A recent Ontario appeal decision is a reminder that courts in Occupational Health and Safety Act prosecutions can award fines higher than even the Ministry of Labour prosecutor requests.
In this unusual case, both a trial Justice of the Peace and appeal judge imposed a fine that was substantially higher than what the MOL prosecutor wanted.
After a six-day trial, the defendant, an auto parts manufacturer, was found guilty on three charges under the OHSA. The trial Justice of the Peace fined the company a total of $270,000, even though the MOL prosecutor at trial had requested a fine in the range of only $175,000 to $225,000.
The company appealed the amount of the fine, but did not appeal the convictions. On the appeal, the company argued that the fine was not proportionate, that the trial justice placed undue emphasis on a prior conviction against the company under the OHSA, and that the fine was outside of the acceptable range. The appeal judge rejected all of those arguments because the employer was a "substantial corporation" (two facilities with a total of 770 people) that was "within a broader group of companies"; the employer had been found guilty on three charges under the OHSA; it was proper to consider the prior conviction (which was in 2004); and the harm to the injured worker was "devastating": he was rendered a paraplegic when a robot on which he was doing a "quick fix" pressed against him on his back. The company's practice was not to lock out / tag out robots when doing a "quick fix".
Interestingly, on the appeal, the MOL prosecutor and the defence counsel actually agreed that $180,000 would be an appropriate amount for the fine. The appeal judge effectively rejected that agreement, finding that the $270,000 fine was not "unfit".
The appeal judge decided that a fine of $270,000 "fell within the appropriate range". The appeal was dismissed. The case illustrates the point that, particularly in cases of serious injury to a worker that "offends" the court, there is always a risk that the court will impose a fine that is greater than the amount that the MOL prosecutor wanted.
R. v. Matcor Automotive Inc., 2017 ONCJ 560 (CanLII)
For more information, visit our Occupational Health & Safety Law blog at www.occupationalhealthandsafetylaw.com
About Dentons
Dentons is the world's first polycentric global law firm. A top 20 firm on the Acritas 2015 Global Elite Brand Index, the Firm is committed to challenging the status quo in delivering consistent and uncompromising quality and value in new and inventive ways. Driven to provide clients a competitive edge, and connected to the communities where its clients want to do business, Dentons knows that understanding local cultures is crucial to successfully completing a deal, resolving a dispute or solving a business challenge. Now the world's largest law firm, Dentons' global team builds agile, tailored solutions to meet the local, national and global needs of private and public clients of any size in more than 125 locations serving 50-plus countries. www.dentons.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. Specific Questions relating to this article should be addressed directly to the author.