The most widely read magazine for Canadian lawyers
Issue link: https://digital.canadianlawyermag.com/i/50825
employees sometimes deactivated the optical-beam security system on the pal- litizer. "Transpavé acknowledges having failed in its duty by not putting in place appropriate safety measures to counter [those actions]. It also failed to its duty of authority by not ensuring that its em- ployees respect the safety measures put in place." Despite the loss of life, the judge said management did not unplug the safety device, it was not aware it was not func- tioning at the time of the accident, it received no commercial benefits from the device's deactivation, and neither the company nor any of its directors had ever been condemned for "similar behaviour constituting a regulatory penal offence." The judge also said the company's own- ers were "very marked by this accident," hired a psychologist to help the employ- ees deal with the tragedy, called each employee to tell them when and where the funeral was to be held, and went to the funeral home to offer their sympa- thies to L'Écuyer's family. There was also a public apology at the time they entered the guilty plea. Chevalier also said since the deadly incident Transpavé has spent $750,000 "to ensure that no other tragic accident could occur" by complying to CSST rec- ommendations for the improvement of both the structure and culture of health and safety management at the compa- ny's two manufacturing facilities. In ratifying the suggestion that a fine of $100,000 would "satisfy the ends of justice," Chevalier referred to the Janu- ary 2008 Quebec Court of Appeal rul- ing in R. v. Bazinet, saying his decision took into account the money spent by the company to meet health and safety recommendations, the need to ensure its survival as an important employer in a rural area, and the "importance of the acknowledgement by Transpavé of its fault and the sense of responsibility it manifested afterwards." For his part, Cauchon is satisfied with both the judge's ruling and its mean- ing for the former Liberal politician's baby, Bill C-45. "I followed the case very closely [and] found the judge's ruling very interesting," says Cauchon. While it failed to invoke or test certain aspects of ntitled-1 1 his bill's provisions, such as the judge's power to issue a probation order against a company that is seen to not be mak- ing efforts to improve safety after an ac- cident, he says it displayed the legislative spirit behind the bill — namely to avoid future disasters like the Westray mine. "Our goal was to create a social stigma [and] legal responsibility on employers by getting them out from behind corpo- rate structures," says Cauchon. "I think this ruling shows we were successful." L'Écuyer's family, like union officials across Quebec, were both quick and harsh in their denunciation of the ruling. "The life of a young worker who was the victim of the criminal negligence of his employer isn't worth much," says Michel Arsenault, president of the half-million- member Fédération des travailleurs et Ownership notwithstanding, your business is our business. The most productive relationships are born of mutual understanding. That's why we're as committed to getting to know our clients' business as we are to helping them understand the intricacies of labour and employment law. Toronto 416.408.3221 I London 519.433.7270 I filion.on.ca www. C ANADIAN Law ye rmag.com JUNE 2008 37 5/14/08 9:58:39 AM