The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the city of Greater Sudbury’s appeal and upheld a lower court ruling that the city was working on a structure site where a pedestrian was killed.
The death occurred during a road reconstruction task in September 2015, in front of an apartment for the elderly on Elgin Street. Cécile Paquette was run over and killed by an Interpaving Ltd. worker. who was driving a motor grader in front of him at an intersection.
“Unlike a provincial structure assignment regulation (the Regulations), no fences were placed between the structure assignment office and the public intersection, and no signaling assisted the Interpaving worker,” the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) said in a factum on its decision. .
In separate proceedings, Interpaving found its fault for failing to perform its duty as an employer under segment 25(1)(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act to “ensure that . . . The measures and procedures prescribed (in the Regulation) are implemented in a timely manner in the workplace. “
Greater Sudbury charged as the employer of the project, which also made it liable. But the city appealed the lower court rulings governing it as an employer, eventually reaching the high court.
“The municipality claimed that it was the owner of the structure project, but denied that it was an employer because it did not have the paints repaired and had delegated to Interpaving,” the SCC said.
Following the lower courts’ decisions, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that the city met the Act’s definition of an employer and found Sudbury liable.
However, he said the city could simply make a due diligence defense and say it had taken all moderate steps to protect the site.
The death occurred during a road reconstruction task in September 2015, in front of an apartment for the elderly on Elgin Street. Cécile Paquette was run over and killed by an Interpaving Ltd. worker. who was driving a motor grader in front at a crossroads.
“The factor of the City Council’s defense due diligence has been referred to the Provincial Court of Appeals for Infractions to be pronounced,” the SCC said.
However, instead of arguing due diligence, the city council appealed the resolution dictated by the businessman.
SCC Judge Martin stated that allowing the appeal would defeat the goal of the legislation, as cities could simply assign protective tasks to contractors. However, the due diligence defense is still an option.
“A defendant, in this case the city, can show that its lack of information suggests that it took all moderate measures under the circumstances,” the SCC said.
“For these reasons, Martín J. dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Court of Appeal, referring the factor of the Council’s due diligence defense to the Provincial Court of Appeals for Crimes for determination.
On a Friday, Greater Sudbury said it was reviewing the decision.
“The city is lately reviewing the Supreme Court’s ruling and comparing next steps,” he said.
“Having referred the due diligence factor to the Provincial Court of Infringement Appeals for a ruling, the City Council is in a position to rule on the issues that remain in dispute. “