A. Amenta

The defendant, a motor vehicle manufacturer, was charged with failing to ensure that prescribed occupational health and safety measures were carried out at its Brampton facility.

Specifically, the defendant failed to install guardrails at an open side of a raised platform (the Underbody Re-Spot Station) where an employee fell and sustained serious injuries.

The defendant argued that section 20 of the regulation applied instead of section 13, that the platform qualified as an exempt "pit," and that it had exercised due diligence.

The court rejected all defences and found the defendant guilty, holding that guardrails were required under section 13(1)(b) of Ontario Regulation 851/90, that the platform was not a "pit" within the meaning of the exemption, and that the defendant had not taken all reasonable precautions.

A manufacturing company was charged with two strict liability offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act for failing to ensure safe procedures and provide adequate instruction and supervision regarding the movement of a heavy spindle component.

A worker was injured when a 10,000-pound spindle fell on his foot during an attempted rotation.

The court found the Crown proved the actus reus but accepted the due diligence defence, finding the accident was not reasonably foreseeable given the company's safety protocols, training programs, and the worker's deliberate deviation from established procedures using an unapproved method.

The accused was charged with two counts of robbery, two counts of robbery with an imitation firearm, and one count of arson arising from incidents on February 19, 2014.

The Crown sought detention on primary and secondary grounds.

The accused, who is of Aboriginal descent, proposed his mother as surety with a house arrest plan.

The court found that the Crown satisfied its onus on both the primary ground (ensuring attendance in court) and the secondary ground (protection of the public).

The accused's extensive criminal history involving violence and weapons, combined with his demonstrated non-compliance with court orders and supervision, established that detention was necessary.

The court ordered the accused detained in custody.