A worker removed a fence guarding the back of an induction hardener to troubleshoot a leak. He was seriously injured by an electrical shock. The employer was charged with failing to provide the worker with sufficient instruction on troubleshooting a leak. The company argued that …

Compliance with environmental regulations doesn’t require risking life and limb.

To prove due diligence, a company must show that it took all reasonable steps to ensure compliance with environmental laws. The required “reasonable steps” vary depending on the situation. But courts will often look at the supervision the company provides to ensure that its workers …

Suppose a company tries to comply with an environmental requirement but fails because of a genuine error. Is an honest mistake a defence to an environmental violation? Answer: Yes—but only if the mistake was not only honest but also reasonable. Here are two cases illustrating …

Download the Environmental Compliance Insider’s 2011 Due Diligence Scorecard.

Law of the Year

OHS Review
In July, the Saskatchewan government announced a general timeline and process for its review of OHS administration, which was expected to conclude with the Council’s presentation of its report to the Minister of Labour Relations and Workplace Safety on Nov. …

Law of the Year
Distracted Driving
Bill 16, the Traffic Safety (Distracted Driving) Amendment Act, 2010, took effect Sept. 1. It bars drivers from reading, writing or attending to personal hygiene or grooming and holding/using hand-held, portable communication/entertainment devices, such as cell phones, laptops or MP3 players, …

A look at recent prosecutions for environmental violations that involved the due diligence defence.

Regulatory agencies have stepped up enforcement of OHS laws against companies, corporate directors, supervisors and even workers. But they generally don’t go after safety coordinators, that is, the individuals who actually run the company’s OHS program. However, there have been two successful OHS prosecutions of …

A fishing company was charged with violating the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 by failing to ensure a vessel’s machinery and equipment were inspected as required. The company argued that it had exercised due diligence by making many attempts to contact Transport Canada to schedule the …