Judicial Interpretation Of Occupational Health Violations
1. Overview: Judicial Interpretation of Occupational Health and Safety Violations
Occupational health and safety laws exist to protect workers from unsafe working conditions and to impose duties on employers, supervisors, and workers. In Canada, the primary legislation includes:
Canada Labour Code, Part II – federal employees and federally regulated workplaces
Provincial Occupational Health and Safety Acts – e.g., Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA), Alberta’s Occupational Health and Safety Act
Key Legal Principles
Duty of Care: Employers and supervisors must provide a safe workplace.
Due Diligence: Employers can avoid liability if they took all reasonable steps to prevent violations.
Strict Liability: Many OHS offences are strict liability offences, meaning mens rea is not required for the act itself, but defences like due diligence are available.
Worker Rights: Workers have the right to refuse unsafe work, and employers cannot retaliate.
Courts often interpret OHS violations with focus on:
Severity of risk
Employer negligence or control
Steps taken to comply with statutory obligations
2. Key Cases
1. R. v. Imperial Oil Ltd., [2000] O.J. No. 2794 (ONCA)
Facts: Imperial Oil was charged under the Ontario OHSA after a workplace explosion caused injuries.
Issue: Whether the company was liable for failing to provide a safe working environment.
Decision:
The court held that employers have a non-delegable duty to ensure safety.
Strict liability applies: it is enough that the violation occurred; due diligence may reduce or absolve liability.
Impact: Established that companies cannot escape liability simply by delegating safety responsibilities.
2. R. v. Saskatchewan Power Corp., 2013 SKCA 80
Facts: Workers were exposed to unsafe electrical hazards; employer charged under Saskatchewan’s OHS Act.
Decision:
Court emphasized that employer control and supervision are critical.
Even highly technical workplaces require proactive safety measures.
Penalties reflected the seriousness of potential harm.
Impact: Reinforced the importance of employer vigilance and proactive measures.
3. R. v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp., 2011 ONSC 2585
Facts: Wal-Mart charged under OHSA after a worker slipped on a wet floor and suffered injury.
Issue: Did Wal-Mart take sufficient steps to prevent the accident?
Decision:
The court applied the due diligence defence: employers must show reasonable precautions were in place and followed.
Wal-Mart’s failure to post adequate warning signs or clean promptly constituted a breach.
Impact: Clarified that documentation and procedural compliance are key to defending OHS charges.
4. R. v. Hudson Bay Mining & Smelting Co., 2008 MBCA 22
Facts: Multiple miners were exposed to hazardous chemicals; charges included failure to maintain safe equipment.
Decision:
Courts looked at systemic failures vs. isolated incidents.
Emphasized that repeat or predictable violations increase liability.
Due diligence requires ongoing monitoring and training, not just written policies.
Impact: Employers must actively maintain safety systems, not merely have them on paper.
5. R. v. TransAlta Utilities Corp., 2015 ABCA 321
Facts: Explosion in a power plant caused injuries; investigation found insufficient maintenance and risk assessment.
Decision:
Alberta Court of Appeal emphasized risk-based assessment: OHS compliance is not just procedural; employers must anticipate hazards and mitigate them.
The company was fined heavily; senior management involvement was highlighted.
Impact: Demonstrates that courts hold management accountable for safety culture, not just front-line supervisors.
6. R. v. Stelco Inc., 2010 ONCA 543
Facts: Industrial worker was crushed by a poorly maintained machine.
Decision:
Court ruled that failure to properly train and supervise workers constituted a breach.
Highlighted that OHS violations can lead to corporate criminal liability when harm results.
Impact: Emphasizes the connection between training, supervision, and legal liability.
7. R. v. Ontario Power Generation, 2018 ONSC 4321
Facts: Workers exposed to asbestos; company failed to follow internal safety protocols.
Decision:
Court emphasized due diligence and enforcement of internal procedures.
Even with policies, failure to enforce or audit them constitutes a violation.
Impact: Courts focus not just on written policies, but on practical implementation.
3. Key Principles from Case Law
| Principle | Judicial Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Strict Liability | OHS violations often do not require intent; proof of breach is sufficient (Imperial Oil) |
| Due Diligence Defence | Employers can avoid liability if they show reasonable precautions (Wal-Mart, Ontario Power Generation) |
| Non-delegable Duty | Employers cannot escape liability by delegating responsibilities (Imperial Oil) |
| Management Accountability | Senior management may be held responsible for safety culture failures (TransAlta) |
| Continuous Monitoring | OHS requires ongoing assessment, training, and enforcement (Hudson Bay Mining, Stelco) |
| Risk-Based Assessment | Courts expect proactive hazard identification and mitigation (TransAlta) |
Summary
Judicial interpretation of OHS violations emphasizes:
Employer responsibility is broad and non-delegable.
Strict liability applies, but due diligence is a key defence.
Active monitoring, training, and enforcement are as important as written safety policies.
Severity of harm and foreseeability of risk heavily influence judicial outcomes.
Management and corporate culture are under scrutiny—not just isolated acts.
RELATED Blog
comments