Court Information

Court: Ontario Court of Justice

Parties: Her Majesty the Queen v. JF Industrial Systems (Windsor) Inc.

Proceedings at Trial

Before: Justice of the Peace H. DeBacker

Date: November 25, 2013, at Windsor, Ontario

Offences

• Section 113(12)(b) of the Electricity Act - fail to apply for inspection
• Section 113.2(1) of the Electricity Act – no contractor's licence

Appearances

B. Pillon - Provincial Prosecutor

G. Morga - Counsel for the Defendant

Proceedings

Morning Session

THE COURT: Mr. Pillon and Mr. Morga, good morning.

MR. PILLON: Good morning, Your Worship.

MR. MORGA: Good morning, Your Worship. My client has no heat so he's trying to get things organized to get heat so he doesn't have freezing and cracking and all those wonderful things I'm told. He'll be here in about 45 minutes.

THE COURT: Forty-five minutes? So you're asking that we just stand down for 45 minutes and then you'll be ready to go?

MR. MORGA: Please.

MR. PILLON: Yes.

THE COURT: Mr. Pillon, you're ready to go to trial?

MR. PILLON: Yes, I am.

THE COURT: And as soon as your person attends, we'll be ready for trial?

MR. MORGA: Yes.

THE COURT: The court's ready for trial, of course. Okay, at your request then, we'll take a short recess. Let us know when you're ready.

MR. MORGA: Thank you.

MR. PILLON: Thank you, Your Worship.

Upon Resuming

THE COURT: Good morning again, everyone. Mr. Morga, is your person here yet?

MR. MORGA: He's not back yet, but we can start. I don't want to delay the court any longer.

THE COURT: Thank you. We'll have the reading of the charges for the purpose of the record, if you're fine standing for that, please Mr. Morga?

MR. MORGA: Yes.

Reading of Charges

COURTROOM CLERK: JF Industrial Systems (Windsor) Inc. is charged that on or about the 27th day of January of the year 2012, at the City of Windsor did commit the offence of being a contractor, did fail to file with the Inspection Department a completed application for inspection of work on an electrical installation at premises located at 3103 St. Etienne Boulevard as required by the provisions of Rule 2-004(1) of the Electrical Safety Code, adopted by reference in Ontario Regulation 164/99 as amended, and did thereby commit an offence contrary to the Electricity Act R.S.O. 1998, Chapter 15 as amended, Section 113(12)(b); and further; JF Industrial Systems (Windsor) Inc. is charged that on or about the 27th day of January of the year 2012 at the City of Windsor, did operate an electrical contracting business without being the holder of an electrical contractor's licence as required by Section 3 of Ontario Regulation 570/05, and did thereby commit an offence contrary to the Electricity Act, R.S.O. 1998, Chapter 15 as amended, Section 113.2(1).

THE COURT: Thank you, Madam Clerk. To these counts one and two, what is the plea?

MR. MORGA: Not guilty.

Pre-Trial Matters

THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Pillon, did you have any opening comments?

MR. MORGA: Ask for an order excluding witnesses before any of those are made?

THE COURT: Right. There will be more than one witness? I'll make the order excluding witnesses.

MR. PILLON: There will and I have a few comments perhaps before I note the first witness. The first witness will be Steven Dufour, so if all other witnesses can be excluded...

THE COURT: Okay. So we'll have the order made excluding witnesses with the exception of Steven Dufour. Okay.

MR. PILLON: The first thing I was gonna ask, there's a gentleman sitting in a suit up here; his name is Bill Sasse. He was the investigator and really the organizer of all these charges. He won't be called as a witness. I was gonna request leave of the court for him to sit by me to assist me with a number of things.

THE COURT: Sure.

MR. MORGA: I have no objections.

THE COURT: Sure thing.

Witness Exclusion Order

COURTROOM CLERK: By direction of Her Worship, all witnesses in this case are to be excluded from the courtroom until called. If you are being called as a witness, you will leave the courtroom at this time, take your place in the waiting area and be available to come to the courtroom when required. While waiting, you will not attempt to communicate in any way with any witness who has previously testified in this case. Will the defence and the Crown please ensure that their respective witnesses have left the courtroom?

THE COURT: Okay everyone. So, if you're going to be a witness, you need to leave the courtroom and then when you've finished testifying, you're not to have communication with what you said in court with anyone who hasn't testified yet, all right? Thank you. Appears everyone's understanding that. There's quite a number of persons leaving. All right.

Preliminary Submissions

MR. PILLON: So, as I note that I've already tendered the book of legislation with Your Worship, I did that simply for ease of reference for everyone involved. There are two regulations that the Electricity Act make reference to. Those are very hard to ascertain. I thought I would provide to the court. I also provide the Ontario Evidence Act. It's not as widely used in the criminal court as this one. It also is somewhat hard to find.

THE COURT: Oh, I have the Evidence Act? It's here.

MR. PILLON: The final thing is the Electrical Safety Code. It's important the court have that in front them. I have the original copy of that here, I believe. It's a very, very thick code often used on the factory floors. I've made a certified copy of the section that I was going to reference so that we don't have to make reference to a encyclopaedia-size book.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. PILLON: Certified copy of that is on its way. I don't have it in front of me now, but I have the code itself, if I may.

THE COURT: The Electrical Safety Code is before the court; Ontario Electrical Safety Code.

MR. PILLON: Yeah, you'll note that should be the 24th edition, 2009?

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. PILLON: There's since been a new edition since March 2012. That was the one that was in place at the time of the events. That is the one that the defendant would have been bound by.

MR. MORGA: The alleged offence.

MR. PILLON: The alleged offence.

Expert Witness Issue

MR. PILLON: So as I noted, I will have a certified copy of the sections in question very shortly, but until then, we can refer to the original. There is case law. I don't foresee it to be an issue that says that the court has to have any of the original or certified copy, so I'm providing both of those.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. PILLON: The next thing is a topic of dispute at pre-trial was whether or not there would be a qualified expert. I would make the submission that when that witness is to testify, and I don't anticipate that would be today, Mr. Marcel Seguin, we can deal with that issue at that time. The Book of Authorities mostly relates to that witness and whether or not he would be a qualified expert; it's the one that I've filed with the court about a month ago.

MR. MORGA: What's that?

MR. PILLON: The application that I made with the case law on...

MR. MORGA: But you've never filed a report. There's no report from the expert.

MR. PILLON: His qualifications and his CV, I believe, is...

MR. MORGA: I don't care if there's no report.

MR. PILLON: I'm not sure what report my friend's referring to, but in any event, we'll deal with that when...

THE COURT: I...

MR. PILLON: ...we get to that witness.

MR. MORGA: Well, as I understand the rules and I don't want my friend misled, an expert has to file a report before he can be called as an expert and then has to be qualified – but the report that is usually filed along with a notice has not been filed in this case. I've not been served on any – I have no report from this gentleman. I have nothing signed by Mr. Seguin, no document whatsoever other than what appears to be a will-say as part of the overall disclosure, but it is not a will-say in the nature of an expert report at all and as I say, it's not signed by him, not included with the notice. I do have a notice signed by Mr. Menard saying that we're going to call this gentleman as an expert and as you know, that notice usually has a copy of the report attached, but there's no attachment to the report.

THE COURT: I don't know if you have any comment regarding that at this time and any – do you have any response regarding that? Is this just something that's missing or was it never intended or do you just have any comment or just – I know it's very preliminary at this time, just so that I know where your position is?

MR. PILLON: It is preliminary. I simply wanted to mention it 'cause I knew that was sort of the chief issue at pre-trial. I think we can probably deal with that when that witness is called. I'm gonna make a submission that he's not in fact an expert or that he doesn't need to give expert opinion evidence. If that's determined to be true, then...

MR. MORGA: Then we're not going to have a problem.

MR. PILLON: ...then we won't have a problem.

THE COURT: So you're not tendering the witness as an expert then or are you?

MR. PILLON: I'm gonna make the submission that that's not necessary. In the event that it is, I would make the submission that all everything has been filed properly and that he is a qualified expert. And again, I don't think we need to deal with that now.

THE COURT: Okay, we'll get to that later. All right.

Corporate Defendant Issue

MR. PILLON: The next issue if – it appears we are proceeding to trial right now, is whether JF Industrial is a proper defendant. I don't think there's any issue on that. There's a corporation profile report indicating that...

THE COURT: Okay, you're just making some preliminary comments. I don't know – is there an exhibit you're filing regarding that at this time or – that's up to you?

MR. PILLON: I could. I don't think it needs to be filed. I think it's – he's the proper defendant and he's attorn to the jurisdiction. I just wanted to make that clear.

THE COURT: This is a trial. Are you filing a document proving the corporate defendants – I – it's up to you, sir what you wish to do. I don't know.

MR. PILLON: I will do that.

THE COURT: ...wish to do. I don't know.

MR. MORGA: I, I, I, I there's no admissions. We went through two pre-trials. There's no...

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. MORGA: ...admissions so...

THE COURT: So there is not an admission?

MR. MORGA: There's not...

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. MORGA: ...an admission of anything.

THE COURT: No admissions of anything. All right.

MR. MORGA: Nope.

MR. PILLON: Then I will file that. It's a corporation profile report indicating JF Industrial Systems.

THE COURT: Exhibit 1.

Admissibility of Corporate Profile Report

MR. MORGA: No, I'm objecting to this document. I have no idea what this document is and I don't know how my friend can put it into evidence and what rule or provision he purports to file it under. He can't simply – this – I'd like to file this document. I mean...

THE COURT: It's a certified document, Mr. Pillon?

MR. MORGA: Well, let's start with that. Let's...

THE COURT: ...Pillon?

MR. MORGA: ...with that. Let's...

THE COURT: Is this a certified document, Mr. Pillon?

MR. PILLON: Well, again this is something that was admitted at pre-trial. I can't see how it could be an issue.

THE COURT: Sir, are you filing an – a certified document?

MR. PILLON: It's not a certified copy. It's a – simply a printout of a corporation profile report.

MR. MORGA: The Evidence Act requires a certified copy.

THE COURT: So, it's a printout, printout of a corporate profile report. That's it? Okay. Just one moment. What section are you tendering it under?

MR. PILLON: It appears I've misspoke. In fact, it is a certified copy, certified by the Director of Ministry of Government Services out of Toronto, Ontario with his signature at the top.

THE COURT: Okay. It's from – I'm sorry, the Ministry of?

MR. PILLON: Ministry of Government Services and the person's signature is the director of that ministry.

THE COURT: Okay, so it is a certified copy and...

MR. MORGA: May I see it, please?

THE COURT: ...Mr. Morga's been served a copy of this?

MR. PILLON: He has.

MR. MORGA: Now I don't see how this is a certified copy with the greatest respect, Your Worship because it says on top of it something, there is no seal that is the usual one we see a certified copy of a document. The Evidence Act requires that it be under the hand and seal and all that sort of stuff.

THE COURT: Okay and what section number are you referring to Mr. Morga?

MR. MORGA: I think off the top of my head I can't remember but I want to say that it is around Section 35, 34, 35.

THE COURT: And what section number are you relying on it to be admissible, Mr. Pillon and what are you relying on for it to be not admissible, Mr. Morga?

MR. MORGA: I think it's Section 29 of the Evidence Act that deals with...

THE COURT: Looks like 29 public documents...

MR. MORGA: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. Any reply or any comment, Mr. Pillon as to what section number you are relying on that it be admissible?

MR. PILLON: Well, it appears that Section 29 does apply.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. PILLON: Excuse me, Your Worship, I'm simply canvassing to see if another section may be more applicable.

THE COURT: Yes. I know the Highway Traffic Act has its own provision and we normally deal with a lot of Highway Traffic Act ones, but of course, we don't have that provision in this Act so we're now looking at the Evidence Act, okay? I just want to make sure I have your positions clear before making a decision.

MR. PILLON: Okay, Your Worship, if I may? I do believe Section 29 may apply. I also think Section 34.1 electronic records may apply. This is an electronic record in that it was requested from that ministry.

MR. MORGA: What - would – how can my friend give this evidence? With the greatest respect, you know, that's that...

THE COURT: Let's just let him finish what he has to say okay?

MR. MORGA: Yeah, okay.

THE COURT: Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Pillon, finish up. Let's keep moving or we're going to be here a very long time.

MR. PILLON: Indeed we will. I think those two sections may apply.

THE COURT: Okay, thank you.

MR. PILLON: I think under either section, it could be deemed admissible. Moreover, the person who requested and printed this profile report is here, Bill Sasse, who's sitting next to me. He can explain how he obtained it if necessary. I don't think again any of this is necessary given that the defendant has appeared several times, appeared for several pre-trials...

THE COURT: It's a corporate defendant, but let – we're not going to go there. We're at a trial; nothing's admitted. You've got a corporate defendant. All right. So, you've submitted a document tendering that the corporate defendant is an existing company and it's being submitted under Section 29 and it appears that all counsel are in agreement with that and that 34.1 also may be applicable. Clearly under Section 29 that if the original record is received, it's a public document. It's by an official or public document in Ontario, it is – does appear to be purporting to be certified under the hand and seal of a public officer who would be in custody of that document. It's purporting to be certified under the seal of that corporation or a officer or secretary in Ontario. Under Section 29, it indicates that such a document is receivable as evidence without proof of the seal of the corporation, or the signature of the official character or person or persons appearing to have signed the same, and without any further proof thereof and in fact, it will be the finding of the court that a certified document from the Ministry of Government Services, a corporate profile report is something that is admissible in evidence. It's always been admissible in evidence, I've never not seen it admissible in evidence if it's a proper – comes from a proper source. It will be admitted as Exhibit 1. So, Exhibit 1, Corporate Profile Report, we'll mark it as such and provide that to the court, please.

MR. MORGA: Thank you, Your Worship.

MR. PILLON: Thank you. It's a five-page document.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. PILLON: It can be one exhibit.

EXHIBIT NUMBER 1: Corporate Profile Report - produced and marked.

Witness Testimony

Steven Dufour - Examination in-Chief

MR. PILLON: And those are all the pre-trial motions or issues that I determined relevant at this time. Therefore, I can call my first witness.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. PILLON: Steven Dufour, please?

COURTROOM CLERK: Please come forward, sir.

STEVEN DUFOUR: SWORN

THE COURT: Mr. Dufour, I'm going to ask that you not speak too quickly and you take your time in speaking because the court is taking notes and it's important that I have everything exactly as you've stated it.

STEVEN DUFOUR: Okay.

THE COURT: All right and that you speak up so we can hear you. We all want to.

Examination in-Chief by Mr. Pillon

Q. Good morning, Mr. Dufour.

A. Good morning.

Q. Do you understand what brings you to court here today, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. You understand then that there was an investigation involving some work that you may or may not have done?

A. Yes.

Q. And as a result of that, you've been called as a witness for a trial?

A. Yep.

Q. I'll ask you sir, do you remember an incident that took place on January 27th, 2012?

A. Yep.

Q. I'm going to ask you to describe what happened on that day, but before I do, who were you employed with at that time?

A. JF Industrial.

THE COURT: Just one moment. Okay.

MR. PILLON:

Q. And at that time, January 27th, 2012, you noted that you were employed with JF Industrial. What was your role there?

A. I was a year-one apprentice.

THE COURT: Sorry, say that again?

A. Year-one apprentice, electrical apprentice.

MR. PILLON:

Q. And what were your responsibilities?

A. Do what you're told.

Q. So you were an apprentice in what field?

A. In the electrical field, industrial electrical.

Q. So am I right in assuming that you did mostly electrical work?

A. Yes.

Q. And what are the limitations of an apprentice? I imagine you're not allowed to do everything that a electrician is allowed to do, is that right?

MR. MORGA: This evidence is actually going to be much more contentious than my friend is dealing with it, starting with the term "electrical work", which he used and I'm therefore going to ask that he refrain from putting suggestions to the witness as to what he might or might not have done and let's get from the witness what he did and didn't do. It's because...

THE COURT: I'm still going to allow the question. I'm understanding the point that Mr. Morga is saying and I hope you're understanding that point as well to not make a suggestion as to what type of work maybe, but – well, you did ask him that. We heard – we're going to hear from him. I'd still like to hear the answer to the question. You asked a question if there were limitations, but then you went on, Mr. Pillon, to suggest an answer, so that was the part that was over the threshold of what you should have asked. So, just really take your time on this, Mr. Pillon, okay? So, go ahead again.

MR. PILLON:

Q. So sir, what were your – what was your role as an apprentice?

A. I worked under a journeyman or a master, learning as I worked, trying to well, eventually become an electrician so...

Q. Like, when you say you were an apprentice, were you going to school at the same time?

A. I hadn't started school yet.

Q. I see, so you were – was there some requirement, was there a certain number of hours that you had to put in?

A. To complete my journeyman?

Q. Yes.

A. It depends on the ticket that you're trying to obtain, but from my understanding with an industrial apprenticeship, you simply have to complete the book that you're given once you're an apprentice.

Q. I see, so JF Industrial was employed you as an apprentice to complete all that?

A. Yes.

Q. Now was there someone who worked for or who owned JF Industrial – was there someone who hired you?

A. Yes, it was Rob Labutte.

THE COURT: Just one moment. Thank you, go ahead.

MR. PILLON:

Q. And when did he hire you? Do you recall?

A. It was October. I don't recall the exact day, October of 2012.

Q. And you noted that you were working for JF in January of 2012?

A. Yes.

Q. So did he – and he hired you before that day?

A. Yes.

Q. And you said it was October and what year again was it?

A. 2012. Excuse me. I was injured on January 27th of 2012, not October or November so – no, sorry, yeah, so it would be 2012 – no, I'm sorry, I don't know. I can't recall. It was three months...

Q. It was previous to that?

A. ...it was three months prior to the accident that I was hired, just to clarify.

Q. Okay, so three months before January 2012?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay, so taking you to that date, the 27th of January, what were you doing on that date?

A. I was working on a busbar.

THE COURT: Okay, just one moment. Go ahead. You were working on?

A. I was working on a busbar.

MR. MORGA: I'm sorry, I can't hear this witness. I apologize, sir.

THE COURT: It might be my typing, too.

MR. MORGA: Just keep your voice up a bit.

THE COURT: Okay?

MR. MORGA: No, that doesn't amplify your voice any.

A. Okay.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. MORGA: That's just...

A. I was working on a busbar.

THE COURT: Okay, yes.

MR. PILLON:

Q. I'll start with this, where were you working on that day?

A. Spiral Industries.

Q. Is that in the City of Windsor?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Do you remember where, which street is was on?

A. Off Central, I don't recall the name.

Q. You said you were working on a busbar?

A. Yes.

Q. And that was at Spiral Industries?

A. Yes.

Q. And what do you mean by "working on a busbar?"

A. We were changing locations of heavy machines and we needed to change the electrical drops for those locations.

Q. What kind of work – what did that entail, changing the electrical drops?

A. Disassembling and reassembling conduit runs, pulling wiring through the conduit, changing disconnect locations, hanging new conduit, making new connections.

Q. Could I ask you, you noted that you were pulling through conduit, hanging new conduit, I'll ask you, what is conduit?

A. It's the metal pipe that wires go through.

Q. So you noted that you were changing the locations of machines and I gather that to change the location of a machine, all of what you just described is necessary?

A. Yes.

Q. So when you say that you were changing the electrical drops, what do you mean by that?

A. The drops are considered to be the cabtire or cable that is connected to the heavy machine. It – the cabtire runs from the disconnect to the equipment.

Q. So when you say the cable connected, what is the cable? What is it running to or from?

A. It looks like an extension cord. It's running from the disconnect and directly connected to the machinery.

Q. What is it...

THE COURT: Okay, yes, go ahead.

MR. PILLON:

Q. ...this may sound like a very silly question, but what is it providing? What is the purpose of that cord?

A. Electricity.

Q. So am I right and it sounds a lot more complicated than this, but are you essentially disconnecting it and reconnecting a new one?

A. As well as changing the locations, yes.

Q. I see and it – this cable, as you noted, it supplied electricity to the machines?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Was anyone else working with you at that time?

A. Can you explain what you mean by "with me?"

Q. All the things you just described, disassembling the conduit runs, pulling through conduit and so on, were you alone in doing that or was someone with you?

A. Rob Labutte was in the facility on the floor level; I was on the scissor-lift in the ceiling.

Q. So you were working at a higher distance, I assume?

A. Yes.

Q. How high above the ground were you?

A. Exactly, I don't know, but at least 15 feet.

Q. So you were the only one on that lift?

A. Yes.

Q. Now you noted that you were moving machines. I take from that there were several machines?

A. Yes, I wasn't responsible for moving the actual machinery...

Q. I see.

A. ...but just the electrical portion.

Q. Just the electrical portion? What resulted in that day? What ultimately happened to you?

A. I was electrocuted and covered in burns.

Q. I'll just take you back to when you were electrocuted; I'll ask you how did that happen? Perhaps you could just describe to the court what you were doing when that happened?

A. I was pulling a disconnect off the busbar. I was thrown back...

Q. I'm sorry, sir. You've mentioned a busbar. What is that?

A. It's a metal enclosure; it's rectangular and runs along the ceiling to house the conductors that the disconnect connects to.

Q. Okay, forgive me. Continue.

A. I'm sorry, I forget where I left off.

THE COURT: Pulling a – you – "I was pulling a disconnect off the busbar."

A. Right. It basically exploded in front of me. I caught on fire. I was thrown back. I fell to my stomach. I remember pulling myself off the scissor-lift, throwing myself off because molten metal was falling on me. I fell to the ground; I landed on my shoulder and I scrambled about 10 to 15 feet and collapsed.

MR. PILLON:

Q. Do you recall what happened next?

A. Yep. I – a couple of the Spiral Industry workers helped me to a seat, assessed my injuries, removed or I guess, cut my pant legs to see basically what had happened. Actually, a lot of my clothes was cut; I don't remember exactly what, but they were just asking me questions making sure I was basically alert. The ambulance and fire department showed up shortly after. I was put onto a stretcher and put into the ambulance and brought to the hospital.

Q. Did you ultimately suffer any injuries as a result of this?

A. Yes.

Q. And what were those?

A. Second and third degree burns, nerve damage, I put a rib out of place, lots of symptoms, headaches, vomiting every day, lack of sleep, depression, loss of feeling.

Q. Thank you, sir, I don't believe I have any further questions for you.

THE COURT: Just remain there, though. Mr. Morga may have some questions. So, just one minute while I get this ready.

Cross-Examination by Mr. Morga

Q. Was that your first day at Spiral Industries?

A. No.

Q. When approximately did you start there?

A. I was there on and off from about the time I started at JF.

Q. And are you familiar with a company called Rose City Electric?

A. I've heard of them.

Q. Okay. Now, who did you report to? In other words, who was your immediate boss?

A. Rob Labutte.

Q. And so he would tell you what to do on a daily basis?

A. Yes.

Q. And what was the sort of program? Did you get told that morning what to do or did you get told the day before? How did it work out?

A. It depended on the job. If I was, say at Spiral for example, he would tell me what we were doing in this grand scheme of things, but also give me day-to-day direction if needed. Some days I went in and already knew what I was doing.

Q. Okay. All right, let's try this, to think back and at Spiral in the course of this overall job as opposed to the specific tasks that you were doing, how many people were there for JF, approximately?

A. At the time of the injury?

Q. Not at the time of the injury, but generally speaking?

A. Most of the time it was just me.

Q. Just you?

A. Yeah.

Q. And Mr. Labutte would be in and out?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay and I take it that in the three months or so that you had been working for JF, this was not your only job? In other words, Spiral was not your only job?

A. No.

Q. You'd go wherever you were told to go?

A. Right.

Q. Okay, so you were working at other – mostly industrial concerns?

A. Yes.

Q. JF did no residential work?

A. Right.

Q. Okay. All right, so at Spiral, the overall contract was the moving of some machines?

A. As far as I know.

Q. Okay. You weren't part of that?

A. I had no part in the business end of it, no.

Q. Okay, so what would happen is you would be told on a day-to-day basis what to do after as sort of a general idea and then you would do those tasks, right?

A. Yeah.

Q. Okay and on the particular date in question, you know that the overall job was over a period of time, the moving of these machines?

A. Yes.

Q. That wasn't something that was accomplished in a couple of hours or a couple of days, right?

A. A couple of days it would have been.

Q. For the whole moving of the machines and everything else?

A. Define a couple of days.

Q. Well, two.

A. Two days, then no, it was more than two days.

Q. Okay so the machines themselves are large industrial machines?

A. Yes.

Q. And in terms of say the bench that the court is at, would it be that sort of...

A. About that size.

Q. ...that size, but much taller?

A. Much taller than the bench, yes.

Q. Yeah, the footprint of the machine would be approximately the size of the bench?

A. Yes, but all the machines were different size.

Q. Okay, but we're not talking about a stand mixer here, we're talking about large industrial machines?

A. Stamp machines, yes.

Q. Okay and those are moved by some kind of crane or large machine?

A. They were using forklifts.

Q. Okay, these aren't machines that you just roll into place or something like that?

A. No.

Q. Okay. All right and were you doing that or somebody from JF doing that or somebody else doing that?

A. I was not responsible for moving the machines.

Q. Okay, okay. Do you know who was?

A. No. I know – I – there was some people working on it, but I don't know exactly what their names were or who they were working for.

Q. Were they JF people or something else?

A. I would assume that they were Spiral people.

Q. Okay.

A. I know they weren't JF.

Q. All right. So, when you said that – earlier that the overall job – I'm just – I'm not trying to question what you're saying or trying to – what's the word I'm looking for? I'm having some issue with the word. I – you know what the overall intention was, was to move some machines and in effect, have those machines have electricity to them?

A. Yes.

Q. Right? They'd be reconnected to – because they were already connected when this started?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. So, in a sort of a – of a miniature version of it, if you've got a toaster plugged into a wall outlet at your house and you want to move the toaster to another location, you – toaster has to be disconnected. In other words, you pull the plug, move it to the other location and plug it in, right?

A. I think you're highly simplifying it.

Q. Yeah – no I am trying to highly simplify it, but but essentially, that's what we're talking about doing? Moving, moving a piece of equipment that is run by electricity from one location to another location?

A. Is that a question?

Q. Yeah, is that what we're trying to do?

A. Essentially.

Q. Okay and who was doing what was really not your responsibility? Your responsibility was to do what you were told by Mr. Labutte, your boss?

A. Yep.

Q. Okay and so as to who actually physically moved the machines, that wasn't your responsibility?

A. No.

Q. As to who paid for that, that's not your responsibility?

A. No.

Q. Okay, all right. So, on the day that you were – that you're talking about that you were injured, were there still machines being moved?

A. At that exact time?

Q. Yeah, that day?

A. I don't know if they had planned on moving them that exact day.

Q. Okay.

A. Like I said, that wasn't my concern.

Q. Right. When you – what time of day did you get hurt at roughly?

A. It was the a.m. I'm not exactly sure.

Q. Okay and what time did you start work that day?

A. It would have been – again, I'm not a 100 percent sure. It would have been about eight o'clock, I think.

Q. Okay and as far as the time that you got hurt, you really can't say today what time that was?

A. No, but it was a few hours after I had started.

Q. And I guess before I ask you about all the – these details, let's sort of go back a little bit and talk about this, this busbar. A busbar is big box, a big, a big metal box, right?

A. It's not a box. It's – it runs along the ceiling. It's – it is rectangular but very, very long.

Q. Okay, what's very, very long mean? Long as me to you? Longer?

A. Long as in however furthest your machine is, that's how far it has to go. It ran the entire length of the building practically.

Q. Okay and okay and is this box somehow hooked up to electrical power?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Where is it hooked up to electrical power?

A. The main panel.

Q. And the main panel comes where from where?

A. Comes from the service side into the building.

Q. And then there's a connection from the panel to this busbar...

THE COURT: Just one...

MR. MORGA:

Q. ....is that the idea?

THE COURT: ...just one moment. You're not going to be called as a witness are you, sir?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER FROM BODY OF THE COURT: No, I'm not.

THE COURT: Okay, that's fine then.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER FROM BODY OF THE COURT: Okay.

THE COURT: Sorry, go ahead. Ask your question again?

MR. MORGA: Thank you.

THE COURT: ...again?

MR. MORGA:

Q. Okay, so the – this – the panel that the electrical service comes into is different than the busbar?

A. Can you repeat the question?

Q. You indicated that the busbar is hooked up to a panel?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. It's not immediately hooked up to a panel; there's a conduit that runs from the panel to the busbar and that contains in it the wires that hook up the busbar to the panel?

A. Yeah.

Q. Is that right? And then, from the panel, there's another conduit that goes outside of the building and that eventually hooks up to the electrical source that comes to the building?

A. Yeah, depending on if it's above ground or below.

Q. Okay and – all right. The part that you were involved with that day is in bringing conduit up to the busbar?

A. Yes.

Q. And when you – and I have a bit of an idea what happens, but I'm gonna take it in steps just to make sure that I understand it. When the machine is placed wherever its new location is going to be...

A. Mm-hmm.

Q. ...there is a conduit that's run from near the machine or at the machine?

A. The way it works is a conduit runs from the busbar to a box directly above the machine and then a cabtire is suspended by a tension, basically or a spring, I guess, a big spring is what it looks like and it runs down to the machine and it's hooked up directly to the machine.

Q. Okay and so from from this box above the machine to the machine itself, is there a conduit?

A. No.

Q. Just the wires?

A. Right.

Q. These are what, insulated wires of some kind?

A. It's a cabtire. It looks like an extension cord.

Q. Okay. All right and is that actually wired to the machine or is it plugged in?

A. It's wired. It's directly connected.

Q. Okay and at the box that's suspended, is there – is it plugged in there or is it also hard-wired?

A. The box isn't suspended. It is hard-wired and it's – the box is mounted to the ceiling. The cabtire is what is suspended.

Q. Okay, spell that for me, please?

A. Cabtire?

Q. Yeah.

A. C-A-B-T-I-R-E.

Q. C-A-B as in...

A. "Cab".

Q. Okay.

A. And tire. That's – it's what it's called in the trade.

Q. Okay, all right. So, so this is a – you say it looks like a spring, sort of a spiral kind of thing?

A. The cabtire has, like, a sleeve on it and that sleeve is connected to a spring taking basically the weight off of the cabtire so that it's not pulling.

Q. All right. So the so the conduit that you're talking about goes from the box in the ceiling to the busbar?

A. Right.

Q. Okay, so there's no conduit that goes from this box and is that what you called it, a box, that's...

A. Yes.

Q. ...above of the machine?

A. Yep.

Q. Okay and then from that to the to the machine itself is this cabtire?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay and in terms of Spiral Industries, not generically, but let's talk about Spiral Industries itself, what would be the approximate distance from the box to the machine?

A. Probably 25 feet, depending on the machine height and the part in the facility because they had different ceiling heights.

Q. Okay and the box is anchored to what, the ceiling?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay and what's the approximate distance from the box to the busbar?

A. That really depends on which box you're speaking about.

Q. Okay, so it can be a longer run or a shorter run, depending on the location of the machine?

A. Right.

Q. Okay, so if we sort of use this courtroom as an example, let's say that the busbar is against that wall behind you?

A. Mm-hmm.

Q. Okay, so conduits are run from that to a box above the machine?

A. Right.

Q. So, if the machine is...

THE COURT: Just one....

MR. MORGA:

Q. ...where the court reporter is...

THE COURT: Can I just catch up with you just so that I get this? If the busbar is behind you, and I'm sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Morga, but I want to make sure I'm understanding this...

MR. MORGA: Yeah.

THE COURT: ...the Court's understanding it, too. The busbar is behind you and the next you said after that is the...

MR. MORGA: The conduit...

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. MORGA: ...okay, the...

THE COURT: The conduit.

MR. MORGA: ...conduit is run to a box, which is essentially directly above the machine.

A. Yep.

MR. MORGA:

Q. So, if the machine is where the court reporter is located...

A. Mm-hmm.

Q. ...then the box would be in the ceiling, generally speaking, directly above her?

A. Yes.

Q. And if there was another box located say, where I'm standing now, at the end of the bench, if there was another, sorry, another machine, let's say, way down here...

A. Mm-hmm.

Q. ...then there would be a piece of conduit running from the box immediately above me to the busbar?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay and that goes on throughout the plant?

THE COURT: I'm going to get you to stand back over there for reporting to get your voice.

MR. MORGA: Yeah.

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. MORGA:

Q. That goes out throughout the plant in that wherever the machine is located, there's a box above it and then the conduit runs from that box to the busbar?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

THE COURT: Okay, wherever – just let me make sure I got this, per machine is a conduit or a busbar? Sorry...

MR. MORGA: The conduit...

THE COURT: ...conduit.

MR. MORGA: ...runs from the box to the busbar?

A. Yep.

MR. MORGA:

Q. And these are all straight pieces of conduit then?

A. No.

Q. Okay...

A. No.

Q. ...what – where would they turn or be bent or whatever?

A. Depending on obstructions. You can't always make a straight path, so you need to go around what's in the ceiling.

Q. Okay and to do that, you bend the conduit?

A. Yes.

Q. Use some kind of pipe-bending tool to do that?

A. Yes.

Q. And then the wire is pulled through the conduit?

A. Yes.

Q. Now at the busbar, again, just so I understand it, that's where the electrical power comes from?

A. Right.

Q. And that power is brought from the busbar, through the wire that's in the conduit, to the box, and then from the box down the machine by this cabtire?

A. Yes, it goes through a disconnect as well at the busbar.

Q. Okay, that's what I want to get to next. A disconnect, as I understand it, can be compared roughly to a breaker in your electrical box at home?

A. Yeah.

Q. In that that's its basic function is to connect to that power source...

A. With one...

Q. ...that's the busbar?

A. ...with one main difference. The disconnect is manually disconnected; a breaker can be tripped.

Q. Right, but it has it has the same function in that it can be turned on or off, correct?

A. Right.

Q. Okay, so – and and you can have a disconnect at a busbar turned off with 20 or 30 other disconnects all working?

A. Correct.

Q. And as you say, the big difference is that with a disconnect at a busbar, somebody has to turn it on or off?

A. Right.

Q. Whereas at home, if the system's overloaded, it trips off?

A. Yeah, the disconnect has fuses usually inside of it and the fuses can be burnt out, so...

Q. And is there a main breaker, if you will, to the to the busbar?

A. Yes.

Q. So – and and that would be located somewhere between the panel and the busbar?

A. It would be in the panel.

Q. In the panel?

A. Yeah.

Q. Okay, good. All right. So so I can go to the panel or somebody can go to the panel and turn off the whole busbar?

A. Yeah.

Q. Okay or somebody can go to the busbar and turn off individual disconnects?

A. Right.

Q. Okay and just so we're clear, if someone goes and turns off the disconnect to that mythical machine that I said was where Madam Court Reporter is, that one would be off, but all the other ones would still be live?

A. Right.

Q. Okay.

MR. MORGA: The court's indulgence for a second?

MR. MORGA:

Q. All right, so as far as you know, from what you were told, JF's job inside Spiral Industries was relocating the machines and with that, putting in new boxes and new conduit, which would take it to the busbar?

A. Like I said, the machinery itself wasn't our responsibility. We were just moving the electrical and the pneumatic lines for those machines.

Q. Okay, I didn't hear anything about pneumatic lines before? I think that's new.

A. I have nothing to do with pneumatic, that's pipefitting.

Q. That's?

A. That's pipefitting.

Q. Okay, but that was part of JF's responsibility then?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay, now can you describe what you had done, if you can remember, what you had done that morning from when you got there to when you were injured and please be careful to retrace your complete steps?

A. I couldn't tell you. I – it was just like any other day up until that point.

Q. So in terms of the specifics of what you did or didn't do that day, you don't recall?

A. Not as far as being different from any other day.

Q. How many days had you worked at Spiral Industries in total?

A. I don't know.

Q. Do you recall if you had worked there the day before?

A. No, I don't. I think I did because we were in the middle of the project.

Q. I'm sorry?

A. I think, I think I did because we were in the middle of a project. Most likely, I would have been there for the last few days.

Q. Okay. Now do you know – just – we were talking – briefly you spoke about pneumatics and you said that's pipefitting?

A. Mm-hmm.

Q. Do you know if if JF has pipefitters on staff?

A. Yes, they do.

Q. Okay, all right. When you were – you you said you were up on a scissor-lift?

A. Yep.

Q. All right. That's that's a hydraulic platform that, as it rises up in the air, the support system criss-crosses back and forth so it looks like extended x's?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that fair?

A. Yep.

Q. And there's what, two or four of those on the machine?

A. I have no idea.

Q. Okay, but in any event, you you press a button and this machine rises up and lifts you with it?

A. Right.

Q. So, presumably at some point, you were down on the floor or did you climb a ladder to get up to this thing or how did you get up there?

A. You get in and then you lift it.

Q. Okay, good and do you recall doing that that day or do do you really have any memory of that?

A. Not specifically.

Q. Okay so you were up there and you you said you were you were pulling a disconnect off the busbar?

A. Yep.

Q. And what does that entail exactly?

A. After the clamps are loosened, you you turn them so they're clear of the busbar and it's simply pulling the whole thing off.

Q. So they're – and how how big is this disconnect? You have a bible in front of you, in terms of the size of that bible?

A. It's a bit bigger than that. It's a – maybe like a foot by six or eight inches wide by about eight inches tall.

Q. Okay and it has clamps on either end?

A. They go over top the busbar and underneath and tighten on.

Q. So you you unloosen [sic] that, right?

A. I loosen that, yep.

Q. And then you you pull that out?

A. Yeah.

Q. Okay, now – okay and the wiring that comes through the conduit is wired to that?

A. It wasn't at that time. I had already removed it all.

Q. Okay. You had removed the wiring yourself?

A. Yes.

Q. That day?

A. Yeah.

Q. And who had told you to do that?

A. Rob.

Q. And he told you that that morning?

A. I don't recall.

Q. Had you been putting in conduit that morning?

A. Yes.

Q. And when you put in conduit, when you put the conduit in, when you install the conduit, this is just empty pipe, correct?

A. Right.

Q. And I suppose depending on the the size of wires that eventually will go through the pipe, that determines the the size of the conduit or is the conduit all the same size?

A. No, it it's determined by the wires going inside.

Q. Okay and so you had been installing conduit that day?

A. Yes.

Q. All right and this is clamped to the ceiling or to whatever support mechanism is there?

A. Yeah.

Q. Okay and it goes from the general area of the box to the general area of the busbar?

A. Yes.

Q. How far from the busbar does the conduit stop?

A. It goes directly into the disconnect that's attached to the busbar.

Q. The conduit is?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay and when the conduit is installed, it's hollow at that point, there's nothing inside?

A. Right.

Q. Okay and you say that you were told that day to disconnect some disconnects?

A. Yeah.

Q. And you were told to put new conduit in?

A. Yes.

Q. And you were in the act of disconnecting a disconnect or removing a disconnect when you say you were injured?

A. I was pulling it off the busbar.

Q. All right. Thank you.

THE COURT: Just just keep remaining there, please Mr. Dufour? Now, Mr. Pillon may have just a few more questions for you.

MR. PILLON: Nothing in reply, Your Worship.

THE COURT: Nothing?

MR. PILLON: Thank you.

THE COURT: No other questions? Okay. Thank you very much, sir. You may step down. You're free to go or remain; whatever you wish to do.

A. Okay, thank you.

THE COURT: Did we need a – just a 10-minute break at all or - I don't know if it's – with it being noon and we might go right to one or it's whatever?

MR. PILLON: I'm in your hands, Your Worship.

THE COURT: I don't know how long your next witness is going to be. I don't want to break up a witness.

MR. PILLON: If I had to estimate, I would say not very long at all.

THE COURT: Okay, go ahead. Call your next witness, then.

MR. PILLON: Robert Labutte.

Robert Labutte - Examination in-Chief

COURT CLERK REPORTER'S NOTE: The name, Robert Labutte, was paged in the court and in the hall.

THE COURT: Robert Labutte?

ROBERT LABUTTE: Yes.

THE COURT: You are Robert Labutte?

ROBERT LABUTTE: Yes.

THE COURT: Come forward over here, please sir and take the witness stand. I'm going to ask that you remove the gum from your mouth before you take the witness stand.

MR. MORGA: Your Worship, this is Mr. Brandie. He's my instructing individual. He is, I guess, on the Crown's witness list, but I don't think he's been subpoenaed for today. Are you intending to call?

THE COURT: Is he going to be called as a witness because we did have an order excluding witnesses?

MR. PILLON: He did. He's the president of the defending company. I don't think I can...

THE COURT: Ask that he be excluded?

MR. PILLON: ...I don't think he's compellable as a witness, frankly. I think he's a representative of the company.

THE COURT: Okay. You can have a seat up there, sir.

ROBERT LABUTTE: SWORN

Examination in-Chief by Mr. Pillon

Q. Good morning, sir. How are you currently employed? Where do you work?

A. I work at JF Industrial Services.

Q. How long have you worked there?

A. Well, with this company, it's been about a year now.

Q. Now did you work there on January 27th of 2012 for JF Industrial?

A. JF Industrial Windsor, yes.

Q. Yes. Are you familiar with what brings you to court here today?

A. Somewhat, not exactly a 100 percent sure, but....

Q. Okay. Did you witness an incident that occurred on that day, January 27th, 2012?

A. Yes...

Q. Did that incident...

A. ...I was there that day.

Q. Forgive me. Did that involve a Steven Dufour?

A. Yes.

Q. What is your relationship with Mr. Dufour?

A. He's a co-worker.

Q. A co-worker at JF Industrial?

A. JF Industrial Windsor, yes.

Q. Now you say the incident did involve Mr. Dufour and you're co-workers there? Were you co-workers on that day?

A. Yes.

Q. What was your role with the company at that time?

A. I was...

Q. What position were you holding?

A. ...I'm basically managerial, I guess.

Q. Are you familiar with who hired Mr. Dufour?

A. I did.

Q. You did? Now in your role as manager, did you manage Steven Dufour?

A. I supervised him on occasion, yes.

Q. He was an apprentice at that time?

A. Just, yes.

Q. Right and you knew that? So, I imagine as an apprentice, he required instructions on a day-to-day basis?

A. Yes.

Q. Was it you who provided those instructions...

A. Yes.

Q. ...or was it someone else? It was you?

A. On that day, yes, myself.

Q. And I noted on that day, you provided him with instructions? Do you recall doing that?

A. Yep.

Q. And from a general standpoint, what were your instructions, if you recall?

A. We – pertaining to the accident at hand or from the time we started right on through?

Q. On that day, generally, what were his responsibilities? What did you tell him to do?

A. Well, we worked on a few different, few different items that day, so it's kinda hard to remember exactly what...

Q. Okay, perhaps we'll narrow it down then. The incident in question, what he was doing...

A. Yes.

Q. ...what were your instructions with regard to that activity?

A. For that day, what he was doing was disconnecting some conduit, pulling out some existing wires that were just hanging in a ceiling and then putting new pipe up for a new machine that was going to be put into a new location.

Q. And why did all of this need to happen? Why did new pipe have to be put up and wiring had to be pulled...

A. 'Cause they were moving a machine. They were changing their form layout to improve their productivity basically.

Q. Okay, the machines, they required wiring?

A. Yes.

Q. And what was the purpose of that wiring?

A. Well there's interlocks involved, there's all kinds of different aspects of when you tear down a machine to put a machine back in service.

Q. But generally speaking, what was the purpose of the wiring that was connected to the machines?

A. So the wiring in the ceiling you're you're talking – referring to or the wiring...

Q. Yes, the wiring he was working on.

A. The wiring that he – well he was working on all kinds so...

Q. Okay.

A. To what was in the ceiling is the power drop, so that would supply power to the machine to make it operational.

Q. This is going to sound like a bit of a silly question, but just to be perfectly clear, when you say it provides power to make it operational, what kind of power are we talking about?

A. Five-seventy-five; so, 575 volts.

Q. So, when we're talking about volts, I assume we're talking about electricity?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now I believe you already noted this, but where were you working at this time?

A. I was threading some pipe, I believe...

Q. I mean....

A. ...at the time that this happened.

Q. Generally speaking, where was the location that both you and Steven were working? Was it a factory?

A. Yes, Spiral Industries.

Q. Okay and I imagine being a manager, that you are familiar with why you were working at Spiral?

A. Yeah.

Q. Am I safe in assuming that they hired you?

A. Spiral?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes. We had a contract with them. I quoted a job; we were approved the job.

Q. It was you who quoted it?

A. Yes.

MR. PILLON: Permission to approach this witness, Your Worship? I'm gonna show him a document and simply ask if he recognizes it.

MR. PILLON:

Q. This is a three – four page document, sir. Do you recognize what's before you? All four pages?

A. Okay, I recognize three out of the four.

Q. And what are they?

A. Well this is the quotation that I submitted.

Q. Okay.

A. And that is whatever it says on there.

Q. Okay and when you say "quotation", what do you mean by that?

A. Well, they called me in and they asked me to quote a job so, I go through what their requirements are and then I put a dollar to what they're asking.

Q. And we're talking about Spiral Industries?

A. Yes.

Q. And that that's a copy of that original document...

A. That is a copy.

Q. ...I assume?

A. Yes.

Q. The document in its original form was created by you?

A. Yes, that's my signature on the last page of this three-page quote.

Q. I see. And it says a quotation. Was it ultimately approved?

A. Yes.

Q. And as a result of that contract, you were working on January 27th, 2012 at Spiral?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that correct? Okay.

A. This was one of other jobs that we had in there as well.

Q. I see.

A. At the same time.

Q. And you said you recognize three out of the four. What is the one page that you don't recognize?

A. It looks like an invoice of sorts.

Q. And you...

A. 'Cause it says, "invoice."

Q. ...and you didn't make that invoice?

A. No, I don't make invoices.

MR. PILLON: I would ask Your Worship that the three pages the witness does recognize become an exhibit? The purpose as he described is that he was hired by Spiral Industries on behalf of JF Industrial to work on the day in question.

Recess and Resumption

R E C E S S

U P O N R E S U M I N G

THE COURT: The matter of JF Industrial Systems (Windsor) Inc. We have the witness, Rob Labutte?

MR. PILLON: Yes.

THE COURT: Come forward, please sir? We'll have you take the witness stand once again.

ROBERT LABUTTE: RE-SWORN

MR. PILLON: Your Worship, it appears there are some witnesses in the body of the court.

THE COURT: Yes, we are going to have to repeat that order excluding witnesses. There's been an order excluding witnesses so anyone who will be a witness in this matter needs to remain outside the body of the courtroom and just remain out there until your name is called and then we'll have you attend and take the witness stand. You're not to have any conversation with anyone, anyone who's been a witness with anyone who hasn't yet been a witness about what was said in court, okay? We just got to the point about an exhibit, but we didn't quite get it tendered.

MR. PILLON: That's right.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. PILLON: And if I can tender that now? I need to be clear, this is the three documents that Mr. Labutte could identify, not the fourth which was an invoice.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. PILLON: And what is this? What are you calling this, an invoice?

THE COURT: Exhibit Number 2 is an invoice?

MR. MORGA: It's actually a quotation.

THE COURT: Quotation, yes.

MR. PILLON: Yes. I was trying to find how the witness identified it. A quotation would suffice.

THE COURT: A quotation of Mr. Labutte?

MR. PILLON: Yes.

EXHIBIT NUMBER 2: Quotation of Mr. Labutte - produced and marked.

Examination in-Chief Continued by Mr. Pillon

Q. Mr. Labutte, you noted that you had and still do work for JF Industrial. The company that you work for now, what is the name of it?

A. JF Industrial Services Inc.

Q. And is that different than the company you worked for in January of 2012?

A. It's a different company, yes.

Q. Is it the same – I assume there's a person who owns that company?

A. There's more than one person, yes.

Q. All right, is it the same individuals that own both companies?

A. There's one common person, yes, but not the same.

Q. And your understanding of JF Industrial that you worked for in January of 2012, what's your understanding of the existence of that company?

A. It's no longer.

Q. I don't believe I have any further questions. Thank you.

Cross-Examination by Mr. Morga

Q. I've just got a couple of questions. Let me first of all clear up what – the last thing that you were asked. JF Industrial Services Inc. is the company you now work for?

A. Yes.

Q. To the best of your knowledge, is that a limited company?

A. As far as I know.

Q. As far as an organized, incorporated company?

A. Incorporated, yes, I believe, yes.

Q. Okay and was JF Industrial Windsor Inc. also an incorporated company?

A. I believe so.

Q. How long ago did that company stop doing business to the best of your knowledge?

A. I would say like, a year. I don't know exact dates, but...

Q. All right.

A. ...it's right around a year.

Q. Okay and just so we're clear, when you contracted or made the quote that you did – let's start – sorry. You you were asked by Spiral to to quote a job, in effect is...

A. Yes.

Q. ...I think the vernacular, right?

A. Yes.

Q. That's – all right. So, they they told you or described what it is that they wanted to do?

A. Yes.

Q. And then you went in and you quoted that job?

A. That's correct.

Q. And that's the quotation that's Exhibit 2?

A. That's correct.

Q. And that says that your company will be responsible overall for certain work?

A. Yes.

Q. And some of that work seems to include some electrical work?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Now, what do you understand you were doing, that is, your company was doing?

A. What we did is we – when I was asked to quote the work in question, I had gone in, he gave me a walk-through and then I had brought Rose City Electric in to have a look at all the tie-ins and the responsibilities for permits and stuff of that nature that they would need to do and any other work on the machines, getting the machines prepped and things like that would be our responsibility as JF.

Q. Okay.

A. Yes.

Q. And in terms of Rose City, Rose City is a an electrical contractor to the best of your knowledge?

A. Yes, they are.

Q. Are they a licenced electrical contractor to the best of your knowledge?

A. Yes, they are.

Q. All right and what do you bring them in to do?

A. I get them to come in and pull the permits and do all the electrical tie-ins that need to be done for the electrical inspection to come in and...

Q. And what is it that...

A. ...approve.

Q. ...that your company does and let me let me give you this scenario, which which we've had described to us, but we're talking as I understand it, about a shop floor where some machines were being moved around?

A. Yes.

Q. From one location to another within the same plant?

A. That's correct.

Q. Had there been an expansion of the plant also?

A. Yes, there was.

Q. Do you know anything about what happened there in terms of who did the work? Did you do the work?

A. As far as I know, I believe Rosati got the contract for the building itself and they had Rose City Electric do all the electrical for that expansion.

Q. All right and were you on site when some of that was going on?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. And do you know the individuals employed by Rose City?

A. I know some of them, yes.

Q. And were they working there when you were also working there?

A. Yes, yes they were.

Q. Were they working on the new plant?

A. They were working on the new plant and they were on the old plant side as well...

Q. Okay.

A. ...running some feeders and things like...

Q. And what were they doing at the old plant as far as you know?

A. They were running some feeders and – which would be power, power drops, things of that sort.

Q. Okay, now in terms of of what you agreed to do for JF Industrial, okay, the company you were then working for...

A. Yes.

Q. ...what you agreed to do was take on the overall job?

A. Yes.

Q. Of of getting power from this busbar to these machines, is that fair?

A. Yeah.

Q. All right and were you actually going to do all of that or would some of that be subcontracted to Rose City?

A. That was being subcontracted to Rose City, yes.

Q. And what part was gonna go to Rose City or did go to Rose City?

A. All of the actual tie-ins.

Q. So so when we talk about an actual tie-in, let me give you this scenario, we have a machine on the shop floor that's been relocated from somewhere in the corner of the courtroom to the spot where I'm standing right now?

A. Yes.

Q. The busbar runs along what is my left to the courtroom, your right where the windows are, the busbar runs right across that whole area?

A. Yep.

Q. Okay, we we are gonna have a machine right where I'm standing?

A. Yes.

Q. So, as I understand it, a flexible cable of some type goes from this machine up to a box?

A. That's correct.

Q. That box is attached to the ceiling somehow?

A. That's right.

Q. And I understand that's called a...

A. A junction box, a junction box.

Q. ...a junction box?

A. Yes.

Q. What is the cable called that comes down me?

A. Depends on the type of cable, but usually it's a cabtire...

Q. Okay.

A. ...style of cable.

Q. All right so this cabtire cable comes from the junction box down to me?

A. Yes.

Q. Then from the junction box to the busbar, is there a conduit?

A. There's a conduit that runs along the ceiling, in this case, yes.

Q. Okay and is wire pulled through that conduit at some point?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay and then that wire is hooked to the busbar?

A. There's a disconnect that's already or existing or needs to be put on the busbar.

Q. Okay.

A. We go as far as the end of the conduit with the wire and that's it.

Q. Okay. Now, that's what I want to ask you about.

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Does it matter which end you start at?

A. No.

Q. Okay.

A. No.

Q. So so whether you put the conduit in first, put the junction box in first or put this cab line in first...

A. Right.

Q. ...you still go from the machine and stop before the the busbar?

A. Yes, yes.

Q. Right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay, so when this young man, the apprentice that was injured on the job, when he's pulling a disconnect from the busbar, has he – does he have any business doing that?

A. No, he does not.

Q. Did you authorize him to do that?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Did you instruct him to do that?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Okay, was he was he told in any way to connect the power from that conduit to the busbar?

A. No.

Q. And again, who does that? Who connects that power?

A. That would be Rose City.

Q. And was Rose City contracted in this particular case?

A. Yes, he was.

Q. And once the – once this unfortunate incident occurred, did Rose City in fact do all the connections?

A. Yes.

Q. And did your company continue to do the conduits as as you were doing?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, are there jobs where Rose City – that Rose City gets where they get you to do the conduit work?

A. There's other work that we – we work together on a lot of different plants, a lot of different areas, so yes, we we work together as as a team, you would say. You know, the economy's not the greatest out there so we all kinda try and work together to you know, keep ourselves going.

Q. And you're aware of the provisions? You've been in the electrical services industry, if I can call it that, for a long time haven't you?

A. Yes.

Q. How many years now?

A. Since 1984.

Q. That's almost 30 years?

A. Yeah.

Q. And in that time, you're familiar with what is and isn't a licensed electrical contractor?

A. Yes.

Q. And you're not personally a licenced electrical contractor?

A. No, I am not.

Q. And JF Industrial is not?

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay and in terms of your knowledge and understanding of the industry, do you believe that anything that you were doing required a licence under the Electrical Act?

A. No, I do not.

Q. Was there anything that you were doing that required a permit as far as you're concerned?

A. For myself, as what we were...

Q. Yes, what you were doing?

A. ...what we were performing, no. There are none.

Q. All right and and in terms of obtaining a permit to do the hook-up, was that being done by Rose City?

A. Yes.

Q. And did they in fact get a permit to the best of your knowledge?

A. Yes, they did.

Q. All right and that job – I know that some man was hurt on the 27th of January, I believe, of of 2012. That job didn't finish that day, did it?

A. No, it continued the following Monday, I believe.

Q. Okay and and after that, to the best of your knowledge, did Rose City have an inspection done of the work?

A. Absolutely.

Q. And was there anything that you were called back to to change or modify in any way?

A. No.

Q. All right and was, to the best of your knowledge, was your company paid for the work that it did?

A. The work that was performed by us, yes.

Q. And did you pay or did that company, to the best of your knowledge, pay Rose City for its work?

A. Yes, it did.

Q. And again, just so we're clear, was this young man authorized to touch that busbar or instructed to touch that busbar, the source of electrical power in any way?

A. No, he was not.

Q. He testified that he removed some disconnects or unplugged a few; took out a disconnect and was hurt doing another one. Did he have any business doing either of those things?

A. No, he did not.

Q. And did – again, did you instruct him or authorize him to do either of those things?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Thank you, sir.

THE COURT: Just one moment. Just one moment, please. Okay just one moment. Mr. Pillon, do you have any other questions?

MR. PILLON: If I may just have a moment, Your Worship?

THE COURT: Sure thing.

MR. PILLON: No, thank you.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, sir. You may step down. Your next witness, Mr. Pillon?

Change of Plea

MR. MORGA: Your Worship, at this point in time, we'd like to change our plea to count number two of the information?

THE COURT: So, the defence is changing its plea on count two of the information that was read; that's operate an electrical contracting business without being the holder of an electrical contractor licence, contrary to the regulation and provisions of the Electricity Act. To that count two, what is the plea now of the company?

MR. MORGA: Guilty.

THE COURT: That's a guilty plea to count two?

MR. MORGA: That's correct.

THE COURT: So, anything else anyone wishes to say or add regarding the facts of the matter? I know we've heard some evidence already that may have made out the facts.

MR. MORGA: I think – from my standpoint, I think you've heard the facts. I'll have something to say about sentencing, but I think the facts are before you.

THE COURT: Is there admission that JF Industrial Systems (Windsor) Inc. did in fact operate as an electrical contracting business then that day? It contracted, as we heard from Mr. Labutte, with Rose City for electrical work and with Spiral Industries.

MR. MORGA: For the purposes of this plea, that's correct.

THE COURT: Anything else you wish to say or add, Mr. Pillon?

MR. PILLON: I don't believe so. I – forgive me, Your Worship? I think you've heard enough facts to support that plea particularly with that admission.

Reasons for Judgment

DEBACKER, J. (Orally):

THE COURT: Okay. There being an admission and there have been some facts heard, there will be a finding of guilt on count two. What is your position regarding count one? Are you still proceeding with that count?

MR. PILLON: No, we are not, Your Worship.

THE COURT: You are no longer proceeding with count one?

MR. PILLON: Given that there's been a guilty plea to count two, I'm prepared to withdraw count one.

THE COURT: Prosecution's position is changed to count one as being marked withdrawn. Count one will be marked withdrawn. Any previous convictions alleged against this company or any companies by the same officers and directors, Mr. Pillon?

MR. PILLON: Forgive me, Your Worship, I did not hear that?

THE COURT: Any convictions alleged against this corporate defendant or any other related corporate defendants with the same officers or directors?

MR. PILLON: Frankly, what I have before me, in full fairness, I don't believe this has been disclosed because this is the first time I've looked at this. It's a previous – it's a notice of violation to a company by the name of JS Industrial Systems. It's understood that that's the same company, but to be perfectly honest, it says, "JS Industrial Systems" and it has an address of 5280 Burke Street and it does not, from what I can see, include the name of the president or director.

THE COURT: That's the registered head office of JL Industrial Systems (Windsor) Inc., 5280 Burke Street.

MR. MORGA: This company is on North Service Road, in Windsor.

THE COURT: But the registered office of the company was – on this corporate profile is 5280 Burke Street.

MR. PILLON: Given that it is the same address and that it's one letter difference, I would ask the court to consider this record of a previous violation. I just thought I would put on the record that it says, "JS Industrial."

THE COURT: We don't know. Where did this come from? Has Mr. Morga seen it?

MR. MORGA: I've never seen it.

MR. PILLON: No, he hasn't and I and I thought I made that clear from the beginning. This is the first time I, myself had seen it.

THE COURT: Then first time you've seen it?

MR. PILLON: Someone from the Electrical Safety Authority provided this to me just moments ago. That's about...

THE COURT: Is it a certified copy? Is it, is there an Ontario corporation number attached to that company?

MR. PILLON: No, there doesn't appear to be. No, there isn't.

THE COURT: Is this something you wish to tender as an aggravating factor?

MR. PILLON: I do. It appears to be a notice from the records of the Electrical Safety Authority. It's something that they provided to JF Industrial Systems. It appears that the "JS" is a typo, although I really can't explain that. The person who provided this to me could testify and explain how he got this if necessary and that may be necessary.

THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.

MR. PILLON: So, I'm gonna request that this be tendered and the purpose of it is for a previous violation, although, as I said, defence has not had a chance...

THE COURT: Go, go ahead and call your witness, then.

MR. MORGA: I'm going to ask to withdraw the plea? I've never seen this. You can't spring this on me after plea; absolutely inappropriate and I'm going to ask you to allow me to withdraw the plea and I'm going to ask you for a mis-trial. It's totally, totally, totally inappropriate. We don't get documents – this case has been going for two years. We had two separate pre-trials. You don't spring a document after a guilty plea and ask the court to consider it. It's just totally inappropriate. I'm shocked that my friend would even consider to try to put such a document at this point and time. It totally changes my position.

THE COURT: Are you going to withdraw your request to have this document tendered, then Mr. Pillon? Will that solve this?

MR. PILLON: I certainly made my reservations very clear and frankly I don't disagree with him – if I would have viewed this in the past, I certainly would have disclosed it. I didn't and in any event, it appears to be under a different name.

THE COURT: Why don't you just withdraw your request to have that tendered. Of course there could be a way you could do it, but as Mr. Morga stated, he hasn't been given notice and then this was after a plea was entered. So, if it's – I think it solves it if you just simply ask that you not tender that as a factor.

MR. PILLON: Frankly, I take no issue with that.

THE COURT: Okay, so there's been no evidence tendered, there's no aggravating evidence tendered in terms of a record or any violation so we've got that completely absent in this matter.

MR. PILLON: That's correct.

THE COURT: Now what are you seeking with respect to penalty? Obviously, there – we heard that there was a young man injured in some of the evidence we heard, but the actual factor where there's been a finding of guilt is that this company did operate without being the holder of a licence, but let's go ahead and hear what you have to say. What are you asking for?

Sentencing Submissions

MR. PILLON: I should say that the site of the section of the Electricity Act is Section 113(12) and I believe, subsection (b). I know there are two different sections for an individual and a corporation.

THE COURT: Yes, I see it here.

MR. PILLON: So, the maximum penalty for the corporation is $1,000,000. I'm asking for nothing approaching that. Under the circumstances, it would be my submission, and I've made this clear to my friend, that I think a penalty in the amount of $25,000 is appropriate and I say that for a number of reasons.

One factor that I think need be considered not as an element of the offence, but as an aggravating factor on sentencing is the result of this. I think there's a distinction between simply forgetting to file for a contract and doing so when reminded and what appears to be a blatant proceeding of work done with no attempt to make an application for a contract at all. In addition, I think it should be considered what the result of this work was done. This appears to be a company without the proper licence to be a electrician authorizing an apprentice to do work resulting in significant injury to that apprentice.

It's in fact the entire purpose of this Act is to avoid situations exactly like this; unprepared people doing dangerous work and evidence of just how dangerous it was, was the injuries suffered by the complainant in this matter and he in fact did a very capable job of expressing what those injuries were to the court. A year and a half later, he expresses that he suffered significant burns, second and third degree. I believe he said injuries to his shoulder and his rib. He suffered memory loss, migraines, loss of sleep. He was badly electrocuted and as I said, I believe that is the entire purpose of this legislation is to avoid situations like that.

Now in doing a search of case law on point for the purpose of precedent and sentencing, there is very little. I can tell you – and my friend and I spoke about this earlier today, there is one local precedent. I have a copy of that. It's Regina and...and I'll file that with the court.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. PILLON: Regina and ThyssenKrupp International Services Canada. This is a local court decision in the Ontario Court of Justice, citation is [2012], O.J. No. 5887 and I've filed this only for precedent on what a reasonable sentence would be under the circumstances. I believe it was the same violation of the Electricity Act in this case. In this case, I believe the corporation pled to a $16,000 fine after having made a $50,000 donation and I would suggest that under the circumstances, I'm suggesting on behalf of the prosecution, a penalty within a similar range. There has been no donation and for that reason, I'm requesting a fine slightly higher than the one suggested in that court.

So, as I said, Your Worship, for all those reasons, I think a penalty in the amount of $25,000 would be sufficient. There is a thriving electrician business in this community. I think general deterrence should be considered as it is in any Provincial Offences Act proceeding. After all, the very purpose of the Electrical Safety Authority is to ensure safety when doing electrical work in the community so, I think general deterrence in a case like this has a particular importance. Thank you, Your Worship.

THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Morga?

MR. MORGA: Thank you, Your Worship. The reason that I wanted you to hear the evidence that you heard was to point out that, in my respectful submission, my client at the very best is very, very technically breaching the Act, if at all. The Act is an extremely complicated document; it is not a simple one-paragraph thing. It's extremely complicated and it talks about bringing power to. So, the argument would have been at the end of the day, is bringing power to the actual connection or is it bringing the wire up to? Is driving the act of starting the car or does the driving occur when car starts to move? If you are an unlicenced driver sitting in a car in the driver's seat in a driveway, where the car is not put in motion, are you driving the car?

That's really where we're – what we're talking about in this statute. My client retained the services of Rose City Electric to do the actual connection. It brought wires to; they brought the conduits that you've heard about and brought those to the busbar. We take the position and still maintain the position that this young man was on his own folly in removing the busbars and while my friend talks about the injuries sustained and so on, that's not what this Act is about, with the greatest of respect.

This Act is about licensing; it's about union issues; it's about who gets to do what trade. There are trade assists and here it is here off the internet, under the province of Ontario standards of what is and isn't a red seal trade and there's something called industrial electricians. That's what my clients are. They bring everything up to the power. Then the actual electrician does the connection.

So, at the end of the day, we could have spent days arguing about whether or not there was a technical breach of the Act. For the purposes of the plea and to dispose of this matter, we take the position that fine, there is a technical breach of the Act in that we were not licenced to do an electrical installation. Having said that, would we have done the electrical installation depends how you define that term. You have – depends on whether or not the connection occurs. Again, we retain Rose City for that purpose and they would have done the actual connection.

You remember that I asked Mr. Labutte about the building, the addition to the building. The addition to the building and the evidence would have been from the president of the company Spiral Industries, that the building was built by Rosati Construction. Rosati Construction is not a licenced electrical contractor, but as part of their construction of the building, they put in electrical components and hooked up the building to electrical power, lights, plugs, all of that stuff. That was subcontracted to Rose City, same company that we use. Now, is Rosati in breach of the Act by contracting to build a building that includes electrical power? No. Are we? If it was, then every construction project in the province of Ontario would see the general contractor charged unless they were licenced to do plumbing, licenced to do electrical, licenced to do heating and air conditioning. No, what happens is, if you're a contractor, you take on responsibility. It doesn't mean you do the actual connection. You retain a sub-contractor to do that. That's what we were doing with Rose City.

Now unfortunately, this young man went a little further afield than that. My friend talks about his injuries. No question he sustained injuries, but it's very, very important – the Ministry of Labour came in under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and investigated this. You would have gotten that evidence as part of the case and they investigated the thing and laid no charges whatsoever. They said that it was a massive failure in the busbar itself that led to the problem and it wasn't anything that we did and it even – wasn't even this young man working on it that did it. There was actually a failure in the busbar itself. That's what the Ministry determined, the Ministry of Labour determined in it and as I say, no charges were laid against anybody in these, notwithstanding what appeared to be somewhat severe injuries.

So, in all of those circumstances, we may have, in my submission, a technical breach of this and nothing else. Now, my friend gives you ThyssenKrupp as a as a comparison. ThyssenKrupp is a multi-national company and I I think you can take judicial notice of the fact that ThyssenKrupp operates throughout Europe and throughout North America. They're a huge multi-national company and to compare my company which – my client, which has three or four employees with something like this, which is major across the world, is in my respectful submission, comparing David and Goliath entirely.

So, in all of the circumstances, I think what you have is a very technical breach of the Act and nothing more than that. We've disposed of it by guilty plea and I would - and save the court at least three days of trial, I would respectfully suggest that a fine in a range of a $1,000 is much more appropriate.

THE COURT: Anything else you wish to say specifically while you're in your submissions, Mr. Morga, regarding the corporation's ability to pay? Did you bring any financial statements of the corporate defendant or anything about the scope of the company?

MR. MORGA: The company doesn't exist anymore.

THE COURT: ...the scope of the company?

MR. MORGA: That company doesn't exist anymore.

THE COURT: And anything else you....

MR. MORGA: I shouldn't say – that's not fair.

THE COURT: It's just it doesn't exist anymore?

MR. MORGA: That's not fair. The company still exists. It has ceased doing business. It never had any assets. I can tell you, this company doesn't have a building. It rents a shop – it rented a shop. It has no trucks; it has some inventory of conduit and cable, but it doesn't have, you know, machines and so on because what you're operating with 99 percent of the time is screwdrivers and pliers. You're not dealing with heavy industrial machinery. They don't own forklifts, they don't own trucks and backhoes and all of the sorts of things that you might see so, it's a company that's essentially a couple of individuals with some screwdrivers and pliers, and yes, they do rent a shop where they keep their books and records and where they keep the inventory of conduit and cable, but that's it and the company that operated at that time is no longer operating. It has a negative bank balance of about $200 and that's it.

THE COURT: Any reply evidence or any reply comments?

MR. PILLON: No, thank you, Your Worship.

THE COURT: Okay, I'm just going to take a short recess and review what the evidence was that we heard so far and I know it's been a guilty plea, but just to consider the fine that's being asked for as specific and general deterrence and review the case that was presented and you didn't have any case law that you're asking that you would like the court to read? You did not have any case law?

MR. MORGA: No, there there's almost nothing...

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. MORGA: ...this statute.

THE COURT: Just this one?

THE COURT: Okay, all right. I'll just take a short recess. We'll come back about three o'clock.

MR. MORGA: Thank you. I wonder if the other witnesses can be released?

THE COURT: Yes that would be fine.

MR. MORGA: I just hate keeping all these people?

MR. PILLON: Yeah, I'll do that.

THE COURT: Okay, thank you.

MR. MORGA: Thank you, Your Worship.

COURTROOM CLERK: Court is in recess.

Upon Resuming

Reasons for Sentence

DEBACKER, J. (Orally):

Just a few quick comments on sentencing. I've reviewed again – once again, we have heard evidence of two witnesses in this matter, Steve Dufour, an injured worker, young apprentice working for the corporate defendant, at the direction of Mr. Rob Labutte. Mr. Rob Labutte was present and he gave evidence as well. The defence changed their plea on count two in this matter to a guilty plea. The court found that there was enough evidence tendered to find the defendant guilty along with the defence admission. The prosecution has withdrawn now, count one. So, just in review of a couple of matters, this is a defendant that does not have a record. The penalty section is up to $1,000,000 for an offence. Of course, that would be for the highest or the worst offender in the worst circumstances, which this is not. This is a corporate defendant without a previous record. There are some aggravating factors in this matter, of course, which was – we did hear that there was an injury to a young worker, Mr. Steven Dufour in this matter and of course, the court always keeps in mind specific and general deterrence, which is the primary sentencing application that has to be applied; it's in R. v. Cotton Felts Ltd., [1982] O.J. 178 ONCA, which is always primarily considered when it comes to sentencing.

So, with what the court has heard, I'd just like to recap that the worker, the apprentice Steve Dufour indicated in his evidence that he did what he was told in this matter. That was his evidence; he came to court, he gave his evidence. He worked under the direction of others who were his masters or supervisors. He knew what he was there for. He was there to disassemble and reassemble conduit runs. He was changing a disconnect. He gave that evidence very clearly. He was hanging new conduit; he was making new connections. He – they were disconnecting and reconnecting and it had to do with the movement of machinery in a plant. Mr. Steve Dufour said he was pulling a disconnect of a busbar, which is a metal enclosure that houses the conductors, the conductors that connect to the disconnect and he was removing a disconnect at the time it exploded. It caught fire; he was electrocuted. Molten metal fell on him; he was burned and he was injured and he suffered some lasting injuries as a result.

Mr. Rob Labutte would have been his immediate supervisor. Mr. Labutte gave evidence and Mr. Dufour gave evidence that he instructed Steve Dufour on a day-to-day basis and Steve Dufour indicated that he did receive his instructions from his principals on a day-to-day basis. Steve Dufour's evidence was that he was given clear – he gave clear evidence that he was there to disconnect some of the disconnectors and put new conduit in and that in fact he did what he was told and he was under, he believed, that this was his job and this was what he was told to do that day.

Mr. Rob Labutte gave evidence. He admitted he was there to disconnect conduit and the disconnectors and to move machinery. He knew the purpose of the job. He admitted the overall job was to move power from a busbar and to move machines. There was some comment about another entity, Rose City, had responsibility for some part of the actual connect-to. They were in the disconnect portion of this. Notwithstanding, what we heard from Mr. Steve Dufour, Mr. Rob Labutte, indicated in his evidence that he never told – he never once told Steve Dufour to remove the disconnects so that was quite contrary evidence that we heard from this witness. And entered as Exhibit 2 – rather, then there were some defence comments about this defendant being only partially responsible for the electrical service because their position was that there's another entity which had the actual connection part, which is Rose City and they did the pre-work, if you may. They were still working in the electrical field. Notwithstanding that, there was an admission that they were working in the electrical field and there was a plea of guilty made to count two and when we look at Exhibit Number 2 that was tendered in evidence under Application Overview 1.0 under Section 1.6, it indicates, and this was admitted evidence, that JF Industrial Systems is responsible for electrical permit and that was right in that exhibit document.

So, there were some positions and some evidence heard by the one gentleman on the witness stand that was quite contrary to some of the submissions that it made. In any event, there was a guilty plea. This defendant did operate as an electrical contracting business without being the holder of an electrical contracting licence and as a result, they were responsible for directing this young man who was there as an apprentice that day. He was working in the electrical field. He was clearly an electrical apprentice.

This defendant was not licenced to do so. There was an admission of that. There was a finding of that. There was a young worker who was electrocuted and injured and injured severely and it is – it's certainly a fair amount that the prosecution has requested, that the penalty be $25,000 in the circumstances with the injuries and the aggravating factors that we have here. So, $25,000 will be the penalty imposed. How much time would the defendant like to have to pay?

MR. MORGA: Yes – no, there's – it doesn't matter. No, no time to pay.

THE COURT: Six months?

MR. MORGA: No.

THE COURT: Thirty days? One year? Thirty days to pay, indicating no time needed to pay. Thirty days to pay has been noted.

MR. MORGA: Thank you, Your Worship.

THE COURT: That concludes this matter.

Certificate of Transcript

FORM 2

Certificate of Transcript (Subsection 5(2))

Evidence Act

I, Jacqueline Duczman, certify that this document is a true and accurate transcript of the recording of HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN v. JF Industrial Systems (Windsor) Inc. in the Ontario Court of Justice Provincial Offences Division held at 251 Goyeau Street, Windsor Ontario N9A 6V2 taken from recording nos. 0860_Rm302_20131125_094347 and 0860_Rm301_20131125_084441, monitored by Diane Brideau, which has been certified in Form 1.

Date

Certified Court Clerk Reporter City of Windsor

Photostat copies of this transcript are not certified and have not been paid for unless they bear the original signature of Jacqueline Duczman, and accordingly are in direct violation of Ontario Regulation 587/91, Administration of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990.