Line Y. Forestier

The appellant, a constructor, appealed its convictions under the Occupational Health and Safety Act arising from a workplace fatality where a subcontractor's employee was electrocuted after a hydrovac boom contacted an energized overhead wire.

The appellant argued the trial court made palpable and overriding errors in finding the actus reus was proven and in rejecting its due diligence defence.

The appeal court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial court reasonably concluded that the boom entered the restricted envelope, no signaller was designated, the crew was not informed of the unusually low height of the wires, and the appellant's lack of active supervision and monitoring fell short of due diligence.

Appeal of a conviction under the Occupational Health and Safety Act arising from a fatal workplace accident at a steel processing plant.

The defendant was convicted on one count of failing to provide information, instruction and supervision to a worker, and acquitted on two other counts.

The appellate court found that the trial judge erred in failing to consider the worker's negligence in assessing whether the Crown had proven the actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt, and also erred in failing to consider the defence expert's evidence.

The court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, finding either that the actus reus had not been established or, alternatively, that the defendant had proven due diligence.

A worker employed by a subcontractor was electrocuted and killed while operating a Hydrovac truck near energized overhead electrical lines on a project for Ottawa Hydro.

The Ministry of Labour charged Ottawa Hydro with five counts under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and Construction Projects Regulation, alleging failures to ensure safe work procedures, designate a competent signaller, establish written procedures, and take reasonable precautions regarding electrical hazards.

The court found Ottawa Hydro guilty on counts one, two, and four, but dismissed count three and stayed count five.

The court determined that despite extensive training and safety protocols, Ottawa Hydro failed to provide adequate on-site supervision and monitoring of the subcontractor's operations in a high-risk electrical environment.

The appellant employer appealed its conviction under the Occupational Health and Safety Act for failing to take every reasonable precaution to protect a worker after an employee lost his leg in a moving kiln car.

The employer argued that the trial judge failed to consider existing safety measures, convicted on a basis not pleaded in the particulars, and misapplied the onus of proof for a strict liability offence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly considered the circumstances, the particulars provided sufficient notice, and the trial judge correctly applied the burden of proof and due diligence defence.

The respondents were charged under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Crown refused to disclose a Prosecution Approval Form, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

A justice of the peace found a Charter breach, ordered disclosure, and awarded costs against the Crown.

The Crown successfully applied to quash the costs order, arguing the provincial offences court was not a 'court of competent jurisdiction' under s. 24(1) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal reversed this decision.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crown's appeal, holding that a provincial offences court has the power to order costs against the Crown for a Charter breach based on a functional and structural approach to its jurisdiction.