Skip to content

Brought to you by

Dentons logo in black and white

Dentons Canadian Occupational Health & Safety Law

Keeping you current on OHS Laws and Developments in Canada.

open menu close menu

Dentons Canadian Occupational Health & Safety Law

  • Home
  • About Us

Is compliance with industry standards enough to establish due diligence? Alberta Court of Appeal set to consider this issue.

By Cristina Wendel
February 14, 2017
  • Caselaw Developments
  • Prosecutions / Charges
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn

We recently wrote about the decision in R. v. Precision Drilling Canada Ltd., where the Appeal Judge set aside the trial verdicts and ordered a new trial in a workplace fatality case. The Crown sought leave to appeal that decision to the Alberta Court of Appeal.

In the leave to appeal decision, the Alberta Court of Appeal stated that workplace safety was of significant public importance to justify a further appeal. It granted leave to the Crown to advance its appeal on two questions that had not yet been settled by Alberta’s highest court. Those questions were:

  1. Did the Appeal Judge err in law by requiring the Crown, as part of the actus reus of the offence, to negate due diligence or prove negligence?
  2. Did the Appeal Judge err in law in her interpretation and application of the due diligence test?

On the first issue, the Crown argued that the Appeal Judge’s decision required the Crown to prove negligence, or negate due diligence in order to prove the elements of the offence under section 2 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, being the general duty on an employer to ensure the health and safety of its workers. The Court of Appeal noted that as the law currently stands, it was arguable that in order to prove a breach under section 2, the Crown need only prove the fact of employment, the worker’s engagement in the employer’s work, and the worker’s injury or death. It would then be up to the employer to prove due diligence. In this case, the Appeal Judge appeared to require the Crown to prove that the employer committed a wrongful act. As such, the Court of Appeal found that the Crown’s position on this point had merit.

On the second issue, the Crown argued that the Appeal Judge erred in strictly comparing the employer’s practices to generally accepted standard practices in the industry, rather than taking a broader view of what the employer reasonably should have done. The Crown’s position was that while industry standards may set a minimum level of care, they did not determine due diligence. The Court of Appeal agreed that the Appeal Judge’s decision arguably used a due diligence test that required the Crown to disprove compliance with industry standards and government regulation and did not apply the proper foreseeability test or broader due diligence test.

As such, the Alberta Court of Appeal agreed that the appeal could proceed on those two issues. It will be interesting to see how the Court of Appeal ultimately decides these questions and brings clarity to these two important issues. Stay tuned.

R. v. Precision Diversified Oilfield Services Corp., 2017 ABCA 47 (CanLII)

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn
Subscribe and stay updated
Receive our latest blog posts by email.
Stay in Touch
Cristina Wendel

About Cristina Wendel

Cristina advises and represents employers in all aspects of occupational health and safety matters, including day-to-day compliance, incident response, investigations and defending employers charged with occupational health and safety offences. She also represents federally and provincially regulated, unionized and non-unionized employers in a variety of employment and labour law matters such as wrongful dismissal claims, employment standards disputes, human rights issues, labour arbitrations and labour relations board proceedings.

All posts Full bio

RELATED POSTS

  • Caselaw Developments
  • Safety - Risk Management

Double (16-hour) shift was not prohibited by ESA or OHSA: arbitrator

A labour arbitrator has held that the practice of unionized long-term care home employees voluntarily working two 8-hour shifts in […]

By Adrian Miedema
  • Caselaw Developments
  • Safety Professionals - Practice Issues

Federal employers not required to inspect workplaces that they don’t control: court

The Federal Court has decided that federally-regulated employers are not required to conduct inspections of places not under their control […]

By Adrian Miedema
  • Caselaw Developments
  • Safety - Risk Management

No Second-Hand Smoke Damages under Safety Clause of Collective Agreement: Ontario Court

The Ontario Divisional Court has upheld an arbitrator’s decision that a collective agreement provision requiring the employer – two Ontario […]

By Adrian Miedema

About Dentons

Redefining possibilities. Together, everywhere. For more information visit dentons.com

Grow, Protect, Operate, Finance. Dentons, the law firm of the future is here. Copyright 2023 Dentons. Dentons is a global legal practice providing client services worldwide through its member firms and affiliates. Please see dentons.com for Legal notices.

Categories

  • Amendments to Safety Laws
  • Caselaw Developments
  • COVID-19
  • General
  • Government Safety Investigations
  • International Standards
  • Occupational Health and Safety
  • Other Safety Developments
  • Prosecutions / Charges
  • Safety – Risk Management
  • Safety Professionals – Practice Issues
  • Violence and Harassment

Subscribe and stay updated

Receive our latest blog posts by email.

Stay in Touch

Dentons logo in black and white

© 2025 Dentons

  • Legal notices
  • Privacy policy
  • Terms of use
  • Cookies on this site