3 total
The court upheld OHSA convictions against an employer and supervisor for failing to provide scaffolding and safety training to a worker who fell from a ladder.
This is an appeal of convictions under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
GMJ Electric Inc. was convicted for failing to provide a scaffold and failing to provide adequate information, instruction, and supervision to a worker who fell from a ladder.
Gino Martignago was convicted as a supervisor for failing to ensure a worker used prescribed protective devices.
The appellants argued that the trial justice erred by adopting an absolute liability approach, crafting an unworkable protocol, and applying a narrow definition of "supervisor." The appeal court upheld the trial justice's findings, confirming that a fall hazard existed, due diligence was not established, and the employer failed in its duty to inform and instruct.
The court also affirmed the broad definition of "supervisor" finding that multiple individuals could hold supervisory roles without excusing the appellant's obligations.
The appeals were dismissed.
The Court of Appeal set aside a stay of proceedings, clarifying that the particularly complex case exception operates outside the presumptive ceiling.
An appeal of a stay of proceedings granted under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in a workplace fatality case.
The respondents were charged with offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act following the death of a worker at a gold mine.
The trial was scheduled to begin approximately three months beyond the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.
The application judge stayed the charges, finding the Crown had failed to develop and follow a concrete plan to minimize delay in this particularly complex case.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the application judge had misinterpreted the particularly complex case exception by using the presumptive ceiling as a benchmark for assessing the Crown's conduct, rather than assessing whether the Crown reasonably attempted to minimize delay occasioned by the case's complexity.
The Court of Appeal granted the Crown leave to appeal a stay of regulatory charges, finding that the characterization of delay involves questions of pure law.
The Crown sought leave to appeal a decision staying regulatory charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act on the basis of unreasonable delay contrary to s. 11(b) of the Charter.
The charges arose from a workplace fatality at a gold mine where a worker was poisoned by cyanide.
The Ontario Court of Justice found that the net delay of 23 months exceeded the presumptive ceiling of 18 months and that the Crown failed to develop and follow a concrete plan to minimize delay.
The Superior Court dismissed the Crown's appeal.
The Crown sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal on four grounds relating to the calculation of delay and the application of the Jordan framework.
