R. v. Greater Sudbury (City)

Background

• A fatality occurred on September 30, 2016, during a construction project in Greater Sudbury.
• The City contracted Interpaving Limited for repairs, designating them as the project "constructor" under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA).
• The Ministry of Labour charged both parties under the OHSA. Interpaving pleaded guilty; the City was acquitted.
• Prior appellate courts addressed the City’s role as an employer under OHSA and its exercise of due diligence.

Key Legal Issue

• Whether the City exercised due diligence, which would exempt it from liability for OHSA violations.

Arguments

• Crown: The City retained control over the project and failed to exercise due diligence.
• City: Delegated responsibility to a qualified contractor (Interpaving) and acted diligently to oversee compliance.

Court Findings

1. Control Over the Workplace: The City retained contractual rights but did not exercise them in a manner that would amount to control over the workers or workplace.
2. Delegation: The City lacked expertise as a constructor and reasonably delegated these duties to Interpaving, ensuring their capability through prior experience.
3. Monitoring: The City took steps to supervise the contractor’s compliance (e.g., addressing complaints, monitoring traffic issues, and conducting inspections).

Conclusion

• The trial judge found the City acted with due diligence and made no palpable or overriding errors.
• The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, maintaining the City's acquittal.
• No monetary award specified.