Giuseppe Ferraro

A municipality contracted with a constructor to repair a water main and dispatched quality control inspectors to the project site.

A pedestrian was fatally struck by construction equipment at an intersection where required safety measures — a fence and signallers — were absent.

The municipality was charged as an employer under the Occupational Health and Safety Act for failing to ensure that prescribed regulatory measures were carried out in the workplace.

On equal division, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, with the majority holding that proof of control over workers or the workplace is not required to establish the actus reus of the employer's duty under s. 25(1)(c); control is relevant only to the due diligence defence.

The dissent would have either remitted the matter or restored the acquittals on the basis that regulatory measures apply only to work within the employer's sphere of control.

The Crown appealed the dismissal of charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act against an employer and supervisor following a workplace accident.

The lower courts had excluded evidence from the Ministry of Labour's inspection of a roller, finding a breach of the respondents' Charter rights (s. 11(d)) due to the inspectors' failure to halt inspection after a lawyer's letter, poor note-taking, and not following internal policies.

The Court of Appeal found that there is no constitutional right for an accused to direct an investigation or be present during evidence inspection.

It held that inconsistencies in inspector testimony or failure to follow internal guidelines do not amount to a Charter violation.

Crucially, the respondents failed to demonstrate any prejudice to their right to make full answer and defence, especially after disposing of the evidence themselves.

The appeal was allowed, and a new trial ordered.

The Ministry of Labour appealed a decision denying its motion to amend an information to substitute the correct defendant company.

The Ministry had charged Ash-Mar Construction Limited (operated by the father) instead of 1819315 Ontario Inc. operating as Ash-Mar Construction (operated by the son) following a workplace incident where a framing wall collapsed and injured a worker.

The lower court denied the amendment citing the Ministry's lack of diligence and the expiry of the Occupational Health and Safety Act limitation period.

The appellate court allowed the appeal, finding the lower court applied too narrow an interpretation of prejudice under section 34(4) of the Provincial Offences Act and erred in refusing the amendment.

An appeal from convictions under the Occupational Health and Safety Act arising from a workplace injury.

The appellant challenged the convictions on the basis that the trial judge erred in dismissing a Charter application alleging violation of the right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The appellate court found that the trial judge miscalculated the total delay and incorrectly characterized a significant adjournment period as defence delay.

When properly calculated, the net delay exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan, and the Crown failed to justify the delay through exceptional circumstances or case complexity.

The convictions were quashed and a stay of proceedings was entered.

The respondent Crown brought a motion to strike the applicant's application for the immediate renewal of his security guard licence.

The applicant had refused to provide additional identification required for a criminal background check, prompting the Registrar to stop processing his renewal.

The court granted the Crown's motion and dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the Private Security and Investigative Services Act, 2005 establishes an exclusive administrative process for reviewing the Registrar's licensing decisions.

The appellant employer was charged under the Occupational Health and Safety Act after an employee was injured by a machine.

The justice of the peace dismissed the charges because the Crown failed to provide authoritative definitions or expert testimony for technical terms like 'pinch point' and 'lock-out'.

The summary conviction appeal judge allowed the Crown's appeal and ordered a new trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the employer's appeal, agreeing that the justice of the peace erred in principle by requiring expert testimony when lay witnesses had provided evidence on the meaning of the terms.

The appellants appealed a Superior Court decision refusing to decide a certiorari application regarding an interlocutory order for severance made by a Justice of the Peace.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that certiorari should not substitute for the lack of a statutory appeal from an interlocutory order.

The Court also found the anticipatory Charter breach claim premature, noting the trial judge is best positioned to decide severance.