Regulatory Prosecutions — Ontario Employment Law

Ontario (Ministry of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development) v. Corporation of the Town of Bancroft

OHSA Prosecution: Charge Dismissed for Inaccessible Area

This is a merits decision in a prosecution under the Occupational Health and Safety Act concerning whether an area along rails and under a compactor constituted a 'floor or other surface used by a worker.' The court dismissed the charge, finding that the space was inaccessible and did not present a slip and fall hazard, meaning the actus reus was not proven. The court also found that due diligence was established in the alternative.

Ontario (Ministry of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development) v. The Econo-Rack Group Inc.

OHS Prosecution: Motion for Particulars Dismissed

This is a procedural ruling in a prosecution under the Occupational Health and Safety Act where the court addressed motions for particulars and the sufficiency of charges. The court dismissed the motion for particulars as unnecessary for trial fairness and held that the charge regarding the safe transportation of materials was factually sufficient.

Ontario (Ministry of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development) v. A & L Hammer Workforce Management Inc.

Employment Standards: Continuing Offences & Limitation Periods

This is a procedural ruling in a prosecution brought by the Ministry of Labour against an employer for failing to comply with orders under the Employment Standards Act and the Employment Protection for Foreign Nationals Act. The court addressed whether the charges were barred by limitation periods, determining that the offences were continuing and that the application to quash the charges should be heard on its merits despite being brought late.

Ontario (Ministry of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development) v. Cementation Canada Inc.

OHSA Prosecution: Charter Motion Dismissed

This is a pre-trial Charter motion in a prosecution brought by the Ministry of Labour against Cementation Canada Inc. for alleged breaches of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and mining regulations. The court dismissed the motion for a stay of proceedings, finding that the charges were sufficiently particularized and that there was no breach of the defendant's Charter rights regarding disclosure or solicitor-client privilege.

Ontario (Ministry of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development) v. A & L Hammer Workforce Management Inc.

A regulatory prosecution of a corporation and its director for 18 counts of failing to comply with orders to pay wages and recruitment fees under the Employment Standards Act and the Employment Protection for Foreign Nationals Act. The court addressed whether the defendants failed to comply with orders, the applicability of the due diligence defence, and whether evidence established that the corporation continued operations despite claims of business closure.

Ontario (Ministry of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development) v. Limen Group Const. (2019) Ltd.

OHSA Prosecution: Due Diligence and Employer Liability

This is a merits decision in a statutory prosecution under the Occupational Health and Safety Act involving a corporate defendant and individual supervisors. The court addressed whether the defendants were employers or supervisors, whether they proved due diligence regarding hazardous rigging practices using embedded rebar, and the scope of their duties under the Act. The court found the essential elements of the counts proved and rejected the due diligence defence.

Ontario (Ministry of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development) v. Limen Group Const. (2019) Ltd.

OH&S Prosecution: Disclosure and Privilege Ruling

This is a procedural ruling in a prosecution under the Occupational Health and Safety Act arising from a workplace fatality. The court addressed motions for disclosure of disciplinary records and solicitor-client communications, finding that privilege was upheld and disclosure denied. The court also rejected Charter delay and abuse of process arguments, refusing to stay the proceedings.

R. v. Bondfield Construction Company Limited

Court of Appeal Reinstates OHSA Electrical Charges

This is an appeal to the Court of Appeal from an appeal judge's decision regarding employer convictions under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The Crown appealed the acquittals of three construction and electrical companies after a field service technician was severely burned by an electrical arc flash. The trial justice initially convicted the employers, but the appeal judge overturned the convictions after finding the energized electrical parts were not exposed. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the appeal judge erred by ignoring the context and purpose of the safety regulations when interpreting the requirement to disconnect power to equipment. The court set aside the acquittals for the power disconnection offences, upheld the acquittals regarding unauthorized room access, and remitted the remaining due diligence and sentencing issues to the lower court.

Ontario (Ministry of Labour) v. GMJ Electric Inc.

OHSA Appeal: Employer & Supervisor Convictions Upheld

This is an appeal from convictions under the Occupational Health and Safety Act regarding workplace safety violations. The Ontario Court of Justice dismissed the appeals, upholding convictions against GMJ Electric Inc. and a supervisor for failing to provide a safe work environment, specifically regarding fall hazards and lack of training, and confirming the supervisor's status under the Act.

Ontario (Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change) v. Sunrise Propane Energy Group Inc.

Workplace Safety Appeal: Due Diligence Defence

This is a motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal from an appeal judge's decision concerning convictions for environmental and workplace safety offences. Sunrise Propane Energy Group Inc. and its directors sought leave to appeal their convictions following a fatal workplace explosion. The trial judge convicted the applicants and imposed fines totalling $5.3 million, which the appeal judge upheld. The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal because the applicants raised questions of mixed fact and law rather than pure questions of law essential in the public interest. The fines totalling $5.3 million stand.

Terrace Bay Pulp Inc. (Re)

CCAA Stay of OHSA Prosecutions: Regulatory vs Creditor Enforcement

An insolvent company applied for a stay of proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) to halt Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) prosecutions. The court determined that the OHSA proceedings were regulatory in nature rather than creditor enforcement, and thus were not stayed under the CCAA or subject to federal paramountcy.

R. v. Sheehan's Truck Centre Inc.

R. v. Sheehan's Truck Centre: OHSA Jurisdiction Appeal

This is a motion to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal from an appeal judge's decision regarding a workplace safety conviction under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. A worker was seriously injured when a co-worker reversed a truck over him, and the employer, Sheehan's Truck Centre Inc., was charged for failing to provide a signaller. The justice of the peace acquitted the employer, but the Ontario Court of Justice allowed the Crown's appeal and entered a guilty verdict. The Court of Appeal granted the employer's motion for leave to appeal. The Court decided that the correct interpretation of the signaller requirement and the employer's argument that the regulation is unconstitutionally overbroad raise issues essential to the public interest.

Ontario (Workplace Safety & Insurance Board) v. Commercial Spring and Tool Company

WSIA Prosecution: Limitation Periods and Mandamus

This is a procedural and statutory interpretation ruling concerning the prosecution of an employer for offences under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA). The court addressed whether a limitation period applies to section 149 offences (false or misleading statements) and whether mandamus was appropriate to restore charges quashed by a Justice of the Peace.

R. v. Moran Mining and Tunnelling Ltd.

A criminal prosecution of a mining and tunnelling company for occupational health and safety offences. The case involved a charge to the jury regarding statutory infractions.

R. v. C.

Worker Liability Under OHSA: R. v. C.

This is a criminal appeal concerning a conviction under the Occupational Health and Safety Act for failing to take basic safety measures while felling a tree, which resulted in severe injury to a co-worker. The appellant argued that the employer's failure to maintain a safe worksite negated his liability and that the prosecution's conduct warranted a stay of proceedings under Section 7 of the Charter. The court upheld the conviction, finding that workers and employers bear independent obligations under the Act and that no overwhelming evidence of unfairness existed to justify a stay.

Ontario (Ministry of Labour) v. Hamilton (City)

OHS Prosecution: Fatal Accident & Signaller Duties

This is an appeal concerning a prosecution under the Occupational Health and Safety Act following a fatal workplace accident involving a reversing dump truck. The Court of Appeal addressed whether the employer's failure to provide a signaller could be proven by evidence that the signaller failed to meet specific regulatory requirements, interpreting sections 104 and 106 of Ontario Regulation 213/91 as complementary provisions.

R. v. Timminco Ltd.

R. v. Timminco: Employer Strict Liability under OHS Act

This is a criminal appeal concerning an employer's liability under the Occupational Health and Safety Act for workplace hazards. The case addresses whether the Act imposes strict liability on employers for failing to guard moving parts of machinery and whether a directed verdict of acquittal was appropriate due to lack of evidence of the employer's prior knowledge of the hazard.

R. v. Brennan Paving and Construction Ltd.

Workplace Safety Prosecution: Abuse of Process Appeal

This was an appeal to the Court of Appeal by the Crown from a judge's decision upholding a Justice of the Peace's stay of proceedings in an Occupational Health and Safety Act prosecution against Brennan Paving and Construction Ltd. The Justice of the Peace stayed the charges, finding that a Ministry investigator's lie about impending charges breached the corporate accused's right to silence and that the Crown improperly withheld legal memoranda. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the stay and remitting the matter for trial. The Court found that a corporation has no right to remain silent, and any prejudice from the investigator's conduct should be assessed at trial rather than prematurely staying the serious charges. Furthermore, the Court held that the withheld memoranda were protected work product and legal advice, meaning the Crown was not obliged to disclose them.

The King v. L.

Master and Servant Act: Criminal Prosecution for Unpaid Costs

This is a judicial review by the Divisional Court of a conviction obtained under the Ontario Master and Servant Act, where an employee was prosecuted for leaving employment without repaying transportation costs advanced by the employer. The court addressed issues regarding the validity of the amended information, procedural fairness, and the constitutional jurisdiction of the province to enact such provisions under the Criminal Code.