Workplace Safety and Insurance Law - ONCA

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.