The Law of Work
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
The Law of Work
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.  
 
 

0 comment
1
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is Academic Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program. Professor Doorey is a graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School (LL.B., Ph.D), London School of Economics (LLM Labour Law), and the University of Toronto (B.A., M.I.R.).

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

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

You may also like

This Blog Entry is About the Lunacy of...

July 21, 2019

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

October 3, 2018

The Folly of Not Voting to Strike in...

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

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Follow

Law Prof. Talking #labor & #employment #law to the masses. @YorkUniversity @OsgoodeNews @LSELaw @CLJEHarvard @Jacobin @OnLaborBlog https://t.co/5V9r8VPHsh

TheLawofWork
Retweet on Twitter David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Retweeted
josheidelson Josh Eidelson @josheidelson ·
5h

Scoop: Labor Board prosecutors have concluded Starbucks illegally refused to fairly negotiate at dozens of newly-unionized cafes across the country https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-28/starbucks-illegally-refused-to-bargain-on-zoom-nlrb-lawyer-says Starbucks’ refusal to negotiate if some workers participated via Zoom was illegal, NLRB general counsel says

Reply on Twitter 1640509028567506950 Retweet on Twitter 1640509028567506950 140 Like on Twitter 1640509028567506950 412 Twitter 1640509028567506950
Retweet on Twitter David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Retweeted
alexisshotwell Alexis Shotwell @alexisshotwell ·
10h

This morning the president of @Carleton_U sent out a note underlining his understanding of “how painful labour disruptions can be to communities,” pleading for us to be calm and respectful and to support our students at the end of term. 1/

Reply on Twitter 1640430514627551256 Retweet on Twitter 1640430514627551256 84 Like on Twitter 1640430514627551256 242 Twitter 1640430514627551256
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
12h

Oh fun.

‘AI is on the cusp of taking control: This is how it may all go wrong’

https://apple.news/AWvPXyT8WTVOs5byQvVk-3Q

Reply on Twitter 1640408084093779989 Retweet on Twitter 1640408084093779989 1 Like on Twitter 1640408084093779989 3 Twitter 1640408084093779989
Load More

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Climate and Just Transition
  • 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
  • Newfoundland
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Sports Labour
  • 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.