Comments on: C-45 Charges Brought in Death of Ontario Worker http://ohsinsider.com/do-diligence/c-45-charges-brought-in-death-of-ontario-worker News, Tools & Special Reports - your “on-stop-shop” for everything Safety Compliance related Wed, 09 May 2012 14:17:22 +0000 hourly 1 By: Christian Praestegaard http://ohsinsider.com/do-diligence/c-45-charges-brought-in-death-of-ontario-worker#comment-123 Christian Praestegaard Thu, 18 Feb 2010 15:03:18 +0000 http://www.safetycomplianceinsider.com/?p=5086#comment-123 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. 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.

]]> By: Bernie Van Tighem http://ohsinsider.com/do-diligence/c-45-charges-brought-in-death-of-ontario-worker#comment-122 Bernie Van Tighem Wed, 17 Feb 2010 21:57:00 +0000 http://www.safetycomplianceinsider.com/?p=5086#comment-122 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 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

]]>