C-45 Charges Brought in Death of Ontario Worker
February 17th, 2010
C-45 isn’t dead. According to The Sault Star, police have laid criminal negligence charges in the death of public works employee James Vecchio at a city landfill last April. Vecchio was doing sewage work in an excavated hole when a mobile crane contracted by the city toppled in and crushed him.
The criminal negligence charges were brought against the crane operator, crane owner and the crane rental company. Their first court appearance is scheduled for March 22.
OHS Violations Also Brought
In addition to the criminal negligence charges, the Ontario Ministry of Labour laid six charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act against the crane rental company and an unidentified worker. These charges revolve around the “proper maintenance, operation and use of a crane” and the worker’s operation of equipment “in a manner that might endanger himself or another individual,” said a ministry spokesperson. Preliminary results suggest that the operator of the crane, which was loading concrete into the hole, backed up too far while repositioning.
A Rare C-45 Prosecution
When C-45 took effect on March 31, 2004, it was expected to usher in a new era of criminal negligence prosecutions. So far, there’s only been one conviction of a company for criminal negligence relating to a safety incident. On March 17, 2008, a court sentenced Transpavé, a Québec manufacturer, to pay a $100,000 fine in connection with a worker’s death. (Click here for more on the Transpavé case.)
Why criminal negligence charges were brought in this particular workplace fatality is unclear. But we’ll follow the Vecchio case and keep you updated on its progress. It’ll be interesting to see how it’s resolved and, if convictions are secured, what sentences are imposed—particularly on the individual defendants.
Loading ...
I wish people would stop referring to Bill C-45. The charges were brought under the Criminal Code. The amendments to the Criminal Code was made in 2004, as Bill C-45. Since then there have been several “Bill C-45’s”
It’s no longer a Bill, it’s in Legislation now. It’s not a rare C-45 Prosecution, because one cannot be prosecuted under a Bill
What most people fail to understand is that there is a vast difference in the requirements of “burden of proof” between application of a provincial statue or regulations and successful prosecution of a criminal charge listed in the criminal code.
Fines and penalties laid out under a provincial act or regulations are almost always based on physical evidence or occurrence, for instance a spill of chemicals, physical accident or some other obvious event. But for a person or company to be found guilty of criminal negligence the prosecuting body must deal with factors such as intent to commit an unsafe act or create an unsafe condition and that the party was fully aware of what they were doing and that the placing of a worker into a dangerous situation was intentional.
Unlike the portrayals in entertainment media, law enforcement agencies do not lay criminal charges unless there is ample evidence to make a successful prosecution possible. Hence most cases Health and Safety Professionals perceive to be clear candidates for the laying of criminal charges are often not due to a lack of acceptable and conclusive evidence.