Court of Appeal bolsters need for Worker Safety

In a judgment hardly a week old, the Court of Appeal
has sent a strong message to employers that worker safety will not be taken lightly.

In R. v Metron
the Court was dealing with an appeal from a decision which imposed a fine on an
employer guilty of criminal negligence. The case involved a group of
construction workers who were working on the exterior of a building in Toronto.
When six of the workers descended in a swing stage, the stage collapsed. Four
of the workers died in the fall.

It was subsequently determined that the swing stage
wasn’t properly constructed. The swing stages were constructed under
supervision by the site supervisor and the project manager. The stage was only
designed to accommodate two workers, not six. Worse yet, the company had rented
two swing stages, each of which arrived without a manual, instructions, design
drawings or any other information about the stages.
There was also no report by an engineer confirming that
the swing stages were built in accordance with design drawings. Such an
engineer’s report is a safety requirement under regulations to the OHSA[2].

Only two of the
workers were secured by a lifeline. The four who weren’t secured by lifelines
died in the fall. One worker was properly secured by a lifeline and survived.
The other was improperly secured by a lifeline and survived, but with serious

Representatives of the
employer entered pleas of guilt to criminal negligence causing death and
several violations of the OHSA. The
Prosecution sought a $1 million fine for the employer. The sentencing judge,
however, placed undue emphasis on the fact that a fine of $1 million was likely
to drive the employer into bankruptcy. He imposed a fine of $200,000, which, it
was believed, would send a clear message to employers that worker safety was
important to all businesses.

The Court of Appeal
overturned this decision. The sentencing judge had relied on past decisions
made under the OHSA in deciding on an
appropriate range for the fine. The Court concluded that this was an error,
finding that: “A range of sentences established under the OHSA regulatory regime does not reflect the gravity of the offence
of criminal negligence causing death.” Therefore, the cases relied upon by the
sentencing judge in determining a range for the fine was of limited assistance.

Furthermore, the
sentencing judge should not have placed such concern on the financial ability
of the employer to pay: “The economic viability of a corporation is properly a
factor to be considered but it is not determinative.”[4] In
doing so, the sentencing judge made the company’s financial situation a
determinative factor and failed to send a strong enough message to employers
that worker safety is to be protected. The Court stated:


A sentence consisting of a fine
of $200,000 fails to convey the need to deliver a message on the importance of
worker safety. Indeed, some might treat such a fine as simply a cost of doing
business. Workers employed by a corporation are entitled to expect higher
standards of conduct than that exhibit by the respondent[5]
[i.e. the employer].


The Court found
that the sentence the sentencing judge had imposed was manifestly unfit. The Court
imposed a sentence more fitting to the gravity and nature of the crime. The
Court overturned the fine of $200,000 and nearly quadrupled the fine, imposing
a fine of $750,000.

While this was a
decision made under the Criminal Code, and not the OHSA, the Court sent an
unmistakable warning to employers that there can be no shortcuts when it comes
to worker safety. Workplace injuries are not simple a “cost of doing business”
and any company that sacrifices the lives of its workers through poor safety conditions
may risk penalties that exceed its financial capacity to pay. The Court will
not spare a company from bankruptcy when the company did not take adequate
precautions to spare the lives of its workers. Though nothing will bring those
workers back, we hope it gives their loved ones some comfort to know that the
loss of their lives and their employer’s negligence is being taken seriously.


For further
reading, the decision can be found

[1]  R  v Metron Construction Corporation, 2013
ONCA 541 [Metron]. 
[2] Construction Projects, O Reg 213/91, s.
139(5) .
[3] Metron, supra note 1 at paras 10 and 11.
[4] Ibid at para 108.
[5] Ibid at para 115, parenthesis mine.

You may also like

Lufthansa Flights Canceled Due to Strike

Lufthansa Flights Canceled Due to Strike

We Have a lot to Thank Unions For

We Have a lot to Thank Unions For

This Week in the History of the International Labour Movement Wagner Act

This Week in the History of the International Labour Movement Wagner Act
{"email":"Email address invalid","url":"Website address invalid","required":"Required field missing"}

Subscribe to our Bulletin now!