Norman A. Keith

The Crown appealed a directed verdict of acquittal and judgment of acquittal issued by a Justice of the Peace on charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The defendant company operated a construction yard where an employee was fatally struck by a reversing dump truck.

The Crown established that the company violated regulatory requirements regarding signallers.

The court allowed the appeal in part and decided the outstanding issue of due diligence on the evidentiary record.

The court found that the company had established due diligence through its safety protocols, training, and monitoring procedures, despite the tragic accident.

The company was found not guilty.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of a construction company on charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act arising from the death of an employee struck by a reversing dump truck.

The trial court had directed a verdict of acquittal on one count and dismissed the remaining three counts.

The central issue was whether the company failed to ensure that a competent signaller assisted the dump truck operator in accordance with the applicable regulations.

The appellate court found that the trial court erred in concluding that the Crown had not proven the absence of a required signaller, as the evidence established that the deceased was not exclusively performing signaller duties and was not in full view of the truck operator.

The court set aside the acquittals and remitted the due diligence defence for reconsideration.

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.

The appellant was convicted of agreeing to offer a bribe to foreign public officials contrary to section 3(1)(b) of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act.

As an agent of Cryptometrics Canada, the appellant agreed with other employees to bribe Indian officials to secure a multi-million dollar Air India contract.

The appeal raised three main grounds: lack of territorial jurisdiction, misinterpretation of the word "agree" in the statute, and misapplication of the co-conspirators' exception to the hearsay rule.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld the conviction.

Four defendants—two corporations and two individuals—were charged with twelve counts of offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act arising from a fatal accident on May 12, 2008, at a condominium construction site in Toronto.

A piece of cast iron pipe fell from the 23rd floor and struck a senior supervisor, Emilio Piccinin, causing his death.

A former co-defendant, Maple Leaf Structural Ltd., pleaded guilty to one charge.

The remaining defendants pleaded not guilty and proceeded to trial.

The court found that while Maple Leaf bore primary responsibility for the accident, the remaining defendants exercised due diligence and did not breach their statutory duties under the Construction Projects Regulation.

All charges against the remaining defendants were dismissed.

The defendant corporation brought a motion for a stay of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging a breach of section 11(d) rights based on an alleged promise by a Ministry of Labour inspector not to prosecute.

The defendant claimed the inspector's assurance, followed by the laying of charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, constituted an abuse of process.

The court found that the defendant failed to establish a clear agreement or deal with the inspector, that the inspector's conduct did not rise to the level of abuse of process, and that no Charter breach occurred.

The motion was dismissed in its entirety.

A construction contractor was charged with two counts under the Occupational Health and Safety Act following an accident on October 28, 2009, where a worker was struck by a falling steel beam (soldier pile) that broke free from its tack weld during a vibratory hammer operation.

The first count alleged failure to ensure adequate bracing under Ontario Regulations 213/91.

The second count alleged failure to take every reasonable precaution for worker protection under section 25(2)(h) of the OHSA.

The court dismissed the first count but convicted on the second count, finding that while the multiple-pile welding method was lawful and industry-accepted, the employer failed to take reasonable precautions by positioning workers in a danger zone without proper risk assessment or safety measures.

The Meaford and District Fire Department was charged with three counts under section 25(2)(h) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act following injuries to two firefighters during a structure fire at Reeds Restaurant on September 9, 2009.

After a directed verdict motion, two charges were dismissed.

The remaining charge alleged the defendant failed to activate an accountability system to track firefighters entering the burning structure.

The court found that while the accountability system was not fully implemented according to the defendant's own Standard Operating Guidelines, an accountability system was in fact activated in various forms at the scene.

The Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that no accountability system was activated, as particularized in the charge.

The court dismissed the remaining charge and acquitted the defendant.

The Meaford and District Fire Department faced three charges under section 25(2)(h) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act arising from injuries to two firefighters at a structure fire on September 9, 2009.

The charges alleged failures to: (1) activate an accountability system to track firefighters; (2) maintain effective supervision through a command post; and (3) establish a Rapid Intervention Team.

Following the Crown's case, the defendant brought a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal.

The court granted the motion on counts 4 and 6, finding insufficient evidence on the particulars alleged, but dismissed the motion on count 1, finding evidence capable of supporting a conviction.

The applicant sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions certifying it as the employer of union members and dismissing its request for reconsideration.

The applicant had failed to respond to the certification application within the two-day statutory limit, later claiming it was not the employer and had ignored the notice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's decisions were subject to a reasonableness standard of review and that the Board reasonably exercised its discretion in refusing to reconsider the certification despite the applicant's claim that it was not the true employer.

The corporate defendant appealed its convictions under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, arguing it was not the 'employer' of a common carrier's driver who was injured on its site.

The Crown appealed the provincial offences appeal judge's decision to remit the defendant's s. 11(b) Charter delay motion for a rehearing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant's appeal, finding it was an employer because it controlled the workplace.

The Court allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that a corporate defendant cannot rely on presumed prejudice for s. 11(b) delay and must show actual prejudice to its fair trial rights, which it failed to do.

The appellants appealed a Superior Court decision refusing to decide a certiorari application regarding an interlocutory order for severance made by a Justice of the Peace.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that certiorari should not substitute for the lack of a statutory appeal from an interlocutory order.

The Court also found the anticipatory Charter breach claim premature, noting the trial judge is best positioned to decide severance.

The Crown appealed a decision dismissing its application for judicial review of a trial judge's orders.

The trial judge had ordered discovery, cross-examination, and costs as Charter remedies without actually finding a Charter breach.

The Court of Appeal held that delayed disclosure or failure to disclose irrelevant material does not necessarily constitute a Charter breach.

The Court also found that the trial judge committed jurisdictional errors by denying natural justice, specifically by ordering the disclosure of privileged evidence and awarding costs without allowing the Crown to make submissions.

Furthermore, the trial judge exceeded his jurisdiction by ordering the Crown to create an affidavit for the defence.

The appeal was allowed, and the trial judge's orders were quashed.

The appellants appealed a decision regarding whether their trial should be heard by a judge rather than a justice of the peace.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the statute recognizes complex cases may be heard by a judge, it does not require it, making the decision a matter of discretion.

The court found no reviewable error in the lower courts' decisions.

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.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent employee 26 months' salary for wrongful dismissal.

The sole issue on appeal was whether long-term disability benefits received by the respondent during the notice period should be deducted from the wrongful dismissal damages.

The Court of Appeal held that the benefits were not deductible because the respondent had indirectly contributed to the disability plan by accepting a lower salary in exchange for the benefits package.

The appeal was dismissed.

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.