We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
Radar's Rentals owned a mechanical calf-roping ride and
supplied it to XI Technologies Inc. for a company event during the
Calgary Stampede. An employee of XI Technologies Inc. was fatally
injured while operating the ride and the owners of the equipment
and supplies was charged for violating section 2(4) of the
Occupational Health and Safety Act.
Section 2(4) of the OH&S Act is a general provision which
requires suppliers to comply with the provisions of the OH&S
Act, Regulations and Code. The offence alleged was that Radar's
Rentals failed, pursuant to section 12(1)(b) of the Regulations to
ensure that equipment they supplied would safely perform the
function for which it was intended or designed.
However, section 12(1) of the Regulations specifically imposes
duties upon an employer in relation to the equipment. The charge,
incorporating as it does the particulars which refer to duties upon
employers, does not disclose an offence known to the law against a
supplier. The obligation to provide equipment in a safe operating
condition is placed upon the supplier under section 2(3) of the
OH&S Act. Radar's Rentals was not, however, charged with
violating that provision.
Because the charge was incorrect, the court quashed the charge
filed and could not substitute the correct charge. The Crown
Prosecutor's office was out of time to recharge the supplier
with violating section 2(3) of the OH&S Act.
FMC is one of Canada's leading business and litigation law
firms with more than 500 lawyers in six full-service offices
located in the country's key business centres. We focus on
providing outstanding service and value to our clients, and we
strive to excel as a workplace of choice for our people. Regardless
of where you choose to do business in Canada, our strong team of
professionals possess knowledge and expertise on regional, national
and cross-border matters. FMC's well-earned reputation for
consistently delivering the highest quality legal services and
counsel to our clients is complemented by an ongoing commitment to
diversity and inclusion to broaden our insight and perspective on
our clients' needs. Visit:
www.fmc-law.com
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The Federal Court of Appeal recently weighed in to reconcile competing tests on the proper way to determine whether an individual is a contractor or truly an employee.
A discussion on a recent decision of the Federal Court of Appeal, which confirms that the central question is, whether the person is performing the services as his own business, on his own account.
Back in July 2012, we covered "PVYW v Comcare" (No 2), [2012] FCA 395, which concerned an employee in the HR department of an Australian government agency who was injured on a work-related trip to a country town in New South Wales.
The employee, Ashworth, alleged that the manager demanded that she close the door and then positioned herself in front of the closed door and started screaming and pointing her finger in the employee’s face.
Some organizations subscribe to the close your eyes and think good thoughts school of drafting, when it comes to non-competition agreements in employment contracts.
A discussion on the judicial decision in a recent case, where a BC employer has successfully defended a claim for constructive dismissal despite taking away supervisory duties and moving the employee from an office to a cubicle.
