2 total
A subcontractor was convicted under the Occupational Health and Safety Act for failing to verify soil bearing capacity before operating a drill rig that collapsed.
The defendant, a subcontractor specializing in underground construction and grouting, was charged with three counts under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) following the death of a worker and serious injury to another when a drill rig collapsed at a Toronto Transit Commission subway extension project at York University.
The charges alleged failures to provide an adequate work platform for the drill rig, to ensure the platform could support loads in accordance with good engineering practice, and to operate the machine in accordance with the manufacturer's manual.
The court found the defendant guilty of Count 5 (failure to design an adequate work platform by failing to identify soil bearing capacity as required by manufacturer specifications) but acquitted on Counts 6 and 7.
The court determined that while the defendant transmitted manufacturer specifications to the general contractor, it failed to follow up and verify that the soil's bearing capacity had been adequately assessed before operating the rig.
The court excluded late-disclosed LiDAR evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter to remedy a breach of the right to a fair trial.
The defendant, Advanced Construction Techniques Ltd., was charged with three counts under the Occupational Health and Safety Act related to a drill rig collapse that resulted in a fatality.
The defendant brought a motion for a stay of proceedings and alternatively for a mistrial, alleging that the Crown breached its disclosure obligations by changing its position on whether it would call LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) evidence.
The Crown had initially advised that the LiDAR scan would not form part of its case, but later decided to call the evidence well into the trial.
The court found a Charter breach regarding the right to make full answer and defence but declined to grant a stay or mistrial.
Instead, the court excluded the LiDAR evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter as the appropriate remedy.
