5 total
Reconsideration of order denying time extension dismissed due to strict statutory time limits.
The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Fire Safety Commission order that denied its motion to extend the time to file an appeal under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997.
The Commission had previously ruled it lacked jurisdiction to extend the time because the request was made beyond the strict 30-day statutory limit.
The appellant argued the Commission violated procedural fairness and erred in law by not applying a liberal interpretation to the time limits.
The Commission dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no errors of law or procedural fairness, and affirmed that the strict statutory time limits precluded granting the extension.
Motion to extend time to appeal dismissed as the statutory 30-day deadline had expired.
The appellant brought a motion to extend the time to appeal an Office of the Fire Marshal decision regarding a fire safety inspection order.
The appellant missed the 15-day appeal deadline and the 30-day deadline to request an extension under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, citing delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and contractor issues.
The Fire Safety Commission dismissed the motion, finding it had no statutory authority to grant an extension because the application was made more than five months after the 30-day time limit expired.
An auto manufacturer was convicted of a safety violation for an unguarded raised platform.
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 court allowed the appeal and set aside OHSA convictions, finding the trial justice erred by not requiring the Crown to prove the particulars of the charges.
An appeal from a conviction under the Occupational Health and Safety Act for two breaches arising from a workplace accident.
The appellant, an automobile reconditioning company, was convicted of failing to provide information, instruction, or supervision to a worker in the safe operation of vehicles, and failing to take reasonable precautions to ensure a worker who drove vehicles had a valid driver's licence and proper training.
The trial justice erred in law by finding that the Crown did not need to prove the particulars of the charges and by imposing unreasonable standards of care.
The appellate court found that the worker was hired solely to clean vehicles and was explicitly instructed not to drive, making it unnecessary for the employer to provide driving instruction or supervision.
The conviction was set aside and a finding of not guilty was entered.
Motion for production of complainant's LTD insurance litigation documents dismissed for lack of arguable relevance.
The respondents in a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability sought an order compelling the complainant to produce documents related to his civil action against his long-term disability insurer.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the documents were not arguably relevant to whether the respondents met their duty to accommodate the complainant under the Human Rights Code.
The issue in the insurance litigation was entitlement to benefits, which is distinct from the duty to accommodate.
