Safety Codes Council 2013 Conference and AGM Presented by: Thomas - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
safety codes council
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Safety Codes Council 2013 Conference and AGM Presented by: Thomas - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Sep 23, 2022 520 likes •877 views

Safety Codes Council 2013 Conference and AGM Presented by: Thomas D. Marriott Managing Partner Safety Codes and the Law Emerging Trends Recent Amendments to the Safety Codes Act Limitation Period Now, Previously, three six months years

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Presented by:

Safety Codes Council

2013 Conference and AGM

Managing Partner

Thomas D. Marriott

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Emerging Trends Safety Codes and the Law

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Recent Amendments to the Safety Codes Act

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Limitation Period

  • Now,

three years

Previously, six months

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Limitation Period

Applies to offences committed on or after December 10, 2012

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Rationale

  • Provides reasonable time:
  • to identify
  • Investigate
  • and prosecute
slide-7
SLIDE 7

Offences

  • Interfering with Administrator or CAO
  • Make false statement
  • Contravening Act or Codes
  • Contravening condition in permit
  • Contravening Order
  • Missing time deadline
slide-8
SLIDE 8

I ncreased Fines

Previously - $15,000 for first

  • ffence and

$30,000 for subsequent

  • ffences.

Now - $100,000 for first offence and $500,000 for subsequent

  • ffences.
slide-9
SLIDE 9

Rationale

  • Incentive to comply
  • Deterrent for repeat or continuing
  • ffence
slide-10
SLIDE 10

Recent Developments in Case Law

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Condominium Corporation 012 5331 v.

  • W. De Silva Properties Inc.
  • S. 12(1) of SCA

Any immunity provided is only available where that conduct is taken in good faith

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Condominium Corporation 012 5331 v. W. De Silva Properties Inc.

  • R. 129 Application was to dismiss the

claim based on the pleadings and the law.

  • Nothing in claim re bad faith,

absence of good faith, or anything

  • ther than negligence
slide-13
SLIDE 13

Review Statesman

  • 2010 presentation, 2009 QB case
  • In non-suit application Court did not

dismiss case

  • In final judgment Court said mere

negligence is not bad faith

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Condominium Corporation 012 5331 v.

  • W. De Silva Properties Inc.
  • Negligence can amount

to bad faith

  • required degree of

negligence will depend

  • n obligations,

statutory and

  • therwise

Bad faith= lack of good faith

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Condominium Corporation 012 5331 v. W. De Silva Properties Inc

  • Based on Court of Appeal decision,
  • Bad Faith can be: deliberate intent to

harm

  • Very serious carelessness
  • Most obvious negligence
slide-16
SLIDE 16

Condominium Corporation 012 5331 v. W. De Silva Properties Inc.

  • Court did not rule on novel argument

that s. 12 only protects from liability

  • n policy decisions
  • Practical effects
slide-17
SLIDE 17

Wright v. Lyons

Wright bought home from Lyons Lyons built home and was responsible for all permits and code requirements Plumbing issues led to discovery of 25 deficient items, then further deficiencies

  • f all kinds
slide-18
SLIDE 18

Wright v. Lyons

Lyons had no experience performing much of work Lyons was aware of the Alberta Building Code

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Wright v. Lyons

“The inspectors made sure [the Code was] followed, that’s the way it was”

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Wright v. Lyons

Former building inspector‐ “we’re not a babysitting company”

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Court Comments on Attitude

  • Lyon’s attitude

toward his home building

  • bligations
  • Confused

Cavalier

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Wright v. Lyons

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Wright v. Lyons

  • Builder will be liable if latent

defects

  • Not liable if defects are readily

apparent on inspection

Latent Defect

  • Only actionable if latent defect

creates a dangerous situation

Negligent Construction

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Wright v. Lyons

Conclusion = Unreasonable to place such reliance upon inspectors Lyons liable

slide-25
SLIDE 25
  • R. v. 555034 Ontario Limited

Defendant charged with violating Ontario’s Fire Protection and Prevention Act Pled not guilty

slide-26
SLIDE 26
  • R. v. 555034 Ontario Limited

Two Inspectors attended at the building after fire

  • n Defendant’s

rental property Many deficiencies including several smoke alarms broken or without batteries Inspector issued and mailed a Notice

  • f Violation
slide-27
SLIDE 27
  • R. v. 555034 Ontario Limited

Public welfare

  • ffences

Strict liability ‐ Prosecution required to prove the actus reus

Defendant – avoid liability if exercised due diligence

slide-28
SLIDE 28
  • R. v. 555034 Ontario Limited

Evidence of Inspector = actus reus proven Due diligence?

slide-29
SLIDE 29
  • R. v. 555034 Ontario Limited

“Reasonable care and due diligence do not mean superhuman efforts”

  • “The greater the potential for

substantial injury, the greater the degree of care required”

slide-30
SLIDE 30
  • R. v. 555034 Ontario Limited

Toronto Fire Chief – majority of fatal fires “were the result of no smoke alarms or non‐functioning smoke alarms on the premises”

slide-31
SLIDE 31
  • R. v. 555034 Ontario Limited

“Loose, disjointed and haphazard plan without any reasonable form of co‐ordination” “Plan was reactive as opposed to preventative”

slide-32
SLIDE 32
  • R. v. 555034 Ontario Limited

Due diligence = employer communicate adequate instructions to its employees regarding safety precautions

slide-33
SLIDE 33
  • R. v. 555034 Ontario Limited

Inconsistencies and contradictions in testimony Defendant did not meet burden

  • f proving due

diligence Guilty

slide-34
SLIDE 34

QUESTIONS?

Thomas D. Marriott

780-497-4868 tmarriott@brownleelaw.com