2 total
The court set aside occupational health and safety convictions because the trial judge misapplied the actus reus and due diligence tests.
An appeal of two convictions under the Occupational Health and Safety Act arising from a workplace fall.
The appellant corporation was convicted of failing to ensure a worker was protected by a guardrail system and failing to ensure a worker was protected by fall protection equipment.
The trial judge found the corporation guilty despite accepting evidence that it had installed compliant guardrails, provided appropriate safety equipment, implemented clear safety policies, conducted training, performed audits, and disciplined non-compliance.
The appellate court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge misdirected herself on the law regarding the actus reus of the offences and the proper test for the due diligence defence.
Convictions were set aside and acquittals substituted.
A new trial was ordered after a trial judge improperly conflated the actus reus of a workplace safety offence with the due diligence defence and misapplied the law on delegation.
An appeal of a conviction under section 25(2)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act arising from a workplace injury where a temporary employee's foot was crushed under a moving refuse truck wheel, resulting in amputation.
The trial judge convicted the employer of failing to provide adequate information, instruction, and supervision.
The appellate court found the trial judge erred by conflating the actus reus analysis with the due diligence defence, failing to properly evaluate whether the Crown proved the prohibited act beyond a reasonable doubt, and misapplying the law regarding delegation of supervisory responsibilities.
The court ordered a new trial.
