Kikee Malik

The Ministry of Labour appealed the acquittal of Dufferin Construction Company and supervisor David Pimpinella on charges arising from a workplace accident where a large slab of ice fell from a tunnel face wall, injuring an employee.

The trial judge dismissed all three counts, finding the Crown had failed to prove the actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellate court upheld the acquittals on Counts 1 and 3 (employer and supervisor duties under the Occupational Health and Safety Act), finding the trial judge's reasons were adequate and the verdicts were supported by the evidence.

However, the court allowed the appeal on Count 2, a technical charge regarding missing safety markings on crane and basket equipment, and entered a conviction on that count.

Four defendants—two corporations and two individuals—were charged with twelve counts of offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act arising from a fatal accident on May 12, 2008, at a condominium construction site in Toronto.

A piece of cast iron pipe fell from the 23rd floor and struck a senior supervisor, Emilio Piccinin, causing his death.

A former co-defendant, Maple Leaf Structural Ltd., pleaded guilty to one charge.

The remaining defendants pleaded not guilty and proceeded to trial.

The court found that while Maple Leaf bore primary responsibility for the accident, the remaining defendants exercised due diligence and did not breach their statutory duties under the Construction Projects Regulation.

All charges against the remaining defendants were dismissed.

The accused brought a pre-trial application seeking to allow collateral attack on Employment Standards Act orders, alternatively seeking a stay of proceedings for abuse of process, and alternatively seeking a declaration that certain sections of the Employment Standards Act were unconstitutional.

The accused had been charged with failing to comply with orders to pay outstanding wages to employees.

The accused argued he was impecunious and unable to meet the statutory requirement to pay or post a letter of credit to appeal the orders.

The court rejected all three applications, finding that the rule against collateral attack applied, that no abuse of process had occurred, and that the relevant statutory provisions did not violate the Charter.