Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
Law of Work Archive

Can corporations commit murder, or manslaughter?

by David Doorey July 15, 2008
written by David Doorey July 15, 2008

In 1992, 26 coal miners were killed when the Westray Mine in Nova Scotia exploded.  A government appointed inquiry into the explosion concluded that the disaster was avoidable and that the employer’s representatives were aware that the mine could explode, yet continued to send workers down and failed to take the necessary remedial steps.  However, criminal charges filed against the corporation and the senior officials were dropped when the Crown concluded it could not obtain a prosecution.
These events led to a focus in Canada on the inadequacy of our criminal law when it comes to killings taking place at work that are due to the failure of management to take steps to avoid obvious risks.  The main problem, from a legal perspective, was that the existing test for finding organizations criminally liable was almost impossible to prove.  The leading case was Canadian Dredge & Dock. That test required the Crown to prove that a single person, who was a ‘directing mind’ (a senior official responsible for the management of the business) both had knowledge of the illegal act that causes the death and possessed the  ‘guilty mind’ or intent (the mens rea) necessary for a criminal offense.  It was virtually impossible for the Crown to prove those conditions were satisfied.  As a result, corporations were rarely found guilty of criminal offenses.
In the wake of Westray, both the Federal Conservative party (then in opposition) and the Federal N.D.P. introduced Private Members’ Bills calling on the Liberal government to amend the Criminal Code to make it easier to convict corporations of criminal offenses.  The Bills were debated in Parliament and in Committee meetings (yours truly was retained by  the United Steelworkers to draft a research paper and appear as an expert witness in the Committee meetings.  My testimony can be read here).  Eventually, Bill C-45 was passed.  A main feature is that it changed the legal test for finding corporations criminal responsible by expanding the ways in which the act and intent can be attributed to a corporation.  For example, it created a legal duty for individuals in organizations to take “reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm to workers.” This quick and dirty flowchart of westray bill explains how that works.
In last month’s Canadian Lawyer, there is a story about whether C-45 has been an effective deterrent and led to proper punishment.  The story discusses the first case in which a company was prosecuted under the new law (R. v. Transpavé Inc.).  A worker was killed in that case when a safety device on a machine was deliberately disabled, and although it was not proven who disabled it, the evidence  was clear that management knew people disabled the safety in the past and that senior management people had disabled it themselves in the past. The company was charged under the new law and pleaded guilty.  The Court ordered a $110,000 fine.
The debate in legal circles is whether a fine is an appropriate penalty.  Fines were already possible under occupational health and safety regulation, so did the criminal charge make any difference?  One problem with fines is that, if they are too small, they have little deterrent effect, but if they are too big, they may cause employers to go bankrupt or to layoff workers.  Should senior officials of the company have been imprisoned?  That is possible under this law, but no one yet has been sent to jail.  
 
 

1 comment
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is the Director of the School of HRM at York and Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and on the Advisory Board of the Osgoode Certificate program in Labour Law. He is a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program and a member of the International Advisory Committee on Harvard University’s Clean Slate Project, which is re-imaging labor law for the 21st century

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

previous post
More on the Closure of Progressive Moulded Products
next post
Feds Discriminate Against Women 'Term' Workers

You may also like

A Cross Country Update on the Card-Check versus...

October 3, 2018

A Successful Strike Vote is All That Stands...

September 16, 2018

Unifor Posts Photos of Replacement Workers as Gander...

September 10, 2018

A Wrongful Dismissal Case and the Absence of...

August 29, 2018

China Said to Quickly Withdraw Approval for New...

August 27, 2018

The Latest Hot E-Commerce Idea in China: The...

August 27, 2018

The Trump Administration Just Did Something Unambiguously Good...

August 27, 2018

Unstable Situations Require Police In Riot Gear Face...

August 27, 2018

Trump’s War on the Justice System Threatens to...

August 27, 2018

Putin Invites Trump to Moscow for Second Meeting...

August 27, 2018

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 218 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
RSandillRicha Sandill@RSandill·
24 Feb

@SCLSclinic and I were so fortunate to represent this client last year. I am thrilled that this decision brings more clarity for family status accommodations rights amidst a pandemic that has tested parents, caregivers, and families like never before. https://twitter.com/CanLawWorkForum/status/1364605259071561730

CLWF@CanLawWorkForum

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364627677785821185Retweet on Twitter 13646276777858211851Like on Twitter 13646276777858211853Twitter 1364627677785821185
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey@TheLawofWork·
24 Feb

Here's my latest in @jacobinmag.

If Ontario's labor laws applied in Alabama, the Amazon vote would have been held months ago so workers could get back to their jobs. Instead, the NLRA permits Amazon to conduct a months' long onslaught of anti-union propaganda. https://twitter.com/jacobinmag/status/1364613560425275392

Jacobin@jacobinmag

Amazon workers in Alabama are voting on whether to unionize, but the company is bombarding them with anti-union propaganda. In Canada, by contrast, votes are held quickly, making it harder for companies to stack the deck — a model that can work in the US. http://jacobinmag.com/2021/02/amazon-alabama-canada-labor-law-union-vote

Reply on Twitter 1364623976174092316Retweet on Twitter 13646239761740923168Like on Twitter 136462397617409231613Twitter 1364623976174092316
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
24 Feb

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364605259071561730Retweet on Twitter 13646052590715617304Like on Twitter 13646052590715617304Twitter 1364605259071561730
Load More...

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.