Offices in Ottawa and Perth
(613) 722-1500

CONTACT US (613) 722-1500

How Will You Be Judged? Aggravating and Mitigating Sentencing Factors in OHSA Convictions

How Will You Be Judged? Aggravating and Mitigating Sentencing Factors in OHSA Convictions


Mann Lawyers

Posted December 13, 2021

As discussed here in a previous blog post, section 66(1) and (2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (“OHSA”) gives the court broad discretion to impose punishments for breaching the statute.  Currently, for OHSA convictions, corporation face fines as high as $1,500,000. Individuals face fines as high as $100,000 and/or a maximum of 12 months in jail.

Notably, these figures are per offence and OHSA prosecutions often involve parties defending themselves against multiple offences at once. Notably, the courts rarely impose the maximum fines. However, for egregious breaches of the OHSA, corporations are regularly fined approximately $100,000 – $300,000 per offence, and individuals have regularly been put in jail for 1-3 months.

Sentencing Factors

In determining the quantum of a fine, or the length of a jail sentence, the court will look to the case law for aggravating and mitigating factors (“The Sentencing Factors”) specific to the defendant and OHSA breaches in front of them. This assists the court in conducting the proportionality assessment they are required to undertake before they pass down any true “punishment.”

The Sentencing factors were established in the seminal case of R. v. Cotton Felts Ltd., 1982 CanLII 3695 (ON CA) [Cotton] and include: “the size of the company involved, the scope of the economic activity at issue, the extent of actual and potential harm to the public, and the maximum penalty prescribed by statute.” Most importantly, the court in Cotton focused on the duty of the court to impose a punishment that would serve as a general deterrence going forward for all companies subject to the OHSA. The decision in Cotton also stands for the precedent that the court may ignore the parties’ submissions completely and impose any fine/punishment they deem is justified. For example, the court in Cotton imposed a fine much larger than the amount proposed by the Crown.

Since Cotton, the subsequent OHSA case law has augmented The Sentencing Factors by also assessing considerations including, but not limited to the previous regulatory history of the defendant, any remorse shown by the defendant (or lack thereof), and the general seriousness of the offences and/or behaviours of the defendant.


When facing a prosecution under the OHSA, having a thorough understanding of The Sentencing Factors is crucial to establishing a comprehensive defence. If the court convicts a defendant, the fallout can be massive. For small companies, it could mean bankruptcy, or, at the very least, significant staff terminations. For an individual it could mean jail time. Although the court may take it into their own hands to impose a sentence despite the defendant’s pleadings, putting fourth the strongest argument by highlighting the mitigating factors fully and clearly is incredibly important. It could mean the difference between a manageable fine and a punishment that is both financially debilitating and/or personally traumatizing.

Therefore, it is highly prudent for any company to seek the advice of qualified counsel throughout their business ventures to ensure they are conducting themselves in a manner that complies with the OHSA. Additionally, if one is facing a prosecution under the OHSA, such counsel may also assist in navigating the complex and often scary world of defending such charges.

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

More Resources

Blog |
Business Law, Wills, Trusts and Estates


Posted June 28, 2022

As entrepreneurs, we tend to be optimistic people – that is what I have found, for the most part, and what seems to be part[...]
Blog |
Business Law


Posted June 20, 2022

The Federal Government of Canada recently launched the Canada Digital Adoption Program (“CDAP”) run by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (“ISED”). It is a[...]
Blog |
Estate Litigation


Posted June 13, 2022

Trust companies are often faced with a dilemma when the fees associated with the administration of a testamentary trust exceed the income generated by it. [...]
Blog |
Environmental Law


Posted June 6, 2022

On May 10, 2022, the Alberta Court of Appeal released its opinion in Reference re Impact Assessment Act (the “Act”), 2022 ABCA 165, on the[...]
Blog |
Personal Injury


Posted May 30, 2022

As the warm weather of summer approaches, the number of cyclists enjoying Ottawa’s shared path system is increasing day by day. I have noticed that[...]
Blog |
Family Law


Posted May 25, 2022

Cohabitation agreements and marriage contracts (or “prenups”) are common contracts for couples to enter into prior to moving in together or getting married. Reasons for[...]

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

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