R. v. Longard (R.D.) Services Ltd., 2014 NSPC 100

• Judge: Derrick, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: November 28, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: 2014 NSPC 100;(2014), 353 N.S.R.(2d) 329 (PC)

R. v. Longard Services Ltd. (2014), 353 N.S.R.(2d) 329 (PC);

    1115 A.P.R. 329

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. DE.022

Her Majesty the Queen v. R.D. Longard Services Limited

(2690136; 2690137; 2014 NSPC 100)

Indexed As: R. v. Longard (R.D.) Services Ltd.

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

Derrick, P.C.J.

December 4, 2014.

Summary:

An electrician employed by Longard (R.D.) Services Ltd. was electrocuted while working at a job site. Longard was charged under s. 74(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act with (1) failing to take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances to provide such information, instruction or supervision as necessary to the health and safety of an employee at the workplace; and (2) failing to ensure that an electrical installation was serviced, repaired or dismantled in accordance with the Canadian Electrical Code. Longard applied for particulars.

The Nova Scotia Provincial Court dismissed the application.

Criminal Law - Topic 128

Rights of accused - Right to make full answer and defence - [See Trials - Topic 1099 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4527

Procedure - Particulars - When obtainable and purpose of - [See Trials - Topic 1099 ].

Trade Regulation - Topic 7863

Industrial safety - Offences - Information - Sufficiency of - [See Trials - Topic 1099 ].

Trials - Topic 1099

Summary convictions - Informations, search warrants and certificates of offences - Particulars - An electrician employed by Longard (R.D.) Services Ltd. was electrocuted while working at a job site - Longard was charged under s. 74(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act with (1) failing to take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances to provide such information, instruction or supervision as necessary to ensure the health and safety of an employee at the workplace; and (2) failing to ensure that an electrical installation was serviced, repaired or dismantled in accordance with the Canadian Electrical Code - Longard applied for particulars, arguing that it needed to know what it should have done that it did not do, and what it should have done to comply with its legislated obligations - The Nova Scotia Provincial Court dismissed the application - Longard would be able to make full answer and defence based on the Crown's disclosure materials, which contained the evidence that the Crown intended to rely on - An order for particulars was unnecessary and would unreasonably restrict the Crown's prosecution - The legal issues and the evidentiary basis of the Crown's case were not obscure, confusing, complex or vague.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Clarke (B.E.) et al. (2014), 344 N.S.R.(2d) 386; 1089 A.P.R. 386; 2014 NSSC 177, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Canadian General Electric Co., [1974] O.J. No. 13 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Shumiatcher, [1962] S.J. No. 140 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Stinchcombe (1991), 130 N.R. 277; 120 A.R. 161; 8 W.A.C. 161 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Taillefer (B.) (2003), 313 N.R 1; 2003 SCC 70, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Dalton (R.C.) (1999), 192 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 20; 580 A.P.R. 20 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Saunders - see R. v. Rooke and De Vries.

R. v. Rooke and De Vries (1990), 108 N.R. 234 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Della Valle (J.E.) (2011), 308 N.S.R.(2d) 105; 976 A.P.R. 105; 2011 NSPC 67, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Groot (N.) (1998), 112 O.A.C. 303 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. McCune (M.B.) (1998), 116 B.C.A.C. 267; 190 W.A.C. 267 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Gormley (G.J.) (1999), 180 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181; 548 A.P.R. 181 (P.E.I.C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Govedarov, Popovic and Askov, [1974] O.J. No. 1837 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Harrer (H.M.) (1995), 186 N.R. 329; 64 B.C.A.C. 161; 105 W.A.C. 161 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Bjelland (J.C.) (2009), 391 N.R. 202; 460 A.R. 230; 462 W.A.C. 230; 2009 SCC 38, refd to. [para. 19].

Counsel:

Peter J. Craig and Alex Keaveny, for the Crown;

Robert C. Hagell, for the defendant.

This application was heard on November 28, 2014, before Derrick, P.C.J., of the Nova Scotia Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on December 4, 2014.