The most widely read magazine for Canadian lawyers
Issue link: https://digital.canadianlawyermag.com/i/50825
LEGAL REPORT: LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT travailleuses du Québec, a member of the Canadian Labour Congress and which represents L'Écuyer's union, the Teamsters, in Quebec. "The Crown prosecutor failed in his job. Justice wasn't rendered in this case." The Teamster's Veilleux agrees. "The problem we had with this case from the beginning was that we didn't think the proper charges were laid," she says, add- ing individuals like Transpavé's plant manager, who was aware the safety sys- tem was often unplugged by workers, should have also been charged with criminal negligence. "The real shame, besides the death of a young man, is the message the ruling sends to the business commu- nity, which is, if you're re- sponsible for something like this, don't worry, you'll just get a fine." A labour lawyer for 20 years, Veilleux says she, like all lawyers, ap- plauded Bill C-45 when it came into law. "It was a big improvement over penal fines that were im- posed under Quebec's health and safety laws, which have a maximum of $20,000," she says. "Employers were being told, 'You'll go to jail if you don't actively watch out and take actions to protect your employees.' . . . . The Crown attor- ney in this case missed a beautiful op- portunity to put some teeth in this new law." She also rebukes lawyers who publicly playing field in regards to criminal negligence." – PIERRE PILOTE, GOWLING LAFLEUR HENDERSON LLP map out the corporate "This ruling helps to few years, however, think the judgment sends a strong message. "This ruling helps to map out the corporate playing field in regards to criminal negligence," says Pierre Pilote, of Gowlings' Montreal office. "Before [Bill C-45] it was kind of a no man's land. The system only spelled out fines even in the gravest cases of negligence. Now the onus is on employ- ers to take measures to avoid dangers of corporal injury — or face the prospect of criminal prosecution." The Transpavé case, he adds, "is a hard reminder that employers don't have an obligation to just put safety measures in place, they have to make sure those measures are being respected." For Toronto's Ryan Conlin, the most impor- tant thing about the rul- ing is that it shows pros- ecutors are ready and willing to use the provi- sions in the Criminal Code. "They are not a pa- per tiger," says Conlin, a partner with Stringer Brisbin Humphrey, Man- agement Lawyers. He says while the Transpavé fine might seem small in, say, Ontario, where the maximum fine for health and safety violations is commended Chevalier's ruling by saying the $100,000 fine was sufficient because it was five times more than pre-Bill C-45 fines. "What kind of a dissuasive factor is that when companies that constantly have their eyes on the bottom line are looking at an investment of $500,000 or $800,000 to buy the necessary safety technology or features or the possibility of a fine for a fraction of that amount?" Lawyers who have spent a lot of time and energy advising their clients on the ins and outs of Bill C-45 over the past $500,000, it sets a precedent that will mean that a similar scenario in Ontario "would result in a fine well north of half a million. So, yes, that and the prospect of doing jail time are deterrents to em- ployers. But since the Transpavé case only involved a fine, the jury's still on the impact of criminal charges on indi- viduals." Placing the finest legal minds www.rainmakergroup.ca www. C ANADIAN Law ye rmag.com JUNE 2008 39