Bruce Arnott

The appellant appealed a decision finding that a continuing power of attorney was invalid and that she was not a suitable guardian of property for the respondent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence to support the lower court's findings and no error in the reasons for judgment.

The respondent employer was charged under the Occupational Health and Safety Act after a worker was fatally injured by a reversing dump truck while acting as both a signaller and a spreader operator.

The trial judge directed a verdict of acquittal, ruling that the Crown could not prove a failure to provide a signaller under section 104 of the Regulation by showing the signaller failed to perform the duties prescribed by section 106.

The summary conviction appeal court dismissed the Crown's appeal.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that sections 104 and 106 must be read together to promote the public safety purpose of the legislation, and ordered a new trial.

The applicant, a worker co-chair of the joint health and safety committee, appealed an inspector's decision not to issue an order against the employer under section 53 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The employer had shut down an Acid Drying Tower due to operational issues but did not report this as a 'failure' to the committee.

The Board dismissed the appeal, finding that while reporting requirements should be interpreted broadly, a 'failure' under section 53 only requires reporting if it presents a risk to worker health and safety.

Since the tower's operational problem posed no immediate safety risk until it was opened for repairs—at which point other safety regulations applied—the employer was not obliged to report it under section 53.

The appellant employer appealed a decision setting aside a directed verdict of acquittal on charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act following a fatal workplace accident.

The employee was killed by an unguarded moving part of a crown press.

The trial judge had acquitted the employer on the basis that the Crown failed to prove the employer knew of the hazard.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that OHSA offences are strict liability offences and the Crown is not required to prove a mental element or knowledge of the hazard as part of the actus reus.

Lack of knowledge is only relevant to a due diligence defence.

In an application for outstanding wages under the Employment Standards Act, the Adjudicator/Referee issued procedural directions regarding disclosure and particulars.

The applicant, representing an unidentified group of employees, was ordered to disclose the specific individuals it represents and the particulars of their claims, as it is not possible to proceed with the hearing without knowing who is claiming entitlement to the monies.

The responding parties were ordered to provide relevant documents pertaining to those individuals.

The subpoenas for the Employment Standards Officers were quashed, as their evidence would not be necessary once the employees and their claims were identified.

Several transit operators appealed decisions by Ministry of Labour inspectors and ergonomists declining to issue orders regarding the brake pedal configuration on Nova RTS buses.

The operators argued the brake envelope was too small, causing their toes to hit the back panel during emergency braking.

The Board found that while hitting the back panel is a hazard, the brake configuration is safe if the operator's foot is properly positioned on the heel rest as intended by the manufacturer.

However, the Board found the employer failed to provide sufficient training on proper brake application and the mechanics of the air brake system.

The Board declined to order retrofitting of the buses but directed the employer to conduct further training for all operators.

The applicant appealed an order of a Health and Safety Inspector determining that the installation of water meters by an independent contractor without a plumber's certificate of qualification violated the Occupational Health and Safety Act and its regulations.

The applicant argued that the Public Utilities Act authorized the work and that water meter installation did not fall within the definition of the plumber trade.

The Board found that the Public Utilities Act provision was merely an access provision and did not govern trade qualifications.

The Board concluded that water meter installation is work of the plumber trade, as it is included in the training curricula for plumbers and water meters are appurtenances for the supply of water.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant appealed an order made by an Occupational Health and Safety Inspector which required workers installing hangers and brackets on a casino construction project to hold a certificate of qualification as an Electrician Branch 1.

The order had resulted in the applicant's members being removed from the job and replaced by electricians.

On the fourth day of the hearing, the parties reached a resolution.

Pursuant to their memorandum of agreement, the Board rescinded the Inspector's order and noted the Ministry of Labour's policies regarding jurisdictional disputes and compulsory trades.

The applicant appealed an inspector's refusal to issue an order under the Occupational Health and Safety Act regarding the production and maintenance of electrical drawings.

At the hearing, the parties clarified the scope of the appeal and the Ministry agreed to arrange meetings between the inspector, the Joint Health and Safety Committee, and the concerned worker.

On consent, the Board adjourned the matter sine die for up to one year.

The Crown appealed, with leave, from a summary conviction appeal decision that had reduced fines imposed on a corporate respondent convicted of two surviving workplace safety offences arising from an incident that caused an employee's death.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge's original sentence disclosed no error in principle and appropriately emphasized deterrence.

It found that the summary conviction appeal judge erred by diluting the importance of deterrence when treating it as only one of many sentencing factors.

The appeal was allowed and the original fines were restored.

The employer appealed orders issued by a Ministry of Labour inspector under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, arguing its tree nursery business was a farming operation exempt from the Act.

The Ministry contended the operation fell under the definition of 'logging' as it involved the practice of silviculture.

The Board found that the employer's business of cultivating seedlings primarily for the forestry and logging industry constituted silviculture.

Consequently, the operation was deemed an industrial establishment covered by the Act, and the appeal was dismissed.

The employer appealed a decision of an Employment Standards Officer.

Following the commencement of the hearing, the employer withdrew the appeal.

The Board affirmed the Officer's order and directed that the moneys paid into trust be released to the responding party.

The applicant appealed two orders issued by an Occupational Health and Safety inspector and sought a suspension of those orders pending the appeal.

A previous panel had suspended the orders until the first day of the appeal hearing.

At the commencement of the hearing, the parties agreed to continue the suspension.

The Board extended the suspension of the orders until the issuance of a final decision on the appeal.

The appellants appealed a Ministry of Labour inspector's decision finding that the Toronto Transit Commission had complied with a previous order.

The appellants sought remedies including declarations that the inspector permitted the employer to contravene the Occupational Health and Safety Act by not allowing a worker committee member to accompany him during his investigation.

The Board struck these requests for relief, holding that its remedial jurisdiction under section 61 is limited to the powers of an inspector, and the scheme of the Act is not concerned with policing the actions of inspectors.

The remaining issues were referred to a Labour Relations Officer.

The applicant worker members of a joint health and safety committee appealed a Ministry of Labour inspector's decision to rescind an order requiring the Toronto Transit Commission to conduct an ergonomic assessment of new bus driver compartments.

Prior to the hearing, the employer provided an ergonomic review report.

The Board dismissed the appeal as moot, finding that the requested assessment had been provided and that any further adjudication regarding the actual ergonomic safety of the buses would require a new determination by an inspector.