Skip to content

Thought Leadership

Occupational Health and Safety sentencing decision – Nova Scotia

April 29, 2024

By Sean Kelly & Tiegan Scott

Earlier this month, the Provincial Court of Nova Scotia issued its sentencing decision in R v The Brick Warehouse LP, 2024 NSPC 26, imposing a monetary penalty of $143,750 (i.e., based on fines totalling $125,000 and a victim surcharge of $18,750) coupled with an order for the employer to provide four educational presentations.  The sentencing follows a September 2023 conviction on a number of charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (the “OHSA”) and Regulations after a June 2020 fatality.

Key facts  

On June 9, 2020, a delivery driver for The Brick was found injured on the floor of a washroom in the employer’s store.  The lights, which were on a timer, had turned off and no switch was located inside or nearby.  Due to COVID-related changes in the store’s hours, the timer for the washroom had been adjusted and, as a result, employees ended up using the washroom in the dark or using flashlights on their phones.

The victim was found semi-conscious and immediately taken to hospital, where they died two days after the accident.  At trial, the Judge concluded that the victim sustained a fatal fall while he was in the washroom.

The employer did not inform the victim’s family that he had been taken to hospital and the family did not, in fact, learn of the workplace accident until 30 hours later.

The workplace accident was reported to the Department of Labour by the victim’s father, as opposed to the employer (as is required under the OHSA). Following an investigation, The Brick was charged under the OHSA.

Decision

At trial, Judge Buckle found the employer guilty of three offences under s. 74(1) of the OHSA, namely:

  • Failing to ensure the employer’s accident investigation policy was followed;
  • Failing to ensure there was adequate lighting in the washroom, as required by the Regulations; and
  • Failing to ensure the company’s lighting policy was implemented.

Causation was a material issue in the sentencing decision – specifically, whether there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt that that the darkness in the washroom contributed to the victim’s death in a non-trivial way, by either contributing to the fall or its consequences.

Judge Buckle concluded that, while the fatal injury was likely sustained inside the darkened washroom, the evidence did not establish that the darkness caused the victim’s fall.  While it was possible that he had slipped on an unseen hazard, it was equally possible that he had fainted, without warning.  Had the latter occurred, the lack of light would have been factually irrelevant to the fall.  Because factual causation was not established, Judge Buckle did not go on to assess legal causation.  Had causation (i.e., factual and legal) been established, the potential fines could have been $500,000, as opposed to $250,000, per offence.

The $125,000 fine is broken down as follows:

  • $55,000 for failing to provide adequate lighting in its washrooms, which was described as the most serious of the three offences as it created a significant risk of harm to employees and represented a “significant degree of negligence” in that there were no plans to prevent or detect the failure.
  • $40,000 for failing to implement its accident investigation policy;
  • $30,000 for failing to implement its lighting policies.

Because the charges relating to the failures to follow internal policies did not create an immediate risk to employee health and safety, these latter two were held to be, comparatively, less severe than the “main” offence of improperly lighting its washrooms and therefore justified a smaller fine.

Aggravating factors impacting the sentence included:

  • The employer’s breaches were motivated by saving money.
  • At some point during each day, there was zero light in the washrooms.
  • The risks associated with inadequate washroom lighting were very high (e.g., slipping, health, hygiene).
  • The employer’s accident investigation policies were not understood by relevant employees.
  • The improper investigation may have resulted in lost evidence.
  • The employer’s delays in notifying the victim’s family of the accident had devastating personal effects on the grieving family.
  • Public cost to the investigation and trial.

Key takeaways for employers

This case is a reminder that serious accidents can happen in any workplace. Employers whose workplaces are not inherently dangerous and do not expose workers to traditional hazards nevertheless have a positive duty to guard against complacency with respect to health and safety obligations.

While workplace fatalities in Nova Scotia are, fortunately, reported to be on the decline in recent years, the fact remains that accidents on the job involve tragic human consequences.  The resulting sentences for employers (and individuals) following a finding of culpability often involve (increasingly) significant fines as well as creative sentencing obligations.


This client update is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have any questions about the above, please contact a member of our Labour & Employment Group.

Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership. 

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


New Brunswick regulator seeks input on revised proposed rule under Unclaimed Property Act

May 25, 2021

Christopher Marr, TEP and Level Chan with the assistance of Annelise Harnanan (summer student) On May 20, 2021, the New Brunswick Financial and Consumer Services Commission (“FCNB”) released a revised version of one of its…

Read More

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal unwilling to affirm Charter right to testamentary freedom

May 21, 2021

Jennifer Taylor and Bhreagh Ross   The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal has overturned a decision that found a Charter right to testamentary freedom. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v Lawen Estate¹ involved an appeal by…

Read More

Introducing Stewart McKelvey’s Labour and Employment podcast

May 20, 2021

We are pleased to introduce our new labour and employment podcast, Workplace Issues in Atlantic Canada: A Legal Perspective. In this series, our labour and employment lawyers across the region will discuss hot topics affecting…

Read More

Nova Scotia workers can now access paid COVID-19 sick days – “stay tuned for the details”

May 13, 2021

Rick Dunlop and William Wojcik On May 12th, 2021, the Government of Nova Scotia announced in a news release that it is implementing a COVID-19 Paid Sick Leave Program (“Program”) to support workers who must…

Read More

Immigration options for entrepreneurs in Canada

April 26, 2021

Brendan Sheridan As Canada begins its economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, immigration is playing an important role. While much of the focus has been on increasing the skilled workforce to fill gaps in the…

Read More

Upcoming regulatory initiatives from the Federal Labour Program

April 19, 2021

Brian Johnston, QC, Killian McParland and Bhreagh Ross On April 6, 2021, Stewart McKelvey was advised by the Federal Labour Program that the Labour Program’s Forward Regulatory Plan 2021–23 (“Plan”) is now available and includes details and timing on 21…

Read More

COVID-19 vaccination leave for employees

April 15, 2021

Mark Tector and Bhreagh Ross With vaccine rollout well underway across the country, employers should be aware of legislative changes that entitle employees to paid or unpaid time-off to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Here are…

Read More

The “dominant tide” comes in: cooperative federalism in the Reference re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act

April 5, 2021

Jennifer Taylor and Bhreagh Ross   In the recent Reference re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (“GGPPA Reference”), the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously agreed that climate change is real and dangerous.…

Read More

Beyond the border: Immigration update – March 2021

March 30, 2021

We are pleased to present the fifth installment of Beyond the border, a publication aimed at providing the latest information to clients about new programs and other immigration-related information that may be pertinent to employers of…

Read More

“Worker” vs “independent operators” distinction clarified in Newfoundland and Labrador workers’ compensation decision

March 26, 2021

Richard Jordan Is a worker under a contract “of” service or contract “for” service? The former means a worker is an employee whereas the latter means a worker is an independent contractor. The answer to…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top