, she argued that mining in the Yukon is a privilege, and airing environmental offences on TV tarnishes the reputation of miners who take pains to follow the law.

The show has an international audience, she said, with the episode “Hundreds of Ounces” having 2.7 million viewers in the U.S. alone when it first aired.

She did stress that Beets is not being targeted because he is a reality TV star.

If the offences are not adequately punished, she argued, it could call into question the territory’s enforcement regime.

The Yukon is big and remote and can’t be controlled at all times, she noted. Consequently, there is a reliance on miners to comply with the law, who might become incentivized to take short cuts.

Meanwhile, Roothman referred to the case as a “storm in a teacup.

“What we’re essentially dealing with here is plain stupidity,” he said of the incident.

He noted it was a spur of the moment decision by Favron, and only a small amount of gasoline was used.

The Yukon is cowboy country, he argued, with the biggest cowboy being the Yukon government.

Roothman gave the example of the recent discovery that an almost decade-old oil spill at the former F.H. Collins Secondary School is worse than anticipated, including contaminated groundwater near the city’s aquifer.

“Not for a moment do I agree that this is not about getting to Tony Beets because he’s Tony Beets,” he said.

His client was a young Dutch man when he came to Canada and became successful, he said, and a lot of people “hate his guts” and don’t want to see him succeed.

Roothman argued that Beets should not be treated any more or less favourably than Favron.

Finally, he said his client is not responsible for how footage is edited or used for the show.

Beet’s fame and the viewership of the show should be a neutral factor in the case, Roothman added.

Both sides agreed that there was limited damage to the environment from the incident and that neither Beets nor Tamarack has a criminal record or history of non-compliance.