- August 15, 2017
- Posted by: Sage Shield Safety Consultants
- Category: Global Safety News
HELD: Appeal dismissed. The actus reus of a contravention under ss. 124 and 125 of the Canada Labour Code was not necessarily established by proof of the injury or death of an employee at the workplace. All of the elements of the actus reus, as particularized in the charge, must be proven. Here, the Crown was required to prove that Viterra: (a) failed to instruct the worker on how to unplug the blockage in a safe manner; (b) failed to ensure the worker had the necessary training and supervision to ensure his health and safety when responding to a blockage; and (c) failed to ensure that the worker was aware of the hazard of being engulfed by grain in a receiving pit. The worker was not instructed to clear a blockage. Furthermore, he learned from his training that he was not to enter a confined space until he had received the necessary training and safety procedures for doing so. In addition, the normal procedure for clearing a blockage did not involve entering the receiving pit, therefore the task was not inherently dangerous. Finally, given the training the worker received, Viterra had made the worker aware of the specific hazard of being engulfed by grain in an enclosed space.
R. v. Viterra Inc.,  S.J. No. 256, Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, J.G. Lane, M.J. Herauf and P.A. Whitmore JJ.A., June 21, 2017. Digest No. TLD-August142017004