Susan Lynn Crawford

The Crown sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Justice concerning findings on due diligence and penalty reduction in regulatory offence charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The motion for leave was dismissed as the proposed grounds of appeal did not meet the high bar under s. 131 of the Provincial Offences Act.

The court found that the alleged errors involved the misapplication of well-established legal principles rather than issues requiring the Court of Appeal's guidance on statutory interpretation or general legal principles.

This appeal concerned the interpretation of "energized exposed parts of electrical equipment" under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.

O.1, specifically O. Reg. 213/91, ss. 184(1) and 190(4), following a worker's arc flash injury on a construction project.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario found that the appeal judge erred in her interpretation of s. 190(4), concluding that the actus reus for that offence was established, as the provision applies when work entails exposing ordinarily energized parts.

However, the Court upheld the acquittals for s. 184(1), finding the Crown failed to prove the temporal link between exposed parts and uncontrolled room access.

The Court also accepted a concession regarding the s. 187 due diligence defence.

The matter was remitted for determination of due diligence and sentence appeals for ss. 190(4) and 187.

An employee appealed a trial judgment dismissing his claim for unpaid bonuses following termination without cause.

The employment contract contained a limitation clause stating that bonuses did not accrue and were only earned and payable on the designated pay-out date.

The trial judge found the limitation clause unambiguous and enforceable.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, finding that the parties had clearly agreed on how and when bonuses would be declared, earned, accrued, and paid.

The court rejected arguments based on unconscionability and public policy, noting that the bonus provisions were freely negotiated.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

A senior manager alleged constructive dismissal after the employer reassigned him to a newly created role with the same salary but without staff, budget, job description, or clear responsibilities.

The court applied the objective test from Farber v. Royal Trust Co., asking whether a reasonable person would view the unilateral changes as substantially altering essential terms of employment.

The evidence showed the new role lacked managerial authority, resources, and status and was implemented while the employer had already arranged for another employee to assume the plaintiff’s former position.

The court concluded that the reassignment amounted to a demotion and constructive dismissal despite the unchanged salary.

Damages were awarded based on the period of unemployment following the dismissal.