Offices in Ottawa and Perth
(613) 722-1500

CONTACT US (613) 722-1500

What Happens in Ontario May Stay in Ontario: Previous Regulatory Convictions May be Weighed During Sentencing for Subsequent OHSA Convictions

What Happens in Ontario May Stay in Ontario: Previous Regulatory Convictions May be Weighed During Sentencing for Subsequent OHSA Convictions

By:

Mann Lawyers

Posted October 28, 2021

Convictions for breaches of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) often lead to large fines for both corporate and individual defendants. Additionally, for individual defendants, OHSA convictions may lead to time in jail time if the statutory breaches at issue include substantial aggravating factors.

How do courts decide when a certain fine is just or when jail time is appropriate? Sections 66(1) and (2) of the OHSA leave the courts with broad discretion to determine how much of a fine (if any) to impose on a defendant and when jail time is or is not warranted. This discretion is to be used within the limits outlined in the statute.

Thus, just as in criminal law, courts handing down sentences for OHSA convictions are guided by the general sentencing principle of proportionality as outlined by the common law. However, in these circumstances the courts use a tailored sentencing approach adopted specifically to the occupational health and safety regime. When determining such sentences, the case law has established a helpful laundry list of mitigating and aggravating factors (more on this to come).

Previous Regulatory Breaches

In addition to the sentencing factors outlined by the courts, section 15 of the Regulatory Modernization Act, 2007 (RMA) gives the court statutory authority to weigh previous regulatory convictions against a defendant when determining the appropriate sentence for an OHSA conviction. The wording of section 15(1) is crucially important to sentencing and reads as follows:

            “This section applies when a person who is convicted of an offence has previously been   convicted of an offence under the same or another Act.”

This section means that the courts are statutorily empowered to weigh a conviction under any provincial regulatory regime in their sentencing determinations.

The case law in this area is sparce. In the context of OHSA convictions, section 15 of the RMA has most commonly been used to highlight multiple previous OHSA convictions when determining the appropriate sentence for the OHSA conviction before the court. However, the court in R. v. J.R. Contracting Property Services, 2014 ONCJ 11 [RJR] provides an example of the court considering a defendant’s previous convictions under “another Act.” The court in RJR handed down a sentence of 45 days in jail to an individual defendant. In their reasoning for the sentence, the court used their power pursuant to section 15 of the RMA to weigh the defendant’s six previous convictions under the Environmental Protection Act as a significant aggravating factor. Notably, the court stated:

“More important than her outstanding fines is her pattern of toxic behaviour that shows a  serious disregard for public welfare statutes, and the consequences of her actions.”

Conclusion

RJR acts as a strong caution to employers who are bound by the OHSA (most are). Not only will courts generally assess a defendant’s previous regulatory history in their sentencing decisions. In RJR, the court also acknowledged that section 15(1) of the RMA solidifies their power to weigh convictions of any provincial regulatory framework when handing down sentences for OHSA convictions.

These considerations highlight the importance of Ontario employers to seek the advice of qualified employment counsel before and during any operations involving the potential purview of the OHSA. The need for advice will be particularly important in situations where they or anyone they conduct business with has been convicted of any provincial offences in the past.

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 |
Wills, Trusts and Estates

By: 

Posted May 17, 2022

I am often asked the question of whether the will-maker should disclose the contents of their will to their beneficiaries.  In some situations, the will-maker[...]
Blog |
Real Estate

By: 

Posted May 10, 2022

The More Homes for Everyone Act, 2022 (“Bill 109”) received Royal Assent on April 14th, 2022. Some sections of Bill 109 will come “into force”[...]
Blog |
Real Estate, Wills, Trusts and Estates

By: 

Posted May 3, 2022

As we all know, house prices are skyrocketing in the region, and this in turn has resulted in parents providing assistance to children who are[...]
Blog |
Employment, Labour, and Human Rights

By: 

Posted April 26, 2022

The mediator’s reaction to my client’s disclosure that she had secretly recorded her conversation with her boss was one of dismay.   He made it clear[...]
Blog |
Family Law

By: 

Posted April 25, 2022

Family law litigation can be a particularly complicated and expensive legal endeavor exacerbated by the emotional difficulties of a fractured relationship. These matters become even[...]
Blog |
Real Estate

By: 

Posted April 14, 2022

What is the Federal Budget? Every year the Department of Finance is tasked with balancing the revenue and expenses of the Government of Canada. As[...]

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

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