Canadian Safety Reporter

Published 12 times a year by thomson reuters Canada ltd. Subscription rate: $129 per year Customer service Tel: (416) 609-3800 (Toronto) (800) 387-5164 (outside Toronto) Fax: (416) 298-5106 E-mail: carswell.customerrelations @thomsonreuters.com Website: www.carswell.com one corporate plaza 2075 Kennedy Road Toronto, Ontario, Canada M1T 3V4 Director, Carswell Media Karen lorimer Publisher John hobel Managing Editor todd humber Contributing Editors liz foster (416) 298 5129 liz.foster@thomsonreuters.com sabrina nanji (416) 649-9348 sabrina.nanji@thomsonreuters.com Marketing Manager mohammad ali mm.ali@thomsonreuters.com (416) 609-5866 Circulation Co-ordinator travis Chan travis.chan@thomsonreuters.com (416) 609-5872 Safety Reporter Canadian www.safetyreporter.com ©2014 thomson reuters canada Ltd ISBN/ISSN: 978-0-7798-2810-4 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the written permission of the publisher (Carswell, a Thomson Reuters business). Canadian Safety Reporter is part of the Canadian HR Reporter group of publications: • canadian Hr reporter — www.hrreporter.com • canadian occupational Safety magazine — www.cos-mag.com • canadian payroll reporter — www.payroll-reporter.com • canadian employment Law today — www.employmentlawtoday.com • canadian Labour reporter — www.labour-reporter.com See carswell.com for information CSR | July 2014 | News scribed regulation that required a fall arrest system be in place •failing to notify and send a re- port to the director regarding the death within 48 hours. in addition, the owner was guilty in his capacity as supervi- sor, failing to ensure his workers used a fall arrest system and fur- nishing an inspector with false information. The case was more serious than most, as the owner lied to police and the Ministry of Labour and he failed to file a written report of the accident, according to ryan Conlin, a partner at Stringer LLP in To- ronto. "if someone behaved egre- giously during investigation, lied to investigators, obstructed justice, things along those lines, then it tips the balance towards a jail term for sure." The paramount consider- ation in sentencing for offences under the ohSA is deterrence, said nelson, citing the 1982 on- tario Court of Appeal case R. v. Cotton Felts Ltd. But while the principal is easy to articulate, its application can be challenging. "The case law reflects a wide and disparate sentencing range… it is rare that jail sen- tences have been imposed for individual offenders," , she said. Counsel for the Crown high- lighted why deterrence is so im- portant by providing statistics showing how deadly the roofing industry can be. The majority of lost-time injuries in the roofing sector are due to falls, and 41 per cent of all deaths at construction sites in 2011 were due to falls. "roofers keep falling off roofs despite all efforts of the ministry to educate and prosecute these types of offences," said nelson. "This reality highlights the need for the court to fashion a sen- tence for Mr. Markewycz and roofing Medics which will deter both defendants and, more im- portantly, other supervisors and roofing companies from failing to protect their employees. The penalty must not be such that it can simply be considered part of the cost of doing business and likened to a licensing fee." The owner behaved particu- larly badly with his deceptions, according to Karen Fields, a partner at Crawford Chondon & Partners in Brampton, ont. "All of those things sent a mes- sage to the court that this was somebody that needed a little more specific deterrent and it also wanted to send a message that it wasn't oK to engage in these kinds of behaviours and then a fine would make all your problems go away… still, jail time is reserved for those worst- case scenarios." Jail terms are rare because the fines are high — significantly higher than other areas of the law, and the courts have always thought that was the deterrent factor, she said. For a corpora- tion in ontario, the maximum is up to $500,000 per conviction — and it could be convicted on two or three counts. For individuals, it can be up to $25,000 and 12 months in jail. "you didn't see a lot of (jail time sentences) a few years ago but you are starting to see more now," said Fields, adding on- tario is the only jurisdiction thus far that has jailed people in the ohS realm (aside from a B.C. case involving workers' com- pensation). A recent case in the ontario Court of Justice imposed jail time of 45 days, to be served con- tinuously — not intermittently, as is common. The case involved supervisor Teisha Lootawan of J.r. Contracting Property Services, a Woodbridge, ont.- based garbage removal compa- ny. it was found guilty of seven charges under the ohSA after a worker took a serious fall from a roof and ended up paralyzed. Lootawan had several prior convictions under the Provin- cial offences Act and had been to jail intermittently. She had also faced substantial fines that had largely gone unpaid. in ap- plying the regulatory Modern- ization Act, justice of the peace Mary ross hendriks considered Lootawan's record in totality. The regulatory Moderniza- tion Act allows a court to con- sider convictions under other provincial regulatory statutes, according to evan Campbell, a lawyer at Miller Thomson in Guelph, ont. "if an individual has been charged multiple times with fines, or a corporation, that is an aggravating factor which would warrant a tougher sentence." This is one of the first re- ported examples where a court actually used the regulatory Modernization Act to inform its judgment in an ohS case, said Conlin. "There's no question that where a defendant has prior re- cord of convictions either under the occupational health and Safety Act or under other pro- vincial offences legislation… that will increase the penalty that will be imposed," he said. As for potential criminal charges, the attitude towards ohS convictions has been there's no required proof of in- tent, unlike a criminal case, said Conlin. Criminal charges may not be laid if authorities believe the conduct of the accused was not serious enough to warrant a criminal prosecution or there was insufficient evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. And if the police don't investigate and lay charges, the Ministry of Labour doesn't have jurisdiction to lay criminal charges, he said. When it comes to Bill C-45, "those cases tend to be where people have gone so far away from what the norm would be thought to have happened that it results in negligence," said Fields. But the question remains: Are tougher sentences, higher fines or jail terms having the desired effect? "The jury's still out on wheth- er severely penalizing corpora- tions and imposing jail terms will actually reduce workplace accidents," said Campbell. "one (question) is, as opposed to the government putting extensive resources into enforcement, maybe it would be better spent on the education of employers and supervisors on having a safe workplace." JAIL TIME < pg. 1 Repeat offenders face stiffer penalties

• Cover