3 total
An automotive manufacturer was acquitted of health and safety charges after establishing a due diligence defence regarding a worker struck by a falling seat.
The Crown charged Magna Seating Inc. with two occupational health and safety violations arising from a worker being struck by a falling automotive seat at workstation 1630 on assembly line #1.
The first charge alleged failure to ensure material was transported, placed or stored so it would not tip, collapse or fall, contrary to section 45(b) of Ontario Regulation 851/90.
The second charge alleged failure to ensure a machine was shielded or guarded so that material being processed would not endanger worker safety, contrary to section 26 of Ontario Regulation 851/90.
The court found that while the Crown proved the actus reus of the first charge, the defendant successfully established the due diligence defence on a balance of probabilities.
The court dismissed both charges, finding that the defendant had taken all reasonable care in the circumstances to prevent the accident, particularly given the low probability of recurrence, minimal injury potential, and the unforeseeable combination of factors that led to the incident.
Applicant ordered to produce income documentation relevant to claimed special damages and inability to work.
In an ongoing human rights application alleging discrimination in employment, the respondents requested production of the applicant's income documentation.
The applicant claimed special damages of $57,005 for lost wages, asserting an inability to work since her termination.
During cross-examination, evidence emerged of potential income from volunteer honourariums, cleaning services, and Ontario Works.
The Tribunal found the requested documents arguably relevant to the assessment of special damages and the applicant's claimed inability to work, and ordered their production.
Human rights applications dismissed after applicants failed to attend scheduled Case Resolution Conference.
The applicants failed to attend a scheduled Case Resolution Conference despite having notice and their prior adjournment request being denied.
After waiting thirty minutes, the adjudicator commenced the hearing in their absence.
Upon the respondents' request, the applications were dismissed due to the applicants' failure to attend or provide a satisfactory explanation.
