Claire Browne

This case concerns an application by the accused, Taiga Building Products Ltd., for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The trial, related to an Occupational Health and Safety Act charge following a workplace fatality, spanned 11 days over nearly two years.

The court applied the R. v. Jordan framework, calculating a total delay of 23 months and 29 days.

After deducting 80 days for defence delay and 39 days for a discrete COVID-19 related event, the net delay was 610 days (20.05 months), exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice.

The court found the case was not particularly complex and that the delay was unreasonable, partly due to the Crown's unsuccessful expert qualification application and late disclosure.

A stay of proceedings was entered.

The Crown brought a Mohan application to qualify an expert ergonomist, Steve A. MacDonald, in line of sight, visibility, and human factors, in a case where the defendant was charged under the Occupational Health and Safety Act following a workplace fatality.

The defendant opposed the application.

The court applied the two-stage Mohan/White Burgess test for expert evidence admissibility.

It found the expert's opinion unnecessary as the trier of fact could form conclusions without it, given the direct eyewitness testimony and video evidence.

Furthermore, the court determined that the expert was not properly qualified in the specific narrow area of expertise due to limited prior experience in LOS assessments and reliance on unverified and contradictory factual assumptions.

The court concluded that the risks of admitting the unreliable and unnecessary evidence outweighed its potential benefits, and therefore dismissed the application to qualify the expert witness.

The plaintiff former employer brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant former employee from working for a competitor and from using confidential information.

The defendant had previously downloaded files before resigning but had returned them pursuant to an earlier interim order.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence that the defendant had conveyed confidential information to his new employer or that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm.

The court also noted the new employer was not a direct competitor in the same market.