R. v. Pederson (K.), (2000) 194 Sask.R. 102 (QB)

• Judge: Krueger, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: June 02, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2000), 194 Sask.R. 102 (QB);2000 SKQB 255

R. v. Pederson (K.) (2000), 194 Sask.R. 102 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] Sask.R. TBEd. JL.016

Kenneth Pederson Sr. (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(1999 Q.B.A. No. 20; 2000 SKQB 255)

Indexed As: R. v. Pederson (K.)

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Battleford

Krueger, J.

June 2, 2000.

Summary:

Pederson was convicted of seven violations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and Regulations after a man was killed when the trench he was working in caved in (See 185 Sask.R. 124). The trial judge imposed a global fine of $95,000 plus a 15% victim fine surcharge. Pederson appealed from the sentence.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench allowed the appeal and substituted a $35,000 fine plus a 15% victim fine surcharge.

Criminal Law - Topic 5627

Punishments (sentence) - Fines, penalties and compensation orders - Victims fine surcharge - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench stated that where the legis­lation requires a substantial fine the sen­tencing court should, in addition to con­sidering other cost items resulting from the offence, have regard for the impact of the victim fine surcharge - See paragraph 18.

Trade Regulation - Topic 7902

Industrial safety - Particular offences - Sentences - Considerations on imposing sentence - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench stated that "[a]n inexhaus­tive list of factors to be considered when sentencing an offender under [the Occupa­tional Health and Safety] Act include the magnitude of the venture, the extent of activity, past diligence in complying with or surpassing industry standards, previous offences, degree of responsibility or culpa­bility, expense incurred as a result of the incident, measures taken to prevent a re-occurrence and the ability to pay. Not all factors will apply to every case, but every case must be considered on its own par­ticular facts" - See paragraph 13.

Trade Regulation - Topic 7902

Industrial safety - Particular offences - Sentences - Considerations on imposing sentence - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench stated that "[a]ttempts by sentencing judges to standardize the fines for specific offences under the [Occupa­tional Health and Safety] Act should be discouraged. What amounts to a fit and proper sentence in a particular case will depend as much upon the circumstances of the offender as the range of possible fines. The risk of a prohibitive fine must not become the cost of doing business in the construction or industrial fields. Any deter­rent effect of a fine should be felt by those in like circumstances, operating a similar enterprise. Large national and international corporations may only experience deter­rence from a fine in excess of $100,000. Small ventures do not require a fine of that amount to be convinced of the need to adhere to safe working standards. Stan­dardization of fines will lead to in­equality of treatment in industries com­prised of both large and small operators" - See paragraph 14.

Trade Regulation - Topic 7902

Industrial safety - Particular offences - Sentences - Considerations on imposing sentence - [See Trade Regulation - Topic 7905 ].

Trade Regulation - Topic 7905

Industrial safety - Particular offences - Sentences - Failure to ensure health and safety of workers - Pederson was convicted of seven violations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and Regulations after a worker was killed when the trench he was working in caved in - The trial judge imposed a global fine of $95,000 plus a 15% victim fine surcharge - Peder­son appealed, arguing that the fine would have a substantial impact on his small business - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench allowed the appeal and substituted a $35,000 fine plus a 15% victim fine surcharge - The court con­sidered that the death resulted from a lack of supervision as opposed to a disregard for safe working conditions - The court stated that a substantial fine, having regard for Pederson's financial circumstances, would operate as a deterrent and that what amounted to a substantial fine depended on the particular offender's ability to absorb the fine without jeopardiz­ing the business -The court also considered the impact of the victim fine surcharge.

Cases Noticed:

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, refd to. [para. 8].

Counsel:

V.E. Elliott-Erickson, for the appellant;

W.R. Campbell, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before Krueger, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Battleford, who delivered the following decision on June 2, 2000.