R. v. General Scrap Iron & Metals Ltd., (2003) 322 A.R. 63 (QB)

• Judge: Watson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: December 19, 2002
• Citations: (2003), 322 A.R. 63 (QB);2003 ABQB 22

R. v. General Scrap Iron & Metals Ltd. (2003), 322 A.R. 63 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] A.R. TBEd. JA.076

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. General Scrap Iron & Metals Ltd. (appellant)

(Action No. 0068 41779 S1; 2003 ABQB 22)

Indexed As: R. v. General Scrap Iron & Metals Ltd.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Watson, J.

January 9, 2003.

Summary:

A corporation's employee was killed when a stacked bale of wire fell on him. The corporation was convicted of failing to ensure "as was reasonably practicable the health and safety of a worker" (Occupational Health and Safety Act, s. 2(1)(a)) and failing "to take all reasonable steps to ensure that such materials were contained or restrained to eliminate the potential danger" related to "a potential danger of dislodgment, or movement of materials, to wit: bales of wire" (General Safety Regulation, s. 67).

The Alberta Provincial Court, in a decision reported at [2001] A.R. Uned. 245, convicted the accused of both offences, but entered a conditional stay on the charge under s. 67 of the Regulations.

The Alberta Provincial Court, in a decision reported at 297 A.R. 358, sentenced the corporation to a $100,000 fine. The fine was supplemented by a 15% surcharge under the Victims of Crime Act resulting in a total cost to the corporation of $115,000. The corporation appealed the sentence.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal.

Editor's note: for a related decision involving the same parties see 322 A.R. 32.

Criminal Law - Topic 5627

Punishments (sentence) - Fines, penalties and compensation orders - Victims fine surcharge - A corporation was fined for an occupational health and safety offence - The fine was supplemented by a 15% surcharge under the Victims of Crime Act - The corporation appealed, asserting that the surcharge should have been considered in calculating the fine - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected the assertion - The surcharge was a special element intended for a distinct purpose - The enactment was not intended to create an option for either the court or the offender to make a determination as to where the sanction money goes - It followed that any automatic reasoning which contemplated a trial judge deducting the surcharge from the fine would be an affront to the policy that created the surcharge - At the highest, a trial judge might have discretion to consider the effect of the fine and the surcharge when determining what the proper total sanction should be - The trial judge in the case at bar was clearly aware of the total effect - If a trial judge declined to adjust the total effect to deduct the surcharge from the fine, wholly or partly, it was not an error in principle or law by itself - See paragraphs 107 and 108.

Criminal Law - Topic 5629

Punishments (sentence) - Fines, penalties and compensation orders - Considerations on imposing fine - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5627 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5629

Punishments (sentence) - Fines, penalties and compensation orders - Considerations on imposing fine - Ability to pay - A corporation appealed a fine imposed for an occupational health and safety offence - In dismissing the appeal, the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "A Trial Judge should, as a matter of principle, only impose a fine which is appropriate to the offence and the offender in the manner hereinbefore discussed. However, the question whether the company is 'able to pay the fine' should not, in my view, operate in the same manner as a mitigating factor as against that fine as calculated ... If the fit sanction for the offence and offender on the analysis discussed above (which has regard to such factors as degree of responsibility and collateral effects) comes out at a certain sum, I am not persuaded that the corporation's ability to pay that fine would be a justification for reducing that sanction to an unfit amount. While a Trial Judge is entitled to consider all relevant issues, including 'the economic impact on the accused' ... I would not go so far as to consider any such reduction based on capacity a matter of principle to the level of entitlement by itself. ... Moreover, recognition of such a reduction factor might encourage a corporation to reduce its assets when coming up for sanction. Similarly, recognition of it might encourage poorer companies to feel they could take greater risks with employee safety than more affluent companies. It would not be an error in principle for a Trial Judge to refuse to reduce the fine for such a reason." - See paragraphs 101 to 103.

Criminal Law - Topic 5629

Punishments (sentence) - Fines, penalties and compensation orders - Considerations on imposing fine - Ability to pay - A corporation appealed a fine imposed for an occupational health and safety offence - In dismissing the appeal, the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that, in a proper case, appropriate time to pay a fine would be sufficient recognition of any need to ensure that a corporate offender was not destroyed by virtue of the sanction - See paragraph 105.

Criminal Law - Topic 5809.5

Sentencing - General - Corporations - [See second and third Criminal Law - Topic 5629 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5809.5

Sentencing - General - Corporations - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "Sentencing corporations is an adjudicative process distinct from sentencing human beings. The range of dispositions for corporations themselves are largely calculable in money or money's worth, including fines, forfeitures, enhanced regulatory supervision, cancellation or suspension of licenses or permits, disqualifications, injunctions, compensation or restitution orders and/or certain forms of conscription. Corporate death penalties in the nature of winding up are not beyond rational consideration in some instances." - See paragraph 26.

Criminal Law - Topic 5809.5

Sentencing - General - Corporations - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that appropriate approach for sentencing corporations for regulatory offences was to evaluate the following aspects: "(1) the conduct, circumstances and consequences of the offence, (2) the terms and aims of the relevant enactment or regulation, considered in the larger context of comparable regulation and legitimate corporate functioning in the relevant areas, and (3) the participation, character and attitude of the corporation offender, considered in the larger context of corporations engaged in relevant industrial or business activity as to aspect (1) in a process which identifies the aggravating and mitigating factors so as to allow rational comparison between cases, and to allow for reasonable expression of why one set of aspects deserves a more or less severe sanction than another. As with s. 726.2 of the Criminal Code, the duty of a Court to explain why the sanction has been imposed is significant here, since the explanation should be such as to uphold the morale of the law abiding as well as to denounce the offence." - See paragraph 35 - The court set out considerations relevant to the analysis and emphasized that it was providing examples of an analytical process and that other considerations might be relevant in a given case - Moreover, the balancing of various factors and considerations would vary from case to case - Subject to the governing enactments, ss. 724 and 725 of the Criminal Code governed the burden of proof on issues of fact - See paragraphs 49 and 51.

Criminal Law - Topic 5809.5

Sentencing - General - Corporations - An accused corporation was convicted of an occupational health and safety offence - In dismissing the accused's sentence appeal, the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "There is authority for giving weight to post-offence conduct of a positive and constructive nature, particularly if what is done not only brings the conditions up to legal standard, but perhaps surpasses them ... Conduct by which the offending corporation acts to now comply with the law can not, in my view, attract a large discount in sanction if the corporation had no real alternative. However, a form of conduct which goes beyond addressing the particular risk and more effectively into larger service of the public good, is, arguably, worthy of positive note. Moreover, if the post-offence conduct can be reconciled with the pre-offence conduct of the corporation, it may be possible to infer that the corporate culture was safety-sensitive and law-abiding in a general sense, and that the offence was isolated and not reflective of an ongoing lack of social responsibility. That also would be something a sentencing court could consider ..." - See paragraphs 93 to 99.

Criminal Law - Topic 5842.1

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Post-conviction conduct - [See fourth Criminal Law - Topic 5809.5 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5846.5

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Sentence precedents - An accused corporation appealed the sentence imposed for an occupational health and safety offence, asserting that it was a departure from precedent - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that a departure from precedent, if that is what happened, would not have been an error of principle any more than departure from a starting point - Although the weight of precedent cases supported the disposition, the mere existence of difference between this decision and other precedent was not an error -The real question was whether the sentence disposition was itself faulty for a specific reason - See paragraphs 78 to 83.

Criminal Law - Topic 5849.10

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - When maximum sentence available - A corporation's employee was killed when a stacked bale of wire fell on him - The corporation was fined $100,000 for an offence under the Occupational Health and Safety Act - The maximum fine available was $150,000 - The accused appealed, asserting that to impose a fine close to the maximum for a first offence was contrary to the restraint concept (reserving the maximum sentence for the worst offender in the worst circumstances) - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that being a first offence was, at best, a neutral factor where the maximum sentence increased for offenders with prior convictions - The court discussed the concept of restraint and held that the trial judge did not err by evaluating the facts at towards the higher end of the spectrum - See paragraphs 84 to 92.

Trade Regulation - Topic 7902

Industrial safety - Particular offences - Sentences - Considerations on imposing sentence - [See fourth Criminal Law - Topic 5809.5 , Criminal Law - Topic 5846.5 and Criminal Law - Topic 5849.10 ].

Trade Regulation - Topic 7905

Industrial safety - Particular offences - Sentences - Failure to ensure health and safety of workers - A corporate accused was convicted of failing to ensure a worker's health and safety contrary to the Occupational Health and Safety Act - The worker was killed when a stacked bale of wire fell on him - The worker had not contributed to the accident - The accused was aware that a few months earlier two stacked bales had fallen, but took no steps in deference to its belief that stacked bales did not fall - After the accident, the accused had the area fenced off and entry limited to designated personnel - The accused had earmarked $15,000 for improvements to safety - The trial judge sentenced the accused to a $100,000 fine - The fine was supplemented by a 15% surcharge under the Victims of Crime Act resulting in a total cost to the corporation of $115,000 - The court considered that the accused was grossly negligent, the accident was preventable, and the accused had knowledge of the risk but chose to ignore it - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed an appeal.

Trade Regulation - Topic 7908

Industrial safety - Particular offences - Sentences - Fines - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5627 and second and third Criminal Law - Topic 5629 ].

Trials - Topic 1181

Summary convictions - Appeals - General - A trial judge delivered reasons for convicting a corporation of an occupational health and safety offence and later delivered reasons for sentencing - The corporation appealed the sentence - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that it was proper to consider the conviction judgment and the sentencing judgments on the sentence appeal where both judgments formed the foundation of the sentence - See paragraphs 53 to 59.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. General Scrap Iron & Metals Ltd. (2001), 297 A.R. 358 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 1, footnote 1].

R. v. Kienapple, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729; 1 N.R. 322; 15 C.C.C.(2d) 524; 26 C.R.N.S. 1; 44 D.L.R.(3d) 351, refd to. [para. 3, footnote 5].

R. v. General Scrap Iron & Metals Ltd., [2002] 11 W.W.R. 81; 322 A.R. 32; [2002] A.W.L.D. 393; 2002 CarswellAlta 869 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 4, footnote 6].

R. v. Shropshire (M.T.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 227; 188 N.R. 284; 65 B.C.A.C. 37; 106 W.A.C. 37; 102 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 129 D.L.R.(4th) 657; 43 C.R.(4th) 269; 28 W.C.B.(2d) 516, refd to. [para. 16, footnote 10].

R. v. McDonnell (T.E.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 948; 210 N.R. 241; 196 A.R. 321; 141 W.A.C. 321; 114 C.C.C.(3d) 436; 145 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 6 C.R.(5th) 231; [1997] 6 W.W.R. 44; 49 Alta. L.R.(3d) 111; 43 C.R.R.(2d) 189, refd to. [para. 16, footnote 11].

R. v. C.A.M., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500; 194 N.R. 321; 73 B.C.A.C. 81; 120 W.A.C. 81; 105 C.C.C.(3d) 327; 46 C.R.(4th) 269, refd to. [para. 16, footnote 12].

R. v. Gladue (J.T.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688; 238 N.R. 1; 121 B.C.A.C. 161; 198 W.A.C. 161; 133 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 23 C.R.(5th) 197; 171 D.L.R.(4th) 385; [1999] 2 C.N.L.R. 252, refd to. [para. 16, footnote 13].

R. v. Proulx (J.K.D.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61; 249 N.R. 201; 142 Man.R.(2d) 161; 212 W.A.C. 161; 30 C.R.(5th) 1; 140 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 182 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 44 W.C.B.(2d) 479; 49 M.V.R.(3d) 163, refd to. [para. 16, footnote 14].

R. v. Wells (J.W.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 207; 250 N.R. 364; 250 A.R. 273; 213 W.A.C. 273; 141 C.C.C.(3d) 369; [2000] 3 W.W.R. 613; 30 C.R.(5th) 254, refd to. [para. 16, footnote 15].

R. v. Martineau, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 633; 112 N.R. 83; 109 A.R. 321; 58 C.C.C.(3d) 353; [1990] 6 W.W.R. 97; 79 C.R.(3d) 129; 76 Alta. L.R.(2d) 1; 50 C.P.R. 110, refd to. [para. 17, footnote 18].

R. v. Smith (E.D.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045; 75 N.R. 321; 34 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 40 D.L.R.(4th) 435; [1987] 5 W.W.R. 1; 58 C.R.(3d) 193; 15 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273; 31 C.R.R. 193, refd to. [para. 18, footnote 19].

R. v. Goltz, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 485; 131 N.R. 1; 5 B.C.A.C. 161; 11 W.A.C. 161; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 7 C.R.R.(2d) 1; 8 C.R.(4th) 82; 61 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145; 31 M.V.R.(2d) 137, refd to. [para. 19, footnote 20].

R. v. Morrisey (M.L.) (No. 2) (2000), 259 N.R. 95; 187 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 585 A.P.R. 1; 191 D.L.R.(4th) 86; 148 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 36 C.R.(5th) 85, refd to. [para. 19, footnote 21].

R. v. Inco Ltd. (2000), 132 O.A.C. 268 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21, footnote 22].

R. v. Loughery (1992), 73 C.C.C.(3d) 411 (Alta. C.A.), reving. (1990), 110 A.R. 94; 11 W.C.B.(2d) 278 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 23, footnote 24].

R. v. Brown (D.A.) (1989), 95 A.R. 318 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23, footnote 25].

R. v. Morash (S.E.) (1994), 129 N.S.R.(2d) 34; 362 A.P.R. 34 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23, footnote 26].

R. v. Thue (J.) (1995), 134 Sask.R. 187; 101 W.A.C. 187 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23, footnote 27].

R. v. Moreau (M.) (1992), 49 Q.A.C. 239; 76 C.C.C.(3d) 181 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23, footnote 28].

R. v. Fitzgerald (P.D.) (1994), 117 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 148; 365 A.P.R. 148 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 23, footnote 29].

R. v. Bevis (K.C.) (2000), 188 N.S.R.(2d) 163; 587 A.P.R. 163; 150 C.C.C.(3d) 125 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23, footnote 30].

R. v. Cotton Felts Ltd. (1982), 2 C.C.C.(3d) 287 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 24, footnote 31].

R. v. St. Lawrence Corp. et al., [1969] 3 C.C.C. 263; 5 D.L.R.(3d) 263; [1969] 2 O.R. 305; 7 C.R.N.S. 265; 59 C.P.R. 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24, footnote 33].

R. v. Armco Canada Ltd. (1976), 30 C.C.C.(2d) 183; 70 D.L.R.(3d) 287; 13 O.R.(2d) 32; 24 C.P.R.(2d) 145 (C.A.), varying (1975), 24 C.C.C.(2d) 147; 8 O.R.(2d) 573 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 24, footnote 34].

R. v. Hoffman-LaRoche Ltd. (No.'s 1 & 2) (1980), 56 C.C.C.(2d) 563; 119 D.L.R.(3d) 279; 30 O.R.(2d) 461; 53 C.P.R.(2d) 189; 16 C.R.(3d) 13 (H.C.), affd. (1981), 62 C.C.C.(2d) 118; 125 D.L.R.(3d) 607; 33 O.R.(2d) 10; 58 C.P.R.(2d) 1; 24 C.R.(3d) 193; 15 B.L.R. 217 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24, footnote 35].

R. v. Sage Well Services Ltd. (2000), 194 Sask.R. 65 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 24, footnote 36].

R. v. Browning Arms Co. of Canada Ltd. (1974), 18 C.C.C.(2d) 298; 15 C.P.R.(2d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34, footnote 37].

R. v. Ocean Construction Supplies Ltd. et al. (1974), 15 C.P.R.(2d) 224 (B.C.S.C.), affd. (1975), 22 C.C.C.(2d) 340 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 34, footnote 38].

R. v. United Keno Hill Mines Ltd. (1980), 10 C.E.L.R. 43 (Yuk. Terr. Ct.), refd to. [para. 36, footnote 40].

R. v. Panarctic Oils Ltd. (1983), 43 A.R. 199; 12 C.E.L.R. 78 (N.W.T. Terr. Ct.), refd to. [paras. 39, 46, footnotes 41, 48].

R. v. Van Waters & Rogers Ltd. (1998), 220 A.R. 315 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 43, footnote 44].

R. v. Cool Spring Dairy Farms Ltd. et al. (1999), 242 A.R. 143 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 43, footnote 44].

R. v. Chem-Security (Alberta) Ltd. (1998), 233 A.R. 289 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 43, footnote 44].

R. v. Calgary (City) (2000), 272 A.R. 161 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 43, footnote 44].

R. v. Laberge (K.K.) (1995), 165 A.R. 375; 89 W.A.C. 375 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 43, footnote 45].

R. v. Stone (B.T.), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 290; 239 N.R. 201; 123 B.C.A.C. 1; 201 W.A.C. 1; 134 C.C.C.(3d) 353; 24 C.R.(5th) 1; 173 D.L.R.(4th) 66; 63 C.R.R.(2d) 43, refd to. [para. 43, footnote 46].

R. v. Fitzpatrick (B.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 154; 188 N.R. 248; 65 B.C.A.C. 1; 106 W.A.C. 1; 102 C.C.C.(3d) 144; 43 C.R.(4th) 343; 129 D.L.R.(4th) 129; 18 C.E.L.R.(N.S.) 237; 32 C.R.R.(2d) 234, refd to. [para. 45, footnote 47].

R. v. Pederson (K.) (2000), 194 Sask.R. 102 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 48, footnote 52].

Minister of National Revenue v. Schwartz, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 254; 193 N.R. 241; 16 C.C.E.L.(2d) 141; 96 D.T.C. 6103; 10 C.C.P.B. 213; 133 D.L.R.(4th) 289; [1996] 1 C.T.C. 303, refd to. [para. 55, footnote 54].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 7 W.W.R. 1; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 211 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 10 C.C.L.T.(3d) 157, refd to. [para. 55, footnote 55].

R. v. Sansregret, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 570; 58 N.R. 123; 35 Man.R.(2d) 1; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 223; 45 C.R.(3d) 193; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 701; 17 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 67, footnote 56].

Alberta v. Nilsson (2002), 320 A.R. 88; 288 W.A.C. 88 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 67, footnote 57].

Proulx v. Québec (Procureur général), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 9; 276 N.R. 201; 206 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 159 C.C.C.(3d) 225; 46 C.R.(5th) 1; 7 C.C.L.T.(3d) 157, refd to. [para. 67, footnote 58].

McCulloch v. Murray, [1942] S.C.R. 141, refd to. [para. 68, footnote 59].

R. v. Canada Steamship Lines Ltd. et al., [1950] S.C.R. 532, revd. [1952] A.C. 192 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 68, footnote 60].

Goulais v. Restoule and Maryland Casualty Co., [1975] 1 S.C.R. 365; 2 N.R. 153; 48 D.L.R.(3d) 285, refd to. [para. 70, footnote 61].

Jones v. Green et al. (1995), 162 A.R. 217; 83 W.A.C. 217 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 71, footnote 62].

Prud'homme v. Prud'homme (2002), 297 N.R. 331 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 72, footnote 63].

R. v. Creighton, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 3; 157 N.R. 1; 65 O.A.C. 321; 83 C.C.C.(3d) 346; 23 C.R.(4th) 189; 105 D.L.R.(4th) 632; 17 C.R.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 73, footnote 64].

Wilson v. Brett (1843), 11 M. & W. 113 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 74, footnote 66].

R. v. Tech-Corrosion Services Ltd. (1986), 68 A.R. 161; 43 Alta.L.R.(2d) 88 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 78, footnote 67].

R. v. Canadian MDF Products Co. (2002), 316 A.R. 228 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 79, footnote 68].

R. v. Cargill Ltd.-ltée and Chemidyne Corp. (1991), 38 C.C.E.L. 249 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 79, footnote 69].

R. v. Mar-Phyl Logging Ltd. et al. (1992), 137 A.R. 81 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 79, footnote 71].

R. v. Faure (Bertrand) Components Ltd., [1996] O.J. No. 4848 (C.J. Prov. Div.), refd to. [para. 80, footnote 76].

R.v. Kiewit (Peter) Sons Co. (1991), 84 Alta. L.R.(2d) 395 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 80, footnote 78].

R. v. South Rock Ltd. et al. (2002), 316 A.R. 329 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 80, footnote 79].

R. v. Thermo King Western Inc. et al. (2002), 311 A.R. 312 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 81, footnote 82].

R. v. Clearwater Electric Ltd., [2001] M.J. No. 101 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 84, footnote 83].

R. v. Lapointe (D.E.) (1999), 244 A.R. 358; 209 W.A.C. 358 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 91, footnote 84].

R. v. Venn (G.) (2002), 299 A.R. 328; 266 W.A.C. 328 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 91, footnote 85].

R. v. Olsen (L.) and Podniewicz (M.) (1999), 116 O.A.C. 357; 131 C.C.C.(3d) 355; 22 C.R.(5th) 80 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 91, footnote 86].

R. v. Ambrose (B.A.) (2000), 271 A.R. 164; 234 W.A.C. 161; [2001] 1 W.W.R. 117; 85 Alta. L.R.(3d) 82 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 96, footnote 87].

R. v. Canadian National Railway, [1995] B.C.J. No. 1099 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 97, footnote 88].

R. v. St. Lawrence Cement Inc., [1992] O.J. No. 3770 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 98, footnote 89].

R. v. Fairbairn (1980), 2 Cr. App. R.(S.) 315, refd to. [para. 101, footnote 91].

R. v. Heyink (Henry) Construction Ltd. (1999), 118 O.A.C. 261 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 102, footnote 92].

R. v. Peters (K.) Industries Northern Ltd., [2000] Y.J. No. 111 (Yuk. Terr. Ct.), refd to. [para. 106, footnote 93].

Gra Ham Energy Ltd. v. Robica Forman Tank Ltd. et al., [2002] O.T.C. 410 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 113, footnote 94].

Hall v. Hebert, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 159; 152 N.R. 321; 26 B.C.A.C. 161; 44 W.A.C. 161; 101 D.L.R.(4th) 129, refd to. [para. 113, footnote 95].

65302 British Columbia Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 804; 248 N.R. 216, refd to. [para. 113, footnote 96].

R. v. Bata Industries Ltd. (1993), 14 O.R.(3d) 354 (Gen. Div.), varied (1992), 70 C.C.C.(3d) 394; 7 C.E.L.R.(N.S.) 245; 9 O.R.(3d) 329; 15 W.C.B.(2d) 217 (C.J. Prov. Div.), revd. (1995), 83 O.A.C. 343; 101 C.C.C.(3d) 86; 25 O.R.(3d) 321; 127 D.L.R.(4th) 438; 22 B.L.R.(2d) 135; 18 C.E.L.R.(N.S.) 11 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 113, footnote 97].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Arnott, Bruce, and Exner, Deanna, Annotated Occupational Health and Safety Act (2001), pp. SC1-1 to SC1-24.4 [para. 80, footnote 81].

Canada, Law Reform Commission of Canada, Criminal Responsibility for Group Action, Working Paper No. 16 (1976), generally [para. 39, footnote 41].

Fridman, Gerald Henry Louis, The Law of Torts in Canada (2nd. Ed. 2002), c. 14, p. 402 [para. 74, footnote 65].

Hanna, Don, Corporate Criminal Liability (1988-1989), 31 Crim. L.Q. 452, p. 474 [para. 47, footnote 49].

McMullan, John L., Beyond the Limits of the Law -- Corporate Crime and Law and Order (1992), generally [para. 41, footnote 42].

Ruby, Clayton C., Sentencing (5th Ed. 1999), p. 382, §10.13 [para. 100, footnote 90].

Counsel:

A. Brian Beresh (Beresh, Depoe, Cunningham), for the appellant;

David G. Myrol (Ministry of Justice of Alberta), for the respondent.

Watson, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, heard this appeal on December 19, 2002, and delivered the following reasons for judgment on January 9, 2003.