An Ontario court has dismissed two charges under the
Occupational Health and Safety Act against a tourist
resort after the Ministry of Labour failed to prove its case.
The charges followed an incident in 2012 in which a boat
operated by an employee of the resort suddenly veered to the right
and crashed into a rocky shoreline. Two passengers in the boat, who
were guests at the resort out on the lake for fishing, died as
a result of the impact.
The MOL charged the resort with failing to maintain a
"steering friction adjuster" on the outboard motor (which
limited the ability of the motor to swing to one side, causing the
boat to turn sharply) and failing to ensure that an "engine
shut-off lanyard" was "used as prescribed".
The lanyard, if tethered to the operator of the boat, would
shut off the engine if the operator moves to far away from the
motor, such as being thrown from the boat.
On the first charge, the court held that other than the fact
that there was no resistance on the steering friction adjuster,
there was no evidence that this condition was the result of a
failure to maintain the motor. ?In particular, a boat
mechanic who examined the motor after the accident was unable to
open and examine the steering friction adjuster because of the
direction that he understood he had received from the police.
As such, the prosecutor has not proven that the lodge failed
to maintain the steering friction adjuster.
With respect to the second charge, the court held that
"prescribed" meant prescribed by a regulation under the
OHSA. The MOL inspector admitted at trial, though, that there was
no regulation dealing with the use of a tether strap as a
protective device. "Prescribed" ?did not refer to any
requirement in the manual provided by the manufacturer. As such,
the second charge was also dismissed.
This case demonstrates the importance of obtaining a careful
legal assessment of OHSA charges before deciding whether to defend
or plead guilty. Charges that appear, on their face, to be
impossible to defend can sometimes be beaten because the
evidence does not support a conviction on the strict wording
of the charge.
Dentons is a global firm driven to provide you with the
competitive edge in an increasingly complex and interconnected
marketplace. We were formed by the March 2013 combination of
international law firm Salans LLP, Canadian law firm Fraser Milner
Casgrain LLP (FMC) and international law firm SNR Denton.
Dentons is built on the solid foundations of three highly
regarded law firms. Each built its outstanding reputation and
valued clientele by responding to the local, regional and national
needs of a broad spectrum of clients of all sizes –
individuals; entrepreneurs; small businesses and start-ups; local,
regional and national governments and government agencies; and
mid-sized and larger private and public corporations, including
international and global entities.
Now clients benefit from more than 2,500 lawyers and
professionals in 79 locations in 52 countries across Africa, Asia
Pacific, Canada, Central Asia, Europe, the Middle East, Russia and
the CIS, the UK and the US who are committed to challenging the
status quo to offer creative, actionable business and legal
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. Specific Questions relating to
this article should be addressed directly to the author.
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.
Unfortunately, reasonable accommodation for employees in the workplace continues to be the source of significant litigation and even today we continue to see outrageous examples of employers behaving badly.
We are now beginning to see reported cases involving charges and subsequent fines laid against employers for failing to provide information, instruction and supervision to protect a worker from workplace violence.
On October 13, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal an Ontario Court of Appeal decision which ordered an employer to pay a former employee 37 months of salary and benefits following termination.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).