Graeme Richard Adams

This is a sentencing decision following convictions under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) for a workplace fatality.

The corporate defendant and two individual supervisors were found guilty of failing to ensure proper rigging of concrete blocks and adequate training/supervision, leading to a worker's death.

The court applied established sentencing principles, emphasizing deterrence and considering the increased maximum penalties for OHSA offences.

Fines were imposed on the corporate defendant and the two individual supervisors, reflecting the seriousness of the breach and the need for general deterrence.

During a trial for offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the Crown sought to admit expert evidence from an engineer, Mr. Khorsand, regarding structural engineering and hoisting practices.

The defence challenged his qualifications, alleging bias and negligence.

The court applied the two-component test for expert evidence admissibility, finding Mr. Khorsand met the threshold requirements as a properly qualified and unbiased expert.

The court determined that the benefits of admitting his evidence outweighed any potential harm, such as undue consumption of time, and allowed him to testify.

The defendants, Limen Group Const. (2019) Ltd., Octavio Tome, and Emanuel Tavares, brought three Charter motions (No. 5, 7, and 8) for a stay of proceedings, alleging violations of their section 7, 11(b), and 11(d) Charter rights, prosecutorial misconduct, and unreasonable delay.

Motion No. 5 alleged failure to call a witness, late disclosure of an immunity agreement, and failure to vet witnesses.

Motions No. 7 and 8 alleged unreasonable delay under section 11(b) of the Charter, applying the Jordan framework.

The court dismissed all motions, finding no irreparable prejudice from disclosure issues, no prosecutorial misconduct, and that the overall delay, after accounting for defence delay and discrete events, fell below the presumptive Jordan ceiling.

The court noted the defence's conduct contributed significantly to the trial's length.

The corporate defendant, Limen Group Const. (2019) Ltd., and two individual supervisors, Octavio Tome and Emanuel Tavares, faced charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act following a fatal incident where a concrete block, improperly hoisted by a crane, fell and killed a worker.

The charges alleged failure to ensure suitable attachment points for hoisting and failure to sufficiently train and supervise workers regarding the hazard of using embedded rebar as hoisting points.

The court found that the Crown proved the hazardous act and the defendants' roles as employer and supervisors.

The defendants' due diligence defence, which argued the worker acted alone, was rejected.

The court found that the unsafe practice was not an isolated incident and was known or should have been known to supervisors, and that the defendants failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent such hazardous rigging.

All defendants were found guilty of the charges.

The defendants brought a second set of pre-trial motions seeking a stay of proceedings for abuse of process, recusal of prosecutors, declarations of Charter violations, and various disclosure orders.

The motions alleged prosecutorial and investigative misconduct, including failure to disclose relevant case law, prejudicial filing of witness statements, and late disclosure of a police statement.

The court dismissed the motions for a stay, recusal, and prevention of new witnesses.

It also largely denied the disclosure requests, finding no merit in the misconduct allegations and that most requested items were matters for cross-examination.

The defendants, charged under the Occupational Health and Safety Act following a workplace fatality, brought motions for disclosure of Ministry inspectors' disciplinary files and a "Director's Memo," and for a stay of proceedings based on alleged abuse of process and unreasonable pre- and post-charge delay.

The court dismissed all motions, finding that the requested disciplinary files were not relevant first-party disclosure and that the Director's Memo was protected by solicitor-client privilege, with no "innocence at stake" exception met.

The court also determined that the pre- and post-charge delays were not unreasonable under the Charter's fair trial and delay provisions, and that the alleged investigative and prosecutorial misconduct did not meet the high threshold for an abuse of process stay.

K-Line Maintenance and Construction Limited appealed four convictions under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, stemming from a workplace accident that severely injured an employee.

The primary ground of appeal was that the Justice of the Peace failed to provide adequate reasons for the decision, thereby denying K-Line a meaningful right to appeal.

The court found the reasons provided by the Justice of the Peace to be factually and legally insufficient, making it impossible to understand the basis of the findings or the legal analysis.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.