Workplace Safety and Insurance Law - ONCJ

Two workers employed at a Coca-Cola production facility were charged with operating equipment in a manner that may endanger themselves or others, contrary to section 28(2)(b) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The charges arose from their use of cellphones while operating forklifts in the warehouse area, contrary to company safety policy.

The court found that both defendants held and used cellphones while seated on stationary forklifts in warehouse aisles and rows.

The court interpreted "operating equipment" broadly to include sitting on a stopped and turned-off forklift in an active work area where other workers and equipment were present.

The defendants failed to establish the due diligence defence.

Both were convicted.

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

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

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

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

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

The company was found not guilty.

The defendant employer was charged with failing to ensure that measures and procedures prescribed by Ontario Regulation 213/91 were carried out in a workplace, contrary to section 25(1)(c) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

A worker was fatally injured when a curb machine tipped over during unloading from a float trailer.

The Crown proved the actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt, establishing that the worker was endangered by the movement of the equipment.

However, the defendant successfully established the defence of due diligence on a balance of probabilities, demonstrating that it took all reasonable steps to prevent the incident.

The court found that the worker was highly experienced, had successfully unloaded the same machine 27 times previously, and deviated from established safety procedures on the day of the incident by failing to use the wooden block ramp and leaving the machine's controls on automatic rather than manual.

The charge was dismissed.

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

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

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

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

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

A corporate defendant brought a motion under s. 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms seeking a stay of proceedings based on unreasonable delay.

The defendant was charged with three counts under the Occupational Health and Safety Act arising from a workplace injury.

The court considered whether the Jordan framework applied to regulatory matters and corporate accused, and whether the net delay of approximately 25 months exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court trials.

The court found that Jordan applies to both regulatory prosecutions and corporate defendants, that the delay was presumptively unreasonable, and that the Crown failed to establish exceptional circumstances to justify the delay.

The court granted the stay of the remaining charge.

Appeal of sentences imposed on a corporation and two directors for violations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act following the death of a worker who fell from an elevated order picker platform.

The trial judge imposed fines of $125,000 on each count against the corporation and 25 days intermittent incarceration on each director.

The appellants challenged the sentences as excessive.

The appellate court allowed the appeal and substantially reduced the sentences, finding that imprisonment was inappropriate for first-time offenders in regulatory matters and that the fines were demonstrably unfit and outside the acceptable range for similar offences.

The defendant employer was charged with failing to ensure compliance with section 37(1) of Ontario Regulation 213/91, which requires that material or equipment at a construction project be stored and moved in a manner that does not endanger a worker.

A transport driver employed by the defendant was fatally crushed when a curb machine tipped over while being unloaded from a float trailer.

The defendant brought a motion for non-suit, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove the actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt because the cause of the accident was not established.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the prosecution need not prove how the accident occurred, only that the prohibited act (moving equipment in a manner that endangered a worker) took place.

The fact that a worker was fatally injured constituted prima facie evidence of endangerment.

The defendant, Matcor Automotive Inc., appealed a sentence of $270,000 (three counts at $90,000 each) imposed after conviction on three counts under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The conviction arose from a workplace incident in which a maintenance worker suffered catastrophic injury (paraplegia) due to inadequate training, supervision, and safety procedures regarding robotic equipment.

The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence was fit and within the acceptable range, rejecting arguments that the sentencing judge erred in principle regarding proportionality, totality, inferences from evidence, consideration of prior convictions, and the acceptability of the sentencing range.

The defendant, a motor vehicle manufacturer, was charged with failing to ensure that prescribed occupational health and safety measures were carried out at its Brampton facility.

Specifically, the defendant failed to install guardrails at an open side of a raised platform (the Underbody Re-Spot Station) where an employee fell and sustained serious injuries.

The defendant argued that section 20 of the regulation applied instead of section 13, that the platform qualified as an exempt "pit," and that it had exercised due diligence.

The court rejected all defences and found the defendant guilty, holding that guardrails were required under section 13(1)(b) of Ontario Regulation 851/90, that the platform was not a "pit" within the meaning of the exemption, and that the defendant had not taken all reasonable precautions.

The defendant, a subcontractor specializing in underground construction and grouting, was charged with three counts under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) following the death of a worker and serious injury to another when a drill rig collapsed at a Toronto Transit Commission subway extension project at York University.

The charges alleged failures to provide an adequate work platform for the drill rig, to ensure the platform could support loads in accordance with good engineering practice, and to operate the machine in accordance with the manufacturer's manual.

The court found the defendant guilty of Count 5 (failure to design an adequate work platform by failing to identify soil bearing capacity as required by manufacturer specifications) but acquitted on Counts 6 and 7.

The court determined that while the defendant transmitted manufacturer specifications to the general contractor, it failed to follow up and verify that the soil's bearing capacity had been adequately assessed before operating the rig.

Avenue Building Corporation was charged under the Occupational Health and Safety Act with failing to ensure that equipment being moved was moved in a manner that did not endanger a worker, following an incident where an employee broke his leg when a 4x4 he was using to move a wall form broke.

The trial judge found the corporation guilty, concluding that the corporation failed to exercise due diligence by allowing workers discretion in tool selection without adequate training and supervision, and by failing to include written procedures for moving wall forms.

On appeal, the appellate court found that the trial judge misapprehended the specific charge and failed to properly apply the due diligence analysis to the correct actus reus, warranting a new trial.

A worker employed by a subcontractor was electrocuted and killed while operating a Hydrovac truck near energized overhead electrical lines on a project for Ottawa Hydro.

The Ministry of Labour charged Ottawa Hydro with five counts under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and Construction Projects Regulation, alleging failures to ensure safe work procedures, designate a competent signaller, establish written procedures, and take reasonable precautions regarding electrical hazards.

The court found Ottawa Hydro guilty on counts one, two, and four, but dismissed count three and stayed count five.

The court determined that despite extensive training and safety protocols, Ottawa Hydro failed to provide adequate on-site supervision and monitoring of the subcontractor's operations in a high-risk electrical environment.

An employer was convicted of breaching sections 25(1)(c) and 25(2)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act after a maintenance electrician was injured when a large shipping door fell on him while he was performing electrical checks on the door mechanism.

The employer appealed both convictions, arguing that the worker was merely inspecting rather than performing maintenance work, and that the employer had exercised due diligence through policies and training.

The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding that the worker's electrical checks constituted work triggering the blocking requirement, that the workers were sent to an unfamiliar area without supervision, and that the employer failed to establish the due diligence defence.

The Crown charged Magna Seating Inc. with two occupational health and safety violations arising from a worker being struck by a falling automotive seat at workstation 1630 on assembly line #1.

The first charge alleged failure to ensure material was transported, placed or stored so it would not tip, collapse or fall, contrary to section 45(b) of Ontario Regulation 851/90.

The second charge alleged failure to ensure a machine was shielded or guarded so that material being processed would not endanger worker safety, contrary to section 26 of Ontario Regulation 851/90.

The court found that while the Crown proved the actus reus of the first charge, the defendant successfully established the due diligence defence on a balance of probabilities.

The court dismissed both charges, finding that the defendant had taken all reasonable care in the circumstances to prevent the accident, particularly given the low probability of recurrence, minimal injury potential, and the unforeseeable combination of factors that led to the incident.

The Crown prosecuted an employer for two offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act following the fatal fall of an experienced welder from a temporary A-frame and plank platform at a height of approximately 6.5 feet.

Count 1 alleged failure to install guardrails at the open sides of a raised wood platform contrary to section 25(2)(h) of the OHSA.

Count 2 alleged failure to provide information, instruction and supervision to protect the worker from falling contrary to section 25(2)(a) of the OHSA.

The defendant did not advance a due diligence defence.

The court found that section 13 of the Industrial Establishments Regulation, which requires guardrails at open sides of raised surfaces, applies only to fixed premises attached to buildings, not to temporary mobile equipment.

Section 85 of the same regulation, which governs fall protection equipment, forms a complete code for this type of temporary platform work and does not require guardrails at heights below 3 metres.

The Crown improperly attempted to extend requirements beyond the applicable regulation through the general duty clause.

Both charges were dismissed.

A worker employed by a small roofing company fell from a ladder while working on a residential roofing project and died from his injuries.

The company was convicted of failing to ensure a fall arrest system was in place and failing to notify the Ministry within 48 hours of the death.

The owner and operator was convicted of failing to ensure workers used fall arrest systems as a supervisor and furnishing false information to an inspector.

The court imposed jail sentences on the individual defendant and substantial fines on the corporate defendant, emphasizing the need for general deterrence in an industry with persistent fall-related injuries and fatalities.

The defendant was charged with willfully failing to inform the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board of a material change in circumstances in connection with his entitlement to benefits within 10 days after the change occurred, contrary to section 149(2) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997.

The charge covered the period between October 11, 2010, and September 1, 2011.

The prosecution alleged that the defendant was gainfully employed and had demonstrated improved physical and psychological functioning, which constituted material changes he failed to report.

The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt and dismissed it.

The Corporation of the City of Guelph was charged with failing to ensure that a wall in a workplace was capable of supporting all loads to which it may be subjected, contrary to section 25(1)(e) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The charge arose from the collapse of a privacy wall in a women's washroom at a municipal park in 2009, which resulted in the death of a fourteen-year-old student.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove the actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt because the charging section incorporated the outdated concept of "allowable unit stresses," which had been superseded by limits states design methodology in 1997.

The court also found that even if the actus reus had been established, the City had exercised due diligence in issuing the building permit by reasonably relying on the professional stamps of the architect and engineer, and that the City was not required to conduct further investigation based on the engineer's involvement in a prior unrelated project.

The defendant, Linamar Holdings Inc. operating as Transgear Manufacturing, was sentenced following a guilty plea and joint submission for a serious workplace injury to an employee.

The court imposed a fine of $150,000.00 plus costs and surcharge, payable within 90 days.

The sentencing considered the defendant's prior convictions at neighbouring facilities (one fatality and one critical injury), the immediate corrective actions taken by the defendant following the incident, and ongoing safety improvements implemented to address workplace hazards related to lockout and troubleshooting procedures on hazardous machinery.

The defendant, a director of a construction company, pleaded guilty to four counts of failing to take all reasonable care to ensure compliance with occupational health and safety regulations.

The charges arose from a catastrophic incident on December 24, 2009, when a suspended work platform collapsed during balcony repair work on two Toronto buildings, resulting in four deaths and one serious injury.

The defendant failed to ensure non-English-speaking workers received written safety instructions in their native languages, failed to maintain required training records, allowed defective equipment to be used without proper documentation, and failed to prevent overloading of the work platform.

The court imposed fines of $22,500 per count with a 25% victim fine surcharge, payable over 12 months.