Steven Succi

This decision addresses sentencing following convictions under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) for a tragic workplace drowning incident at New Leaf: Living and Learning Together Inc. The court found both the corporation and an individual supervisor, Colin Lang, guilty of multiple counts of failing to take reasonable precautions to protect worker safety.

The judgment carefully balances aggravating factors such as the death of a worker and recklessness, with mitigating factors including the defendants' community contributions and financial circumstances.

The court imposed substantial fines on New Leaf, mindful of its critical role and financial constraints, and a significant fine on Mr. Lang without incarceration, emphasizing proportionality and deterrence in OHSA sentencing.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to refuse to renew its payday lender licence under the Payday Loans Act, 2008.

The Registrar based the refusal on the appellant's failure to provide requested information and failure to maintain a required bank account.

At the hearing, the appellant admitted to the facts.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's continued non-responsiveness and failure to provide vital banking documentation demonstrated that conditions would not adequately ensure consumer protection.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse to renew the licence.

The corporate defendant, a furniture store, and its two directors were charged with multiple offences under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, following complaints from two consumers.

One consumer received incorrect and defective furniture and the store failed to replace it.

The other consumer paid for a bed on a lay-away plan but the store refused to deliver it, demanding further payments for a separate item, and failed to refund the money upon cancellation.

The court found the corporate defendant guilty of failing to provide a proper future performance agreement, engaging in unfair practices, and failing to provide a refund.

The directors were found guilty of failing to prevent the corporation from committing these offences.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to Refuse to Renew Registration issued by the Registrar under the Collections and Debt Settlement Services Act for failing to provide required financial statements.

The parties resolved the dispute and consented to an order renewing the registration subject to conditions.

The Tribunal disposed of the proceeding without a hearing under section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, ordering the renewal of the registration with conditions requiring the appellant to provide monthly trust account statements for two years and reviewed or audited financial statements annually for four years.

The appellant appealed conditions of an Amended Environmental Compliance Approval requiring source testing for fluorides and particulate matter.

After an interim stay and mediation, the appellant withdrew its appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal pursuant to Rule 199 of the Rules of Practice.

The Receiver for Northwood Recycling & Energy Inc. appealed a Director's Order requiring work at a waste disposal site.

Following an inspection confirming full compliance with the work items, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal found the proposed settlement, which revoked the Director's Order and dismissed the proceeding, to be consistent with the purpose of the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order regarding a waste disposal site.

At a pre-hearing conference, the City of Oshawa and the Ummah Foundation sought and were granted participant status without objection.

The parties jointly requested and were granted an adjournment of the pre-hearing conference to allow for ongoing settlement discussions and to address a related jurisdictional motion filed in court.

The defendants brought a motion for a stay of proceedings based on a breach of s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging unreasonable delay.

The charges arose from a stage collapse at a Radiohead concert in June 2012 that resulted in one death and injuries.

The defendants were charged in June 2013 with offences under the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The trial commenced in November 2015 but was declared a mistrial in May 2017 when the presiding judge was appointed to the Superior Court.

The court applied the Jordan framework and found that the net delay far exceeded the presumptive ceiling of 18 months.

Although the Crown established certain discrete events and argued the case was complex, the court determined that even accounting for these exceptional circumstances, the delay remained unjustified.

The court granted the stay of proceedings for all defendants.

A provincial court judge presiding over a lengthy trial involving charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act arising from a stage collapse at a Radiohead concert in Toronto was appointed to the Superior Court of Justice mid-trial.

The Crown argued the judge retained jurisdiction to complete the trial under the Provincial Offences Act, while the defence argued the appointment resulted in loss of jurisdiction.

The court found that the judge had lost jurisdiction to continue the trial, as the Provincial Offences Act lacks a provision comparable to section 669.3 of the Criminal Code permitting continuing jurisdiction upon appointment to another court.

A new trial was ordered.

Defendants charged with offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act brought applications alleging violations of their Charter right to trial within a reasonable time under section 11(b).

The court applied the new framework established in R. v. Jordan, determining that while the net delay of approximately 44 months exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling for Ontario Court of Justice trials, the Crown established exceptional circumstances justifying the delay.

The court found the case was particularly complex due to the nature of the evidence and issues involved, and that the transitional exceptional circumstance applied to cases in the system when Jordan was released.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of sex and creed by an Employment Standards Officer during a fact-finding meeting and in her subsequent decision, as well as by the Ministry of Labour in its response to his complaints.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the Application, finding that the Employment Standards Officer's decision was protected by adjudicative immunity.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found no reasonable prospect that the applicant could prove the alleged unfair treatment was connected to his sex or creed.

This is a trial decision on a voir dire regarding the admissibility of expert evidence in a prosecution under the Occupational Health and Safety Act arising from a stage collapse at a concert venue that resulted in a fatality.

The defendant Live Nation Canada Inc. challenged the qualification of two Ministry of Labour engineers to provide expert opinion evidence on the cause of the stage collapse.

The court found that both experts met the threshold requirement to testify, applying the test established in White Burgess v. Abbott and Haliburton Co. The court rejected arguments that the experts' involvement in the investigation, their employment relationship with the Ministry of Labour, and their participation in interviews with defendants undermined their independence and impartiality.

The Corporation of the City of Guelph was charged with failing to ensure that a wall in a workplace was capable of supporting all loads to which it may be subjected, contrary to section 25(1)(e) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The charge arose from the collapse of a privacy wall in a women's washroom at a municipal park in 2009, which resulted in the death of a fourteen-year-old student.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove the actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt because the charging section incorporated the outdated concept of "allowable unit stresses," which had been superseded by limits states design methodology in 1997.

The court also found that even if the actus reus had been established, the City had exercised due diligence in issuing the building permit by reasonably relying on the professional stamps of the architect and engineer, and that the City was not required to conduct further investigation based on the engineer's involvement in a prior unrelated project.

The Ministry of Labour charged the City of Guelph with failing to ensure a workplace wall was safe under section 25(1)(e) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and charged an architect and engineer with providing negligent or incompetent advice under section 31(2) of the Act.

The charges arose from a concrete wall collapse in 2009 that killed a student, five years after the project's completion in 2004.

All defendants moved to dismiss the charges as statute-barred under section 69 of the Act, which provides a one-year limitation period from the last act or default.

The court distinguished between the charges: the architect and engineer's charges were dismissed as statute-barred because their negligent advice was provided years before the collapse, while the City's charge was permitted to proceed because the employer's duty to maintain a safe workplace is a continuing obligation that extends beyond the construction phase.