Crown sought to have penalty reduction awarded by lower court reversed
The Ontario Court of Appeal has declined the Crown's motion to appeal a ruling that reduced a penalty related to an electrical explosion. The case stemmed from an incident at the Southwest Detention Centre in Windsor, Ontario., where a worker, employed by Toromont Industries Ltd. and subcontracted to J.M.R. Electric Ltd., suffered severe burns while cleaning an energized switchgear cabinet.
Background of the electrocution
The incident unfolded when the worker, having previously worked on de-energized cabinets, mistakenly opened the wrong cabinet after returning from a lunch break. This inadvertent action led to his paintbrush, containing a metal band acting as a conductor, coming into contact with live electrical components. The work took place in a high-voltage electrical room, which was occasionally accessible to various tradespeople due to a propped-open door.
Legal proceedings
Following the incident, both Toromont and J.M.R. Electric Ltd. faced charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act for multiple safety violations. The initial trial found both companies guilty and imposed fines.
However, upon appeal, the Ontario Court of Justice overturned the verdict, citing that the Crown had not established the actus reus (guilty act) of the offenses.
This led to a subsequent appeal where the court partially allowed the appeal, confirming actus reus for specific counts against both companies. These findings were then referred back to the Ontario Court of Justice for reconsideration of due diligence and penalty issues.
In the second appeal, the Ontario Court of Justice ruled in favor of the companies regarding the due diligence issue and significantly reduced Toromont's penalty from $170,000 to $35,000.
Dissatisfied with the outcome, the Crown sought leave to appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal, primarily contesting the due diligence analysis and the reduced penalty for Toromont.
Court of Appeal's decision
The Ontario Court of Appeal determined that the issues raised by the Crown did not meet the stringent criteria for granting leave to appeal under Section 131 of the Provincial Offences Act. The court noted that the alleged errors were confined to claims of misapplication of established legal principles and did not involve questions of statutory interpretation or general legal principles needing clarification.
In its comprehensive analysis, the Court of Appeal addressed each of the Crown's arguments, finding that they either did not warrant intervention or had already been adequately addressed in previous judgments. As a result, the motion for leave to appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
