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.
