Workers' Compensation - SCC

A municipality contracted with a constructor to repair a water main and dispatched quality control inspectors to the project site.

A pedestrian was fatally struck by construction equipment at an intersection where required safety measures — a fence and signallers — were absent.

The municipality was charged as an employer under the Occupational Health and Safety Act for failing to ensure that prescribed regulatory measures were carried out in the workplace.

On equal division, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, with the majority holding that proof of control over workers or the workplace is not required to establish the actus reus of the employer's duty under s. 25(1)(c); control is relevant only to the due diligence defence.

The dissent would have either remitted the matter or restored the acquittals on the basis that regulatory measures apply only to work within the employer's sphere of control.

The Court dismissed an appeal challenging a workplace safety regulation and an administrative penalty imposed after a fatal forestry incident.

The majority held the regulation was within delegated authority and upheld the tribunal’s interpretation allowing an employer-owner to be penalized under the governing scheme.

Dissenting judges would have found the regulation invalid or the penalty interpretation patently unreasonable.

These consolidated appeals examined whether a workers’ compensation tribunal could reopen its own decision for patent unreasonableness and whether the tribunal’s causation analysis on occupational disease was reviewably unreasonable.

The court held that causation could be inferred from circumstantial evidence despite inconclusive expert opinion, and that the reviewing courts erred by treating absence of definitive expert support as determinative.

Applying deferential patent-unreasonableness review and the statutory tie-breaking rule favouring workers where evidence is evenly weighted, the tribunal’s original causation finding was restored.

The reconsideration decision remained a nullity, but the workers’ appeal succeeded.

The Court allowed the appeal and held that the provincial statutory bar in s. 44 of Newfoundland and Labrador’s workers’ compensation statute applied to bar the dependants’ maritime negligence action.

The Court concluded the provincial provision was constitutionally applicable and operative, rejecting both interjurisdictional immunity and federal paramountcy.

The Court held the provincial no-fault compensation regime and the federal maritime cause of action could operate together without conflict.