R. v. Pope (A.O.) Ltd., (1972) 5 N.B.R.(2d) 715 (CA)

• Judge: Hughes, C.J.N.B., Limerick and Bugold, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (New Brunswick)
• Case Date: December 17, 1972
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (1972), 5 N.B.R.(2d) 715 (CA)

R. v. Pope Ltd. (1972), 5 N.B.R.(2d) 715 (CA);

    5 R.N.-B.(2e) 715

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

R. v. A.O. Pope Ltd.

Indexed As: R. v. Pope (A.O.) Ltd.

Répertorié: R. v. Pope (A.O.) Ltd.

New Brunswick Court of Appeal

Hughes, C.J.N.B., Limerick and Bugold, JJ.A.

December 17, 1972.

Summary:

Résumé:

This case arose out of a charge against an employer of failing to provide protective goggles contrary to Section 2(4) of the Industrial Safety Act. At trial in the New Brunswick Provincial Court the employer was convicted and a fine was imposed of $400.00. On appeal to the New Brunswick County Court the conviction was set aside because the failure to provide protective goggles was not an offence under Section 2(4) of the Industrial Safety Act. The County Court stated that the charge should have been laid under Section 2(2) of the Industrial Safety Act. On appeal from the judgment of the New Brunswick County Court, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of Keirstead, C.C.J., of the County Court. The judgment of Keirstead, C.C.J., is set out immediately following the judgment of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal.

The New Brunswick County Court stated that the charge of failing to provide protective goggles contrary to the Industrial Safety Act is an offence of strict liability and that after the Crown has established a prima facie case the burden is on the defendant until the end of the trial to disprove the charge - see paragraphs 65 to 68. The County Court stated that such a charge is not an offence of absolute liability - see paragraphs 41 to 56.

Trade Regulation - Topic 7764

Industrial safety - Safety equipment and apparel - What constitutes "method ... of work" - Trials - Summary convictions - Charge of failing to provide protective goggles contrary to the Industrial Safety Act - Whether the duty of providing goggles is a "method of carrying on ... work" - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal dismissed the charge and stated that the information did not lay the proper charge.

Trade Regulation - Topic 7863

Industrial safety - Offences - Information, sufficiency of - Trials - Summary convictions - Information - Industrial Safety Act, section 16 - On appeal the New Brunswick County Court judge stated that an information is bad in law which charges both an offence under the Industrial Safety Act and an offence under the Regulations made under the Industrial Safety Act - Paragraph 22.

Trade Regulation - Topic 7872

Industrial safety - Offences - Burden of proof - Trials - Summary convictions - Industrial Safety Act - Burden of proof - The New Brunswick County Court held that a charge of failing to provide protective goggles imposes strict liability but does not impose absolute liability - Paragraphs 41 to 56.

Trade Regulation - Topic 7872

Industrial safety - Offences - Burden of proof - Evidence - Charge of failing to provide protective goggles contrary to the Industrial Safety Act - The New Brunswick County Court stated that such a charge is an offence of strict liability and that after the Crown has established a prima facie case the burden is on the defendant until the end of the trial to disprove the charge - Paragraphs 65 to 68.

Words and Phrases

Method of carrying on ... work - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of the phrase "method of carrying on ... work", as found in s. 2(4) of the Industrial Safety Act, S.N.B. 1964, c. 5.

Words and Phrases

Reasonable probability - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of the words "reasonable probability".

Cases Noticed:

Regina v. Guidry (1969), 1 N.B.R.(2d) 289; 47 C.R. 375, folld.

R. v. McIver (1965), 45 C.R. 401, folld.

Regina v. Stephens (1966-67), 9 Criminal Law Quarterly 354, folld.

R. v. Wagner (1971), 13 C.R.N.S. 273, folld.

R. v. Kennedy (1972), 8 C.R.N.S. 80, folld.

R. v. Vincent (1972), 4 N.B.R.(2d) 289; (1972), 18 C.R.N.S. 330, folld.

Statutes Noticed:

Industrial Safety Act, S.N.B. 1964, c. 5, sect. 2, sect. 16.

Summary Convictions Act, R.S.N.B. 1952, c. 220, sect. 22 [see paragraph 53].

Counsel:

William J. McCarroll, for the Crown, appellant;

George T. Clark, Q.C., and Harry G. Colwell, for the accused, respondent.

The judgment of the court was delivered by Hughes, C.J.N.B.