R. v. Behlen-Wickes Co., (1980) 4 Man.R.(2d) 119 (CA)

• Judge: Matas, O'Sullivan and Huband, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Case Date: July 09, 1980
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (1980), 4 Man.R.(2d) 119 (CA)

R. v. Behlen-Wickes Co. (1980), 4 Man.R.(2d) 119 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Behlen-Wickes Co. Ltd.

Indexed As: R. v. Behlen-Wickes Co.

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Matas, O'Sullivan and Huband, JJ.A.

July 9, 1980.

Summary:

This case arose out of a charge of failing to provide a safe workplace as required by the Manitoba Workplace Safety and Health Act. At trial the accused applied to quash the information on the ground that the information did not include the words "so far as is reasonably practicable" (see s. 56(1) of the Workplace Safety and Health Act and paragraph 2 below). The trial judge dismissed the motion. The accused applied to the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench to prohibit the Provincial Court from further proceeding with the information.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application and granted the order of prohibition requested by the accused. The judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench is set out below - see paragraphs 19 to 25. The Crown appealed to the Manitoba Court of Appeal.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, restored the order of the trial judge and held that the information was sufficient.

Criminal Law - Topic 7265

Summary conviction proceedings - Informations - Defects and objections - Prejudice resulting from alleged defects in an information - The Manitoba Court of Appeal stated that the golden rule respecting the content of an information is that an accused must be reasonably informed of the transaction alleged against him so that he is not misled and can prepare a full defence - See paragraph 14.

Criminal Law - Topic 7285

Summary conviction proceedings - Information - Sufficiency of charge - A manufacturing firm was charged with failing to provide a safe workplace as required by the Workplace Safety and Health Act - The Manitoba Court of Appeal held that the information was sufficient even though it did not include the words "so far as reasonably necessary" - The Court of Appeal stated that such words constitute an excuse within s. 730 of the Criminal Code and are not required to be set out in an information - See paragraph 12.

Cases Noticed:

Nimmo v. Alexander Cowan & Sons Ltd., [1967] 3 All E.R. 187; [1968] A.C. 107, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Echo Bay Mines Ltd., [1977] 1 W.W.R. 231, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Cote, 13 N.R. 271; [1977] 2 W.W.R. 174 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 14].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 510(5) [para. 14]; sect. 730 [para. 2].

Workplace Safety and Health Act, S.M. 1976, c. 63, C.C.S.M., c. W-210, sect. 4(2), sect. 56(1) [para. 2].

Counsel:

M.J. Conklin, for the respondent/appellant;

F.O. Meighen, Q.C. and G.T. Sereda, for the applicant/respondent.

This appeal was heard by MATAS, O'SULLIVAN and HUBAND, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal on May 7, 1980.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered on July 9, 1980 and the following opinions were filed:

MATAS, J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 16;

O'SULLIVAN, J.A. - see paragraphs 17 and 18.

HUBAND, J.A., concurred with MATAS, J.A.