Judy Chan

This decision addresses the application of s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the context of workplace inspections under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA).

The applicant, The Econo-Rack Group Inc. (Konstant Manufacturing), challenged the Ministry of Labour inspector's warrantless collection of evidence following a workplace injury, alleging an unreasonable search and seizure.

The Court applied the two-step s. 8 analysis, focusing on whether a search or seizure occurred and if it was reasonable, and considered the "predominant purpose" test from R. v. Jarvis to determine if the inspector had crossed from regulatory inspection into penal investigation requiring a warrant.

The Court found that although Konstant had a reasonable expectation of privacy, the inspector's actions were authorized under s. 54 of the OHSA as part of a regulatory inspection, and no s. 8 breach occurred.

The application for exclusion of evidence and costs was dismissed.

An employer operating a sawmill was convicted of violating Section 75(b) of Ontario Regulation 851 under the Occupational Health and Safety Act for failing to ensure that side cantors of an industrial saw machine were blocked as prescribed.

A worker suffered crushing injuries when side-heads moved during maintenance because hydraulic power was not shut off.

The trial Justice found that "blocked" requires a physical blocking mechanism, not merely shutting off hydraulic power.

The appellant appealed, arguing the Justice erred in interpreting "blocked" and that the sentence of $48,000 was excessive.

The appeal court upheld the conviction and sentence, finding no palpable error in the trial Justice's interpretation of the legislation in the context of worker safety.

Avenue Building Corporation was charged under the Occupational Health and Safety Act with failing to ensure that equipment being moved was moved in a manner that did not endanger a worker, following an incident where an employee broke his leg when a 4x4 he was using to move a wall form broke.

The trial judge found the corporation guilty, concluding that the corporation failed to exercise due diligence by allowing workers discretion in tool selection without adequate training and supervision, and by failing to include written procedures for moving wall forms.

On appeal, the appellate court found that the trial judge misapprehended the specific charge and failed to properly apply the due diligence analysis to the correct actus reus, warranting a new trial.

A youth pleaded guilty to theft of a motor vehicle, possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, and failing to stop for police.

The Crown sought six months secure custody followed by probation, while the defence sought a non-custodial sentence with probation and community service.

The court determined that the flight from police constituted a violent offence under section 39(1)(a) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, making custody an available option.

However, the court found this was not an exceptional case under section 39(1)(d).

Considering the youth's first-time offender status, guilty pleas, pre-trial custody served, positive pre-sentence report, remorse, and return to stable home environment, the court imposed an 18-month probation with 100 hours of community service instead of custody.