Workplace Safety — 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. Apogee Ceramics Inc.

Workplace Safety Sentencing: Fine Increased to $55,000

This is a sentencing decision in a prosecution under the Occupational Health and Safety Act involving a corporate defendant for workplace safety violations. The court rejected a joint submission for a $35,000 fine, applying the public interest test from Anthony-Cook to determine that the proposed amount failed to account for inflation and deterrence. The court increased the fine to $55,000 to ensure it reflected current market realities and served as an effective deterrent.

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.

F. v. NB Thrilling Films 4 Inc. et. al.

Costs Ruling: WSIA Barred Workplace Claim

This is a costs ruling in a matter where the plaintiff's underlying action was dismissed because the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA) barred the right to sue. The court determined that costs should be awarded on the partial indemnity scale rather than the substantial indemnity scale sought by the defendants, considering the defendants' delay in bringing the WSIA application and the shared responsibility to clarify the statute-barred status of the claim.

C. v. Peel District School Board

OLRB Reprisal Judicial Review: OHSA s. 50

This is a judicial review of an OLRB decision concerning an alleged unlawful reprisal under section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard, confirmed by Canada v. Vavilov, to uphold the Board's finding that the denial of 0.1 FTE was based on the employee's inability to perform essential duties rather than safety-related reprisal. The Court also found that the applicant received procedural fairness during the hearing.

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.

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.

Y. v. Bad Boy Furniture Warehouse Limited et al.

A constructive dismissal case involving a dispute over whether the employer's actions constituted a fundamental breach of the employment contract. The case also involves issues related to the Workers Safety and Insurance Act, potentially concerning workplace safety or insurance benefits.

Ontario (Ministry of Labour) v. Ya Ya Foods Corp.

OHSA Constructor Liability: Control Test Analysis

This is a prosecution under the Occupational Health and Safety Act concerning the definition of a 'constructor' and the scope of a 'project'. The court analyzed whether the defendant exercised sufficient control over the Line 11 project to be liable as a constructor, distinguishing between owner oversight and constructor duties, and determined that the dismantling activity was industrial rather than construction. The charges were dismissed due to failure to meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

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.

Air Canada v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Air Canada Component

Judicial Review: Arbitrator Substitutes Suspension for Dismissal

This is a judicial review of an arbitrator's decision substituting a 30-day suspension for the dismissal of a flight attendant. The Divisional Court reviewed whether the arbitrator's decision was reasonable under the Vavilov standard, considering issues of credibility, dishonesty, and workplace safety.

Ottawa Carleton Standard v. F.

Workplace Harassment: OHSA Duty in Condominium

This is an interlocutory proceeding involving a condominium corporation, addressing whether a defendant's conduct constituted workplace harassment under the OHSA and breached the Condominium Act. The court considered the statutory duty of condominium corporations to protect workers from harassment and whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted to prohibit the defendant from communicating with personnel.

The Brockville Mental Health Centre v. The Ontario Ministry of Labour

This is a sentencing appeal regarding provincial offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The case concerns the Ministry of Labour's prosecution of the Brockville Mental Health Centre for workplace safety violations.

R. v. Greater Sudbury (City)

OHSA Constructor Liability: City of Greater Sudbury

An appellate review of a criminal prosecution under the Occupational Health and Safety Act where the City of Greater Sudbury was charged following a fatal accident at a construction site. The central legal issues were whether the City exercised sufficient control to be deemed a 'constructor' or 'employer' and whether it established a due diligence defence against strict liability offences. The case later reached the Supreme Court of Canada (R. v. Greater Sudbury (City), 2023 SCC 28). The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal on equal division, meaning the Court of Appeal's decision stands. The City is considered an employer under the Act and the matter of its due diligence defence is remitted to the provincial offences appeal court.

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.

Workplace Safety and Insurance Board v. C.

WSIB Appeal: Mens Rea for Injured Worker Offences

This is an appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario regarding criminal offences under s. 149(2) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, where injured workers failed to report material changes in their circumstances. The court addressed the mens rea required for the offence, specifically interpreting the term 'wilfully' and considering whether mistaken belief or wilful blindness negates liability. The appeal was allowed, and acquittals were restored or new trials ordered based on errors in the lower courts' application of the mens rea standard.

Ontario (Labour) v. Quinton Steel (Wellington) Limited

OHSA General Duty Clause: New Trial Ordered

This is an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a summary conviction appeal judge's decision regarding an employer's acquittal under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The Crown appealed the acquittal of Quinton Steel after a worker died falling from a temporary welding platform. The courts below dismissed the charge, finding that specific workplace regulations governed fall protection and precluded the use of the Act's general duty clause. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. The Court held that the lower courts misunderstood the law, ruling that an employer's general duty to take every reasonable precaution is not limited or exhausted by specific safety regulations.

R. v. Sunrise Propane Energy Group Inc.

Workplace Safety: OHSA Sentencing Appeal

An appeal against sentencing for an employer convicted of strict liability offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and Environmental Protection Act following a propane facility explosion that caused death and environmental damage. The court addressed the employer's failure to provide adequate instruction and supervision to employees, the rejection of due diligence and official error defences, and the appropriateness of the fines imposed given the aggravating factors.

R. v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp.

Workplace Safety: Hazard in Aisle

This is an appeal regarding a strict liability offence under the Occupational Health and Safety Act where an employee tripped on an empty skid in a workplace aisle. The court addressed whether the placement of the skid constituted a 'hazard or obstruction' under section 11 of Regulation 851 and whether the employer exercised due diligence. The trial judge's interpretation of the legislation was upheld on appeal.

D. v Liquor Control Board of Ontario

WSIB Bar: Dismissal of Workplace Injury Suit

This is an interlocutory proceeding regarding whether a plaintiff can sue their employer in court for work-related injuries previously addressed by the WSIB. The court determined that subsections 26(1) and (2) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 bar such actions, as remedies lie exclusively with the WSIB. Consequently, the court dismissed the action as frivolous or vexatious under Rule 2.1 to prevent abuse of the civil justice system.