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 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.

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.