Workplace Safety and Insurance Law - SCJ

This criminal trial concerned Puneet Grewal, charged with dangerous driving causing death after he reversed his dump truck on a landfill site, running over and killing Kyrsten Sujanszky.

The Crown alleged that Grewal's driving constituted a marked departure from the standard of a reasonable and prudent truck driver, specifically by reversing without regard to Ms. Sujanszky's whereabouts despite an obligation to keep her in sight.

The court examined the circumstances of the site, the inherent dangers of reversing a dump truck, and the actions of both the accused and the deceased.

Ultimately, the court found that while Grewel's actions might have been careless, there was reasonable doubt as to whether they constituted a 'marked departure' from the standard of care, particularly given the uncertainties about how Ms. Sujanszky came to be in the truck's path and the site's own safety practice deficiencies.

Grewal was found not guilty.

The defendants brought a motion seeking leave to amend their Statement of Defence to plead a jurisdictional bar under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 (WSIA), and an adjournment of the trial.

The proposed amendment argued that the plaintiff's action was barred by WSIA sections 28 and 31, which grant exclusive jurisdiction to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) for workplace injury claims against employers.

The court granted leave to amend the Statement of Defence, finding that while the delay was unfortunate, any prejudice to the plaintiff could be compensated by costs and an adjournment.

The trial was adjourned to allow for the amendment and a determination by WSIAT.

The defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiff partial indemnity costs and an additional amount for trial preparation efforts, totaling $28,578.28.

The plaintiff, General Motors of Canada Company ("GM"), brought a motion for a permanent and/or interlocutory injunction against the defendant, Chidiebube Osita-Adubasim, to prevent trespassing, harassment, intimidation, assault, and mischief at GM's premises.

The defendant, a former contract employee whose employment was terminated due to sexual harassment complaints, had repeatedly attempted to gain unauthorized access to GM's Oshawa Assembly Plant, engaging in aggressive and threatening behavior, including assaulting a security guard.

Despite trespass notices and police citations, the defendant's conduct persisted.

The court applied the R.J.R.-MacDonald test for injunctive relief, finding a strong prima facie case of tortious and unlawful conduct, irreparable harm to GM's employees and operations, and that the balance of convenience overwhelmingly favored granting the injunction.

The motion was granted, and the injunction was ordered to remain in effect indefinitely, with a term requiring police assistance in enforcing the order.

The plaintiff brought an action for constructive dismissal alleging a hostile work environment.

The defendants applied to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) for a determination of whether the action is barred by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, and brought a motion to stay the civil action pending the WSIAT decision.

Following a case conference, the court scheduled the motion for a stay and established a timetable for the exchange of materials.

The plaintiffs, George MacPherson and his minor daughter Sierra, brought an action for damages after George MacPherson suffered a serious back injury falling from a roof.

The defendants, including the homeowner (Samuel) and roofing contractors (Allan Star Roofing Ltd. and Ebrahim Khezri), moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claims against them.

The court dismissed both summary judgment motions, finding that genuine issues requiring a trial existed, particularly concerning witness credibility regarding the provision of safety equipment and knowledge of unsafe conditions.

The court emphasized that it was not in the interest of justice to grant partial summary judgment due to the risk of duplicative proceedings and inconsistent factual findings, especially given the presence of a jury notice.

The Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) sought an urgent interlocutory injunction against four long-term care (LTC) facilities experiencing COVID-19 outbreaks, alleging breaches of Chief Medical Officer of Health (CMOH) Directives regarding personal protective equipment (PPE) and infection control.

The ONA contended that the facilities failed to provide necessary PPE, particularly N95 masks, and implement appropriate administrative controls like isolating and cohorting residents and staff.

The facilities argued they complied with directives and that the ONA sought control over scarce resources.

The court found that the matter, though a labour dispute, required the court's inherent jurisdiction due to the inability to expedite arbitral processes.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a serious question to be tried and irreparable harm to nurses and residents.

The balance of convenience favored granting the injunction, prioritizing health and safety.

The court ordered the LTC facilities to provide nurses with access to N95 respirators and other appropriate PPE based on point-of-care assessment and to implement administrative controls as per CMOH Directives.

The plaintiff employee was injured while engaging in horseplay on the defendant employer's premises.

The WSIB ruled he was not in the course of employment, precluding WSIA benefits but allowing a civil action.

At the opening of trial, the defendant brought a motion to restrict the plaintiff's claim to occupier's liability, arguing the WSIB ruling precluded claims based on the employment relationship.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the WSIB ruling did not negate the plaintiff's common-law right to claim damages for negligence against the defendant as his employer.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the City of Greater Sudbury on six charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, following a fatal accident at a construction site.

The trial judge found that the City was neither a "constructor" nor an "employer" under the Act, and alternatively, exercised due diligence.

The appeal court upheld the trial judge's findings, concluding that the City's oversight role for quality control did not transform it into a constructor or employer, and dismissed the appeal.

The plaintiffs sought a status hearing under Rule 48.14 to allow their action to proceed despite a five-year delay and requested a timetable.

The defendants opposed, seeking dismissal due to non-compensable prejudice from a key witness's death and alleged spoliation of evidence.

The court found the plaintiffs provided acceptable explanations for the delay, which was largely attributable to interlocutory proceedings and the defendants' actions.

The court also determined that any prejudice from the witness's death or evidence destruction did not arise from the delay necessitating the status hearing and was not so extensive as to prevent a fair trial.

The defendants' cross-motion to strike parts of a reply affidavit was granted in part.

The main motion to allow the action to proceed was granted, and a timetable was imposed.

The appellants appealed their convictions and sentences for multiple regulatory offences under the Environmental Protection Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act following a massive propane explosion at their facility that resulted in a worker's death and widespread environmental contamination.

The appellants argued the trial judge made numerous factual and legal errors, including rejecting their defence of officially induced error and finding a lack of due diligence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the conviction appeals, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence or application of strict liability principles.

The court also dismissed the sentence appeals, upholding over $5 million in fines due to the unprecedented magnitude of the damage and the appellants' reckless conduct.

The plaintiff, George MacPherson, brought a motion to add Allan Star Roofing Ltd. and Ebrahim Khezri (Third Parties) as defendants to an action for injuries sustained from a fall off a roof.

The motion hinged on the discoverability principle under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff argued he did not discover the identity or potential liability of the Third Parties until examinations for discovery and subsequent undertakings, which revealed Khezri's involvement as a worker and potential duties under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Third Parties contended that the plaintiff knew or ought to have known the material facts earlier and failed to exercise due diligence.

The court found an arguable cause of action in negligence based on the Third Parties' potential failure to report safety issues under OHSA.

Given the low evidentiary threshold for demonstrating due diligence, the plaintiff was granted leave to add the Third Parties as defendants.

Costs were fixed at $5,000 to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff, in the cause.

The appellant employer appealed a conviction under s. 25(1)(c) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act arising from a workplace accident where a worker fell more than three metres from a sawmill catwalk while clearing a conveyor jam without fall arrest protection.

The trial court had acquitted the employer on a guardrail-related charge but convicted on a fall-arrest charge.

On appeal, the employer argued the trial judge made inconsistent findings on foreseeability and lacked evidence supporting the conclusion that workers would cross the guardrail to access the conveyor.

The Superior Court held that the trial judge’s reasoning distinguished between the guardrail and fall-arrest charges and properly found that accessing the conveyor to clear jam-ups was foreseeable.

The court concluded that the employer failed to establish due diligence because it did not implement reasonable safety precautions or training requiring fall arrest protection.

The conviction was upheld.

The applicant sought declarations that operational policies adopted under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act were unconstitutional and contrary to s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The issue before the court was whether the Superior Court had jurisdiction to determine the matter by application or whether it had to proceed as a judicial review before the Divisional Court.

The court held that the impugned policies constituted the exercise of statutory power under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

Because the applicant sought only declarations regarding the legality of those policies and no civil action was pending, the matter properly fell within the jurisdiction of the Divisional Court by way of judicial review.