During a Stampede party, a tech company’s worker was killed while operating a calf roping machine. The company was charged with violating the OHS laws and acquitted at trial. But on appeal, the verdict was overturned. The appeals court ruled that the trial judge’s rulings were unreasonable, finding that the company didn’t exercise due diligence. The company asked the Alberta Court of Appeal to hear the case and it just agreed to do so. One of the issues to be addressed is the proper interpretation and application of the concepts of “risk” versus “hazard” and how they relate to foreseeability [R. v. XI Technologies Inc.,  ABCA 368 (CanLII), Nov. 30, 2012].