Kimberly E. Potter

An employer was convicted of breaching sections 25(1)(c) and 25(2)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act after a maintenance electrician was injured when a large shipping door fell on him while he was performing electrical checks on the door mechanism.

The employer appealed both convictions, arguing that the worker was merely inspecting rather than performing maintenance work, and that the employer had exercised due diligence through policies and training.

The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding that the worker's electrical checks constituted work triggering the blocking requirement, that the workers were sent to an unfamiliar area without supervision, and that the employer failed to establish the due diligence defence.

The appellant sought an easement over Crown lands subject to unpatented mining claims held by the respondent to build a road to a proposed mine.

The respondent refused consent, intending to build a railway on the same corridor.

The Mining and Lands Commissioner (MLC) dismissed the appellant's application to dispense with consent.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found the MLC's decision unreasonable, as it misinterpreted the Mining Act by failing to apply the limitations on surface rights to unpatented claims on Crown land and improperly required the appellant to prove a public interest.

The Court substituted its own decision, dispensing with the respondent's consent, finding no evidence that the road would significantly interfere with actual or proposed mining activities on the claims.

The defendants moved to stay or dismiss an Ontario action for lack of jurisdiction and on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The dispute concerned whether a letter constituted a binding agreement requiring the transfer of wireless spectrum licences to the plaintiff.

The court held that Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter because there was a good arguable case that the contract was made in Ontario and that the action concerned licences constituting personal property located in Ontario.

The defendants failed to rebut the presumptive connecting factors or demonstrate that California was clearly the more appropriate forum.

The motion to stay or dismiss was therefore refused.