Offices in Ottawa and Perth
(613) 722-1500

CONTACT US (613) 722-1500

Share on twitter
Share on facebook
Share on linkedin

Defences to OHSA Charges, Part 1: Due Diligence Primer

Share on twitter
Share on facebook
Share on linkedin
Share on email

Defences to OHSA Charges, Part 1: Due Diligence Primer

By:

Posted November 17, 2021

Breaches of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) are known as strict liability offences. Fundamentally, strict liability means that parties who are charged under the OHSA are limited in any potential substantive defences they bring forward in the attempts of proving their innocence. Besides procedural defences and strategies (which cannot be understated), and the often-unsuccessful defence of “officially induced error” (more on this to come), parties charged with OHSA breaches have one main substantive defence at their disposal. This is the defence of “due diligence.”

Due Diligence

Section 66(3) of the OHSA states:

“On a prosecution for a failure to comply with,

(a)  subsection 23 (1);
(b)  clause 25 (1) (b), (c) or (d); or
(c)  subsection 27 (1),

it shall be a defence for the accused to prove that every precaution reasonable in the circumstances was taken…”

This section has been interpreted by the courts as establishing the availability of the due diligence defence for any strict liability breaches of the OHSA and its subordinate regulations,

The Supreme Court of Canada, in R. v. City of Sault Ste. Marie (City) (1978), outlined the due diligence defence as follows:

“The defence will be available

(1) if the accused reasonably believed in a mistaken set of facts which if true would render the act or omission innocent, or
(2) if he took all reasonable steps to avoid the particular event.”

The first tier is known as the “mistaken fact defence.” It is a defence which asserts that the defendant truly believed that they were complying with the OHSA provisions subject to the charges at issue. This defence is not to be misunderstood with situations where the defendant simply did not know they were breaking the law – ignorance of the law is almost never a valid defence. Notably, the mistaken fact defence is rarely successful as it requires highly nuanced fact scenarios to be a legitimate ground for breaching the OHSA without subsequent consequences.

The second tier is the true crux of the due diligence defence. It is a defence which states that despite breaching the OHSA provisions at issue, the defendant took every precaution possible to avoid breaching the OHSA, and the breach happened despite their best efforts. For obvious reasons, the defendant has a high threshold to cross in successfully establishing that they did everything they could to avoid the breaches at issue. However, the courts have made it clear that defendants are not expected to be superhuman or perfect in their due diligence efforts. Thus, defending OHSA charges on these grounds is possible if done correctly and the facts of the case allow.

Conclusion

The entire due diligence defence is a highly fact-driven endeavour and requires intricate knowledge of the law, the parties at issue, and prevailing industry standards. As they are provincial offences, convictions under the OHSA can lead to incredibly large fines for corporations and individuals. Additionally, individuals convicted under the OHSA can and do get sentenced to jail time if convicted of serious charges. Therefore, defending oneself against charges laid under the OHSA is not a matter to be taken lightly. It requires retaining counsel who are experienced in the world of regulatory defence, specifically, OHSA defence.

This blog post was written by Filip Szadurski, a lawyer in the Employment team.  He can be reached at 613-566-2060 or at filip.szadurski@mannlawyers.com.

More Resources

Blog |
Personal Injury

By: 

Posted December 2, 2021

The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC)’s recent decision in Nelson (City) v Marchi has created waves across the country on the issue of municipal snow[...]
Blog |
Environmental Law

By: 

Posted November 30, 2021

Although it may not be apparent in our urban Ottawa environment, Ontario has a potential pig problem and the provincial government has recently introduced a[...]
Blog |
Estate Administration, Estate Litigation

By: 

Posted November 29, 2021

A recent decision by Justice Corthorn provides a detailed and useful overview of the case law regarding the removal of Trustees.  In the decision of[...]
Blog |
Real Estate

By: 

Posted November 26, 2021

You’ve found yourself in a very unfortunate situation – the buyer of your house has decided to back out of the transaction and has left[...]
Blog |
Business Law

By: 

Posted November 25, 2021

Now that the new Ontario Not-for-Profit Corporations Act is in force, you should (1) register for the new Ontario Business Registry, (2) determine whether ONCA[...]
Blog |
Family Law, Wills, Trusts and Estates

By: 

Posted November 22, 2021

Family Law Separation Agreements usually include a variety of release clauses; for example, there may be releases of spousal support and of a right to[...]

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Name*
Consent*
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.