A judge has rejected an employer’s argument that Occupational Health and Safety Act charges against it were unclear and that the Crown was required to provide further “particulars” of the charges so the employer could defend itself after an employee was electrocuted.
“Particulars” are details, provided in addition to the charges themselves, that help the defendant understand what it is accused of doing or failing to do.
There were two charges against the employer, a company that provided commercial and residential electrical services: (1) a failure to provide adequate training, and (2) a failure to ensure that an electrical installation was serviced, repaired or dismantled in accordance with the latest version of CSA standard, “CSA C22.1, ‘Canadian Electrical Code Part 1’, Safety Standard for Electrical Installations”.
The company argued that it required particulars of the 2 charges so that it could know what it “did or did not do that it should have done” to prevent the employee’s death.
The court noted that the effect of ordering that the Crown provide further particulars is that the Crown must prove the offence, as particularized, beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court ultimately decided that the disclosure provided to the employer indicated what witnesses are expected to say happened. The disclosure suggested that the Crown would seek to prove that the company had no supervisors on site with the worker. The disclosure included an expert’s report that concluded that the electrical work being done by the worker was not being performed in a safe manner as set out in the CSA standard.
The court decided that an order for particulars was unnecessary and would unreasonably restrict the Crown’s case. Further, the judge said, “I fail to see how Longard does not know the case it is facing”.
R. v. R.D. Longard Services Ltd., 2014 NSPC 100 (CanLII)