Even though the case took more than two years to get to trial, an Ontario court has refused to halt a prosecution of a company under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
Charges were laid against a construction company in January, 2014 after a worker fell nine feet when a ladder slipped. The charges alleged that the company failed to ensure that the ladder was tied down or otherwise secured to prevent slipping.
There were nine court appearances, and a trial was scheduled for January, 2016. The company, relying on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, asked the court to order a stay (similar to a dismissal) of the OHSA charges due to the delay in getting to trial.
The court stated that the “defence was content with the pace of proceedings” and that the company had not provided any evidence that it had suffered “irremediable prejudice” because of the delay. For instance, there was no evidence that any witness’s recollection had been significantly impaired. Further, late disclosure of one document had not caused prejudice because the document (disclosed one month before trial) was “of marginal value” as it repeated the Ministry of Labour investigator’s conclusions. Further, both the defence and the Crown had been responsible for some of the delay in getting to trial.
The court stated that, “A stay is a remedy of last resort. There is a societal interest in having the charges heard on the merits.” The charges should proceed to trial.
The decision was handed down before the Supreme Court of Canada released its recent, ground-breaking decision on delay in R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27 (CanLII). It remains to be seen how the new Jordan framework for dealing with delay will be applied in OHSA cases involving corporate defendants.
R. v. Black and McDonald Limited, 2016 ONCJ 345 (CanLII)
