Workplace Safety and Insurance Law - OCA

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 Court of Appeal for Ontario denied the Crown's application for leave to appeal a Provincial Offences Appeal Court (POAC) decision upholding the City of Greater Sudbury's acquittal on charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The case arose from a fatal workplace accident involving a road grader operated by a contractor.

The court found that the trial judge and POAC judge properly applied the due diligence defence and that the issues raised by the Crown did not meet the high threshold for a second-level appeal.

The decision clarifies the application of due diligence in occupational health and safety prosecutions, emphasizing that such defences must be directed at the specific violations alleged and that findings of control are primarily factual.

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 dismissal of charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act against an employer and supervisor following a workplace accident.

The lower courts had excluded evidence from the Ministry of Labour's inspection of a roller, finding a breach of the respondents' Charter rights (s. 11(d)) due to the inspectors' failure to halt inspection after a lawyer's letter, poor note-taking, and not following internal policies.

The Court of Appeal found that there is no constitutional right for an accused to direct an investigation or be present during evidence inspection.

It held that inconsistencies in inspector testimony or failure to follow internal guidelines do not amount to a Charter violation.

Crucially, the respondents failed to demonstrate any prejudice to their right to make full answer and defence, especially after disposing of the evidence themselves.

The appeal was allowed, and a new trial ordered.

This appeal concerned the interpretation of "employer" under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) following a fatal workplace incident.

The City of Greater Sudbury, which had contracted out road repairs, was acquitted at trial and on first appeal, with courts finding it was neither an "employer" nor "constructor." The Court of Appeal for Ontario reversed, holding that the City was indeed an "employer" under OHSA because its own employees (inspectors) were present and performing tasks at the project site, satisfying the first branch of the "employer" definition.

The case was remitted to the appeal court to consider the City's due diligence defence, which had not been addressed by the appeal judge.

The Crown sought leave to appeal the acquittal of the City of Greater Sudbury on charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act arising from a fatal construction accident involving heavy equipment backing up without a signaller.

The Crown argued that the courts below erred in their interpretation of the definitions of "constructor" and "employer" under the OHSA.

The motion judge granted leave to appeal on the narrow ground that the interpretation of "employer" in the OHSA engaged a question of law alone of public interest, specifically whether a municipality contracting out infrastructure work could fall within the definition of "employer" based on the degree of control it exercises over the project.

An appeal by the Ministry of Labour from a provincial offences appeal court decision that reduced sentences imposed on a small furniture warehouse company and two of its directors for Occupational Health and Safety Act violations.

The defendants pleaded guilty to failing to provide fall protection equipment and safety training to an epileptic employee who fell to his death from an elevated order picker.

The sentencing judge imposed a $250,000 fine on the company and 25-day intermittent sentences on the directors.

The appeal judge reduced these to a $50,000 fine and $15,000 fines respectively.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's appeal, finding that while the appeal judge made errors in principle regarding moral blameworthiness and the rarity of incarceration for regulatory offences, the sentences ultimately imposed were not demonstrably unfit.

The court affirmed that moral blameworthiness is a relevant sentencing consideration for regulatory offences and that incarceration is not per se unavailable for first offenders, but upheld the reduced sentences based on changed circumstances and the principle of restraint.

Appeal from conviction and sentence for criminal negligence causing death and bodily harm arising from a swing stage collapse at a construction site.

The appellant, a project manager, was convicted of four counts of criminal negligence causing death and one count of criminal negligence causing bodily harm after five workers fell more than 100 feet when the swing stage collapsed.

Only two lifelines were available for six workers, contrary to provincial law and industry practice.

The appellant had authority to direct the workers and was aware of the safety breach but failed to take corrective action.

The Court of Appeal upheld both the conviction and the three-and-a-half-year concurrent sentence, finding no legal error or palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings of fact or application of law.

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 appellant was injured while working as a go-kart race director.

He had signed a waiver releasing the respondents from liability.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action based on the waiver.

On appeal, the court found that the appellant was an employee covered under Part X of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The court held that it is contrary to public policy to allow individuals to contract out of the protections of Part X of the Act.

The appeal was allowed and the summary judgment was set aside.

The appellant union filed grievances claiming damages for employees' exposure to second-hand smoke in correctional facilities.

The Grievance Settlement Board determined it lacked jurisdiction to award damages for injuries compensable under the Workers' Compensation Act or the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, regardless of whether the claim was framed in tort or contract.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the substance of the claim precludes the Board from awarding damages for compensable injuries.

The appellant company's operations manager and vice-president was severely injured in a workplace accident.

The company had previously opted to remove its executive officers from workers' compensation coverage to save money, purchasing private disability insurance instead.

After the injured officer sued the company and settled for $950,000, the company sought indemnification from its commercial general liability insurer.

The insurer denied coverage based on an 'employee injury exclusion' clause.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the injured officer was an employee at the time of the accident and that the exclusion clause unambiguously applied to all employees, including executive officers, thereby precluding coverage.

The Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decided that employer contributions to an injured worker's health, welfare, and pension benefit plan were not 'earnings' under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997.

The Divisional Court quashed this decision, finding it patently unreasonable because the Tribunal failed to consider the legislative history of the definition of earnings.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Tribunal's appeal, holding that the Tribunal was bound to apply the Board's operational policy, which did not include such contributions as earnings.

The Tribunal's decision was rational and entitled to deference, and the failure to consider legislative history did not constitute a reviewable legal error.

The respondent was denied workers' compensation benefits by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, which found no causal link between his 1979 workplace back injury and his current back problems.

The Divisional Court allowed the respondent's application for judicial review, finding the Tribunal's decision patently unreasonable.

The Tribunal appealed.

Applying the newly established Dunsmuir standard of reasonableness, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and reinstated the Tribunal's decision, holding that the Divisional Court erred by reweighing the evidence and that the Tribunal's factual findings were supported by the record and entitled to deference.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion to amend a statement of claim.

The underlying action had already been dismissed on a motion for summary judgment, which was confirmed by the Court of Appeal and for which the Supreme Court of Canada refused leave to appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the current appeal with costs fixed at $500.

The appellant appealed a Divisional Court order dismissing her application for judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision.

The appellant argued the Tribunal failed to consider a doctor's letter in its refusal to reconsider her application regarding her carpal tunnel disorder.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the failure to refer to the letter did not mean it was not considered, and the Tribunal's decision was not patently unreasonable.

The worker was injured in a motor vehicle accident during the course of her employment and elected to receive workers' compensation benefits.

She later sought to withdraw her claim to pursue a civil action against the alleged tortfeasor.

The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board required her to agree to reimburse the benefits paid to her as a condition of re-election.

The application judge held that the Board could not require reimbursement because the Insurance Act removed its right of subrogation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the arrangement between the Board and the worker was not subrogation, and the Board retained the right to require reimbursement directly from the worker to prevent double recovery.