R. v. Sage Well Services Ltd., 2000 SKQB 259

• Judge: Baynton, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: June 02, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2000 SKQB 259;(2000), 194 Sask.R. 65 (QB)

R. v. Sage Well Services Ltd. (2000), 194 Sask.R. 65 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] Sask.R. TBEd. JL.032

Her Majesty The Queen, on the Information and complaint of David S. Milo, Occupational Health & Safety Officer, in the City of Regina in the Province of Saskatchewan (appellant) v. Sage Well Services Ltd., a body corporate whose registered office is located in the City of Swift Current, in the Province of Saskatchewan (respondent)

(1999 Q.B.G. No. 173)

Her Majesty The Queen, on the Information and complaint of David S. Milo, Occupational Health & Safety Officer, in the City of Regina in the Province of Saskatchewan (appellant) v. Gregory MacKay, of the City of Swift Current, in the Province of Saskatchewan (respondent)

(1999 Q.B.G. No. 174; 2000 SKQB 259)

Indexed As: R. v. Sage Well Services Ltd.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Swift Current

Baynton, J.

June 2, 2000.

Summary:

An employer pleaded guilty to violating s. 3(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act for failing to ensure the health, safety and welfare of a worker. The employer's rig manager pleaded guilty to violating s. 17(2) of the Act by failing to ensure that the worker complied with the safety require­ments of the Act and Regulations, which noncompliance caused the worker's death. The rig manager and four workers were working on a pumpjack. Two safety pro­cedures known to workers (locking out the pumpjack and wearing a safety harness) were not complied with. A worker was thrown from the pumpjack to his death. The employer was fined $25,000 (maximum fine was $300,000). The rig manager was fined $1,000. The Crown appealed the sentences.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal. Although the court may have imposed higher fines, those imposed were not such a marked departure from the sentences customarily imposed so as to warrant appellate interference.

Trade Regulation - Topic 7905

Industrial safety - Particular offences - Sentences - Failure to ensure health and safety of workers - An employer pleaded guilty to violating s. 3(a) of the Occupa­tional Health and Safety Act for failing to ensure the health, safety and welfare of a worker - The employer's rig manager pleaded guilty to violating s. 17(2) of the Act by failing to ensure that the worker complied with the safety requirements of the Act and Regulations, which noncom­pliance caused the employee's death - The rig manager and four workers were work­ing on a pumpjack - Two safety pro­cedures known to workers (locking out the pumpjack and wearing a safety har­ness) were not complied with - A worker was thrown from the pumpjack to his death - The employer was fined $25,000 (maxi­mum fine was $300,000) - The rig man­ager was fined $1,000 - The Crown appealed the sentences - The Saskatche­wan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal - The problem was not unsafe equipment or procedures, but a failure to force workers to comply with safety pro­cedures they knew they should comply with - The employer was a small company which had never before been cited for violating occupational safety standards - It was not a case of the employer taking shortcuts or deliberately permitting workers to assume risks to save expenses and increase profits - Although the court may have imposed higher fines, those imposed were not such a marked departure from the sentences customarily imposed so as to warrant appellate inter­ference.

Trade Regulation - Topic 7908

Industrial safety - Particular offences - Sentences - Fines - [See Trade Regula­tion - Topic 7905 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. C.A.M. (1996), 194 N.R. 321; 73 B.C.A.C. 81; 120 W.A.C. 81; 46 C.R.(4th) 269 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Horvath (B.A.) (1997), 152 Sask.R. 277; 140 W.A.C. 277 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Dickhoff (K.J.) (1998), 172 Sask.R. 1; 185 W.A.C. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Shapley (G.L.) (1998), 174 Sask.R. 92 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Cotton Felts Ltd. (1982), 2 C.C.C.(3d) 287 (Ont. C.A.), consd. [para. 12].

R. v. Peder­son (K.), [2000] 194 Sask.R. 102 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 26].

Counsel:

G. Herman, for the Crown/appellant;

M.H. Gabruch, for the accused/re­spondents.

These appeals were heard before Baynton, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Swift Current, who delivered the following judgment on June 2, 2000.