|Published on November 20, 2012||Stringer LLP Admin|
Employers charged with violating the Occupational Health and Safety Act (Act) can escape conviction by proving they exercised due diligence, often referred to as the “due diligence defence”. When assessing whether an employer has established the due diligence defence, courts must determine whether a reasonable and prudent employer in the same circumstances would have been expected to take any reasonable precautions that were not taken by the employer charged. Indeed, in our practice we often hear Crown Prosecutors echo the phrase, “the failure to take a single, reasonable precaution is a breach of the Act.”
A less common and by far less successfully pleaded aspect of the due diligence defence, is the argument that the accident (or contravention) was not reasonably foreseeable. The basis of this aspect of the defence is that a reasonable and prudent employer in the same circumstances cannot be expected to have taken precautions to avoid an eventuality which it could not reasonably have foreseen. Courts interpret this aspect of the due diligence defence strictly, such that although clairvoyance is not required, the failure to consider an activity or piece of equipment as hazardous does not establish the defence.
In R. v. Rassaun Steel & Mfg. Co. Ltd. (Rassaun), an appeal court reversed a conviction, finding that there was no evidence before the Justice of the Peace upon which to conclude the accident was reasonably foreseeable. Rassaun was hired by the owners of a dormant foundry to remove and relocate certain equipment, including a fan assembly and conveyor system. Duct work, suspended from the ceiling, was connected at one end to the fan assembly and to the conveyor system at another. One of Rassaun’s workers had disconnected the duct work from the fan assembly and was in the process of unbolting it from the conveyor, when a section of the duct work collapsed, seriously injuring another worker below. It was later determined that a number of welds on the duct work were poor and that sand had built up in the duct. More than anything else, these two factors led to the duct’s collapse.
At trial, Rassaun tendered experienced witnesses who offered what the appeal court later called “uncontradicted evidence” that it would not have been practical or reasonable to inspect all of the welds, which would have taken years, and that the sand build up should not have occurred and could not have been expected. The appeal court found that the “indisputable conclusion” to draw from the evidence was that the duct work would not have shifted and collapsed were it not for the poor welds and sand build-up. As a result, the accident was not reasonably foreseeable and the conviction was overturned.
Rassaun is a welcome decision as it clarifies the foreseeability aspect of the due diligence defence. In our view, a key aspect of the employer’s victory was the evidence it tendered to refute the presumption that inspecting the welds was a reasonable precaution that it should have taken as a prudent employer. Although judges try to avoid determining foreseeability and the reasonableness of precautions without relying on hindsight, that distinction can be hard to draw and the test is always applied in the circumstances of each individual case.
The best defence is to have a solid due diligence program in place, to go beyond minimum, reasonable expectations when possible and to regularly review and adapt your health and safety program.
- AODA Compliance Deadlines for January 2014 are Quickly Approaching
- Ministry of Labour Announces New Training Requirements
- SCC Protects Union Rights to Strike-Related Activity over Public Privacy Legislation
- Two Kicks at the Can: Worker Allowed to Re-litigate WSIB Accommodation Dispute at the Human Rights Tribunal
- Ontario Ministry of Labour announces safety blitz on recycling and waste hazards
- Review Court Bars Wrongful Dismissal Claim Post-ESA Claim
- Contractors Must Ensure Worker Safety at Customer Work Sites
- Register Now for our Complimentary Quarterly HR-Law Webinar - Q3
- Ontario Ministry of Labour blitz of the retail industry – Are you ESA compliant?
- “Holding” Means What It Says: Court of Appeal Rejects Narrow Interpretation of Ban on Holding Cell Phones While Driving
- Failure to Mitigate proves Costly to Plaintiff in Constructive Dismissal
- Ontario Human Rights Tribunal Opening the Door to Duplicative Litigation?
- Confidentiality Clause has Teeth: Police Officer forced to Return Settlement Funds
- MOL Prosecution Continues Amidst CCAA Proceedings
- Summary Judgement Not Always Appropriate in Wrongful Dismissal Actions
- Register Now for our 27th Annual Employers' Conference, Labour & Employment Law Update 2013
- Solid evidentiary burden to prove constructive dismissal due to poisoned work environment
- Can an Arbitrator Award Damages Against an Employer for Making False Statements to the WSIB?
- Save the Date! Don't Miss our Annual Employers' Conference
- Upcoming AODA Obligations – Are you ready?
- “Rocket Docket” to Summary Judgment in “Without Cause” Wrongful Dismissal Cases
- Appeal Court Finds Compensation for Loss During Notice Period Trumps Shareholders’ Agreement
- ONCA Confirms NO Fault-Based Workers' Compensation Grievances
- When is a Laid off Employee Still an Employee? When he Signs a Construction Union Membership Card
- Announcing our Complimentary Quarterly HR-Law Webinar (Q2)
- Court Holds That Smell of Marijuana in a Vehicle Does Not Justify Drug Testing Under OH&S Legislation
- What you Need to Know About the New Voluntary Workplace Mental Health Standard
- Human Rights Tribunal Finds Discrimination in Request for Medical Information
- What does “Disability” Actually Mean for Accommodation Purposes?
- Court of Appeal Case Shows Risks of Gaps in WSIB Coverage of Executives
- Specific Termination Provision Upheld After Sale of Business
- Discipline Warranted for Work Refusal Complaint Not Made in Good Faith
- Dealing effectively with OHS inspectors
- AODA compliance: Benefits of Being Ahead of the Game
- Responding to human rights harassment complaints: Guidelines from the HRTO
- How NOT to Draft an Enforceable Non-Competition Agreement
- So Your AODA Customer Service Standard Report is Past Due?
- Announcing our Complimentary Quarterly Roundup Webinar
- New Developments in Immigration Law for Skilled Trades
- New Employment Contract Term Triggers Constructive Dismissal
- Registration Now Open - Managing the Employment Lifecycle Webinar Series
- Where WSIB Benefits Denied Civil Claim May Proceed
- Alberta Human Rights Tribunal Awards Five Years of Back Pay and Reinstatement
- Stringer LLP Obtains $100K Retroactive NEER Adjustment in WSIAT Appeal
- Ontario Court of Appeal Overturns Blue Mountain Accident Reporting Decision
- Make Sure Pre-Employment Screening is Complete Before they Start
- Split Hairs and Sector Disputes
- Early Bird Registration is now open for First Reference's Ontario Employment Law Conference
- Early Morning OLRB Ruling Finds Teachers' Planned Day of Protest an Illegal Strike
- Court of Appeal Protects Manager from Personal Liability on Employee Termination
- accessibility for ontarians with disabilities act
- accessibility policies
- class actions
- constitutional law
- construction labour relations
- constructive dismissal
- disability benefits
- employment insurance
- employment law
- employment standards
- employment standards act
- fiduciary duties
- first nations
- general litigation
- human rights
- integrated accessibility standard
- labour law
- labour relations
- ministry of labour
- occupational health and safety
- restrictive covenants
- retail blitz
- section 45.1
- stringer llp announcements
- workers' compensation
- wrongful dismissal litigation