Michael Nicol

A corporation charged with regulatory offences arising from a critical workplace injury brought a motion for a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging unreasonable delay.

The defendant argued that the delay from charge to trial exceeded the presumptive 18-month ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The court found that although the delay exceeded the ceiling, transitional provisions applied because both parties had relied on the previous legal framework requiring proof of prejudice.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the defendant had failed to actively pursue expedited proceedings, had only once raised Charter rights, and had consented to all adjournments.

The court also found the matter was complex and serious, involving a severe workplace injury and six days of trial time with competing expert evidence.

A manufacturing company was charged with two strict liability offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act for failing to ensure safe procedures and provide adequate instruction and supervision regarding the movement of a heavy spindle component.

A worker was injured when a 10,000-pound spindle fell on his foot during an attempted rotation.

The court found the Crown proved the actus reus but accepted the due diligence defence, finding the accident was not reasonably foreseeable given the company's safety protocols, training programs, and the worker's deliberate deviation from established procedures using an unapproved method.

An appeal from a conviction under the Occupational Health and Safety Act for two breaches arising from a workplace accident.

The appellant, an automobile reconditioning company, was convicted of failing to provide information, instruction, or supervision to a worker in the safe operation of vehicles, and failing to take reasonable precautions to ensure a worker who drove vehicles had a valid driver's licence and proper training.

The trial justice erred in law by finding that the Crown did not need to prove the particulars of the charges and by imposing unreasonable standards of care.

The appellate court found that the worker was hired solely to clean vehicles and was explicitly instructed not to drive, making it unnecessary for the employer to provide driving instruction or supervision.

The conviction was set aside and a finding of not guilty was entered.