Canada: OHS Contravention Grounds For Manslaughter, Says Quebec Superior Court

Last Updated: August 15 2017
Article by Norm Keith

 The Quebec Superior Court recently released a decision with broad implications for workplaces, managers, supervisors and employers across Canada. In R. c. Fournier,2 Justice Villemure held that an individual's contravention of provincial health and safety legislation was an "unlawful act", under section s. 222(5)(a) of the Criminal Code ("Code") and therefore a basis for committal to trial under a criminal charge of manslaughter. This is the first decision of its kind in Canada.

The decision must not only have been a shock for Mr. Fournier, the owner of a small construction firm, who had lost a worker in a tragic workplace accident, but also for criminal lawyers across Canada, since this is the first time this issue has been considered by the courts. It will be even more shocking for individuals, supervisors and employers, and others, bound to comply with provincial, strict liability health and safety laws. Since there were 852 workplace fatalities in Canada in 2015 – there were 852 potential opportunities for a contravention of health and safety laws to give rise to criminal manslaughter charges.3

I. WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE

According to the Superior Court's decision the facts of the case include the following:

  • Mr. Lévesque and Mr. Fournier were working together at a construction project replacing in-ground sewer and water main lines;
  • The Quebec Safety Code was applicable to the excavation that was taking place;
  • Mr. Fournier and Mr. Lévesque were both working in an excavation on the day of the fatality;
  • The walls of the excavation were not shored, and dirt and other material removed from excavation was placed too close to the edge of the excavation;
  • Mr. Lévesque died when the walls of the excavation collapsed. He was working alone at the time of the collapse.4

Mr. Fournier was charged with two counts under the Code -- criminal negligence for breach of the duty of persons directing work under section 217.1 thereby violating s. 220 of the Code, and manslaughter by unlawful act under section 222(5)(a) of the Code. There is no mention in the Superior Court decision about whether strict liability offences under the Quebec Safety Code were also laid against Mr. Fournier and what the outcome, if any of those charges were.

Following a preliminary inquiry, a judge committed Mr. Fournier to stand trial on both charges. Mr. Fournier challenged the committal to stand trial on the manslaughter charge.

II. WHAT THE COURT DECIDED

Defence counsel argued that a breach of a safety law requirement should not to be interpreted as an "unlawful act" within the meaning of section 222(5)(a) of the Code. This was because the safety law itself could only be directly prosecuted as a strict liability offence. Defence counsel argued that importing a strict liability offence into the phrase "unlawful act" would undermine the need of the prosecutor to prove mens rea at the committal hearing. Defence counsel also argued that proper interpretation of the Quebec Safety code and the application of section 7 of the Charter would result in a Charter contravention if such an interpretation was allowed under section 222(5)(a) of the Code. It is noteworthy that the presumption of innocence and right to a fair trial, under s. 11(d) of the Charter, were apparently not raised or argued by the defence

The prosecution, on the other hand, argued that an "unlawful act" under the Code need not be criminal in nature, but may come or be found in provincial legislation. The Crown asserted that because the Supreme Court in Creighton5 held that the unlawful act may not be an absolute liability offence, it was open for a strict liability offence to fit within the definition of an "unlawful act". The Crown also argued that the act of Mr. Fournier was so objectively dangerous that a reasonable person would understand that they would be putting another at risk of harm if they directed or permitted a worker to be in an unshored, unprotected excavation. This finding is troubling since the perception of dangerous is not only in the eye of the beholder, but also specifically in this case Mr. Fournier was in the excavation, with the deceased before the incident, and apparently from his action felt "objectively safe".

Justice Villemure conducted a thorough analysis of related jurisprudence and concluded that the judge presiding at the preliminary inquiry was right to commit Mr. Fournier to stand trial. However, Justice Villemure said that when a manslaughter charge is based on an act in violation of provincial legislation, the Crown must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the act of the accused was a "marked departure" from the conduct of a reasonable person in order for criminal liability to be imposed. The "marked departure" test is generally found in jurisprudence under criminal negligence not manslaughter cases.

The trial of Mr. Fournier on both the criminal negligence and the manslaughter charge is scheduled for November 27, 2017 in Montreal, Quebec.6

III. THE "UNLAWFUL ACT" PROBLEM

There is a serious potential difficulty with the judicial conclusion that evidence of a contravention of a provincial safety law amounts to an "unlawful act" as defined in the Code. . The actus reus of a strict liability safety offence requires the same level of proof as a criminal charge -- proof beyond a reasonable doubt. However, many safety provincial workplace health and safety statutes have equivalency provisions that permit the contravention of one provision, but the compliance with the other to achieve a positive safety result. Mere contravention of a safety rule does not necessarily mean there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a strict liability offence.

Further, Justice Villemure's reasoning ignores the defence of due diligence to strict liability offences. The two branches of the due diligence offence – mistake of fact and every reasonable precaution – provide a complete defence where there has been a contravention of a statue or regulation that amounts to a strict liability offence. One can quite literally contravene the strict liability workplace health and safety rule and still be acquitted, in other words found "not guilty". Accordingly, a violation of provincial legislation is not an "unlawful act" unless there has been a consideration and a decision regarding both branches of the defence of due diligence. The jurisprudence regarding the nature, scope and evidence that amounts to either of the two branches of the defence of due diligence was not considered by the court.

This judgement in Fournier certainly blurs the important characterization, distinction and purpose between criminal and strict liability offences. The decision also misstates and, with the greatest of respect, misconceives the legal analysis required to prove a strict liability offence, and practically and effectively ignores the availability of the two branches of the due diligence offence.

IV. THE CHARTER PROBLEM THAT WAS NOT FULLY ADDRESSED

The defence raised a concern about how the constitutional rights of an accused, under section 7 Charter rights of Mr. Fournier may be ignored and compromised with proof of a safety Code violation amounting to an "unlawful act", and may result in a manslaughter committal. It is not clear whether the Charter presumption of innocence in section 11(d) was considered or argued.

The Supreme Court of Canada has consider in Wholesale Travel Group, the difference between criminal and strict liability offences and why one may engage s. 11(d) rights to prevent a reverse onus and why one may not. In that decision, the Supreme Court of Canada overturned the Court of Appeal of Ontario's decision that given Charter jurisprudence, should be no reverse onus in an accused in a strict liability defence because individuals are at risk of jail if they are not

1. How can a judge find an "unlawful act" has been committed by a contravention of safety law if they have not considered the complete defence of due diligence which would render the act non-culpable?

2. Does the jurisprudence under sections 7 and 11(d) of the Charter sufficiently protect the rights of the accused in a manslaughter charge when the alleged "unlawful act" is not a

able to demonstrate the defence of due diligence. The Supreme Court, in a somewhat complex multi-judgement set of reasons, held that the reverse onus may indeed be a violation of the presumption of innocence, but was justified under Section 1 of the Charter.

A distinction was made by the Supreme Court between criminal and regulatory offences to support a conclusion that the later have diminished Charter rights, in particular the justification of a reverse onus for a strict liability defendant to bear the onus of proving their innocence. Justice LaForest of the Supreme Court said the following regarding the characterization of criminal offences:

156 Criminal law is rooted in the concepts of individual autonomy and free will and the corollary that each individual is responsible for his or her conduct. It assumes that all persons are free actors, at liberty to choose how to regulate their own actions in relation to others. The criminal law fixes the outer limits of acceptable conduct, constraining individual freedom to a limited degree in order to preserve the freedom of others. Thus, the basis of criminal responsibility is that the accused person has made a deliberate and conscious choice to engage in activity prohibited by the Criminal Code. The accused person who is convicted of an offence will be held responsible for his or her actions, with the result that the opprobrium of society will attach to those acts and any punishment imposed will be considered to be deserved.

And for strict liability offences, Justice LaForest said of the potential defendant:

167 By virtue of the decision to enter the regulated field, the regulated person (here the appellant) can be taken to have accepted certain terms and conditions of entry. To paraphrase La Forest J., the procedural and substantive protections a person can reasonably expect may vary depending upon the activity that brings that person into contact with the state. Thus the extent of Charter protection may differ depending upon whether the activity in question is regulatory or criminal in nature.

The section 11(d) jurisprudence is fertile ground for a person in Mr. Fournier's position. Placing an obligation on an accused, directly or indirectly, to prove a defence on a balance of probabilities, is entirely inconsistent with of whole common law and Charter jurisprudence with respect of the importance of presumption of innocence in criminal matters. To ignore this Charter right and jurisprudence, in an attempt to "shoehorn" strict liability offence into the phrase "unlawful act" in section 222(5)(a) of the Code, with the greatest of respect, ignores the important distinctions between criminal and regulatory law set in Wholesale Travel Group.

V. The Unanswered Questions

As lawyer and their clients now have risk of manslaughter charges whenever there is a workplace death, there are at least three critical, unanswered question arising from the Fournier decision:

criminal act and the mens rea test is to be viewed objectively, not subjectively, as it relates to the foreseeability of the dangerous act?

3. Will this decision result in more joint prosecutions of strict liability and Criminal Code offences, in the same trial, so the crown can avoid criticism of not first establishing the strict liability offence before arguing that manslaughter has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

The Fournier decision clearly blurs the lines between regulatory and criminal law. Individuals who may be acting in good faith, but lack the skills, training, or attention to detail that results in a workplace fatality will now be exposed to criminal liability. The practical concern for workers in dangerous circumstances is how can they cooperate with a provincial health and safety regulator in an investigation of a workplace fatality when any admissions of potential contraventions of provincial safety regulations may be the new basis for police to lay manslaughter charges?

It is clear that many Canadian jurisdictions are already taking a more aggressive approach to enforcing health and safety laws by laying more strict liability offences against corporate employers and individuals. It remains to be seen whether greater use of criminal charges of manslaughter and criminal negligence will improve safety prevention or just lead to more criminal litigation and convictions. The Wholesale Travel decision indicates that regulatory, strict liability offences are not intended to be punitive but rather promote regulatory compliance. It may be difficult to convince a client facing life imprisonment for such a criminal charge that their "unlawful act" of a safety violation that their Charter rights have not been violated. The breathe and scope of regulatory safety violations, when there is a workplace fatality, is no longer clear as a result of the decision in Fournier. What is clear, is that now those in charge of dangerous workplaces are at greater risk of criminal charges, in addition to regulatory charges, following a workplace fatality.

Footnotes

 1 Norman Keith is a partner in Fasken Martineau's Toronto, Canada, practicing Regulatory, Employment and White Collar Defence and Government Investigation law; Mr. Keith is the author of Corporate Crime, Accountability and Social Responsibility in Canada; 2nd Edition, (Lexis Nexis, Canada, 2016), he may be reached at 416-868-7824 or nkeith@fasken.com and his book may be located at: https://store.lexisnexis.ca/en/categories/product/corporate-crime-accountability-and-social-responsibility-in-canada-2nd-edition-skusku-cad-00919/details

2 2016 QCCS 5456.

3 Association of Workers' Compensation Boards of Canada, "2015 Injury Statistics Across Canada", online: http://awcbc.org/?page_id=14

4 R. c. Fournier, 2016 QCCS 5456, at para 28

5 R. v. Creighton, 1993 CanLii 61(SCC). 

6 R. c. Fournier, 2016 QCCS 5456. 

Originally published in ABA Criminal Justice Section: White Collar Crime Committee Newsletter, Summer/ Fall Edition 2017.

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.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
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).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions