Wes Wilson

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted leave to appeal on three issues arising from the acquittal of Luis Benevides, a worker charged under the Occupational Health and Safety Act after a workplace accident.

The case addresses the proper application of the directed verdict test, the determination of worker responsibility under the Act, and the use of private business contracts in defining statutory obligations.

The court declined to grant leave on the issue of whether the trial justice erred by considering due diligence and foreseeability at the directed verdict stage.

The Crown sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Justice concerning findings on due diligence and penalty reduction in regulatory offence charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The motion for leave was dismissed as the proposed grounds of appeal did not meet the high bar under s. 131 of the Provincial Offences Act.

The court found that the alleged errors involved the misapplication of well-established legal principles rather than issues requiring the Court of Appeal's guidance on statutory interpretation or general legal principles.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of Quinton Steel on charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) arising from the death of an employee who fell from a temporary welding platform.

The trial justice and summary conviction appeal judge found that the general duty clause in section 25(2)(h) of the OHSA could not be used to impose requirements beyond those specifically prescribed in the regulations.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that section 25(2)(h) establishes an independent duty that is not limited by the regulations, and that the trial justice erred by failing to determine whether installing guardrails was a reasonable precaution in the circumstances.

The appellants appealed their convictions and sentences for multiple regulatory offences under the Environmental Protection Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act following a massive propane explosion at their facility that resulted in a worker's death and widespread environmental contamination.

The appellants argued the trial judge made numerous factual and legal errors, including rejecting their defence of officially induced error and finding a lack of due diligence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the conviction appeals, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence or application of strict liability principles.

The court also dismissed the sentence appeals, upholding over $5 million in fines due to the unprecedented magnitude of the damage and the appellants' reckless conduct.

The defendant employer was charged with failing to ensure that measures and procedures prescribed by Ontario Regulation 213/91 were carried out in a workplace, contrary to section 25(1)(c) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

A worker was fatally injured when a curb machine tipped over during unloading from a float trailer.

The Crown proved the actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt, establishing that the worker was endangered by the movement of the equipment.

However, the defendant successfully established the defence of due diligence on a balance of probabilities, demonstrating that it took all reasonable steps to prevent the incident.

The court found that the worker was highly experienced, had successfully unloaded the same machine 27 times previously, and deviated from established safety procedures on the day of the incident by failing to use the wooden block ramp and leaving the machine's controls on automatic rather than manual.

The charge was dismissed.

The defendant employer was charged with failing to ensure compliance with section 37(1) of Ontario Regulation 213/91, which requires that material or equipment at a construction project be stored and moved in a manner that does not endanger a worker.

A transport driver employed by the defendant was fatally crushed when a curb machine tipped over while being unloaded from a float trailer.

The defendant brought a motion for non-suit, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove the actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt because the cause of the accident was not established.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the prosecution need not prove how the accident occurred, only that the prohibited act (moving equipment in a manner that endangered a worker) took place.

The fact that a worker was fatally injured constituted prima facie evidence of endangerment.

A trial concerning occupational health and safety violations arising from a serious mining accident at the Cochenour Mine in Red Lake, Ontario on August 4, 2013, where a worker suffered severe injuries when rocks fell onto a Mechanized Raise Climber.

The Crown charged the employer and two supervisors with multiple violations under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and Regulation 854.

The court convicted the corporate defendant on counts relating to failure to provide training, supervision, and job task observations, and convicted the supervisors on counts relating to failure to ensure use of safety equipment and supervision.

The court dismissed charges relating to geology, loading of drill holes with ANFO, and notification of appropriate officials.

The respondent parents brought a motion under Rule 20(5) of the Family Law Rules seeking disclosure of the names and addresses of all private investigators hired by the Children's Services society, along with copies of all correspondence, retainer agreements, and exchanges between the society and investigators since November 2012.

The parents alleged they had observed unknown persons conducting surveillance of their home and taking photographs.

The society claimed litigation privilege over the surveillance materials.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the society has a broad disclosure obligation under Stinchcombe principles, litigation privilege protects work product prepared in contemplation of litigation, including surveillance conducted for litigation purposes that has not been relied upon as evidence.

The Crown prosecuted Vale Canada Ltd. and Keith Birnie following workplace deaths.

Vale Canada Ltd. pleaded guilty to three counts under occupational health and safety legislation.

The court imposed a monetary fine of $350,000 per count for a total of $1,050,000, payable within 60 days, with applicable surcharges.

The Crown withdrew remaining charges against Vale Canada Ltd. and all charges against Keith Birnie due to insufficient evidence of reasonable prospect of conviction and public interest considerations.

The sentencing emphasized workplace safety standards, deterrence, and accountability while acknowledging the tragic loss of life.