westray: 20 years later

S
P
E
C
I
A
L
R
E
P
O
WESTRAY: 20 YEARS LATER
R
The Impact of This Tragedy on Worker Safety
T
2
WESTRAY: 20 YEARS LATER
Introduction
W
orkplace safety isn’t usually a high profile topic.
It’s typically just of interest to safety professionals,
unions, workers’ advocates and workers themselves,
especially those in very hazardous industries. But when an
incident like the one at Westray happens, suddenly it seems
like everyone is talking about workplace safety. Does all this
talk actually lead to any improvements or is it just that—talk?
May 9, 2012 is the 20th anniversary of the Westray tragedy.
So in this OHS Insider Special Report, we’ll look back at
what happened, assess its impact on workplace safety and
consider whether workers are actually safer now.
Editor
Robin L. Barton
Managing Editor
Glenn S. Demby, Esq.
President
Robert L. Ransom
The information presented herein has been compiled from
various sources believed to be reliable; however, it cannot be
assumed that all acceptable safety measures are contained
in this publication or that other additional measures may not
be required under particular or exceptional circumstances.
While every effort is made to ensure that information and
recommendations contained within this publication are
the best current opinions on the subject, no guarantee
or warranty is made by Bongarde Holdings Inc., as to the
absolute correctness or sufficiency of any representation
contained in this publication herewith.
Please honor our copyright on this publication. If you
require additional copies, please call us at
1-800-667-9300 TOLL FREE.
Sales: 1-800-667-9300
Fax: 1-250-493-2283
Main Office: 1-250-493-2200
2012 © Bongarde • www.OHSInsider.com
WESTRAY: 20 YEARS LATER
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION 2
THE WESTRAY MINING DISASTER 4
BILL C-45—WESTRAY’S LEGACY 5
• The Charges p. 4
• The Inquiry p. 4
• A Timeline of Key Events p. 4
• C-45 Overview p. 5
• Answers to 10 Frequently Asked C-45 Questions p. 7
ARE WORKERS SAFER SINCE WESTRAY?
C-45 Infographic
WESTRAY INFOGRAPHIC
2012 © Bongarde • www.OHSInsider.com
9
11
12
3
4
WESTRAY: 20 YEARS LATER
THE WESTRAY MINING DISASTER
O
n May 9, 1992, the Westray mining tragedy, Canada’s
worst mining disaster since 1958, occurred when
methane gas and then coal dust exploded in a Nova
Scotia coal mine, killing 26 workers. For several days, mine
rescuers searched for survivors in extremely hazardous
conditions. But after the bodies of 15 miners were discovered,
the search and rescue mission was changed to a search and
recovery operation. As underground conditions worsened, the
decision was made to abandon recovery efforts, entombing
the bodies of 11 miners deep in the mine.
hh
Sept. 11, 1991: the mine officially opened
hh
Oct. 2, 1991: the drive to unionize the miners officially
began
hh
Spring 1992: the union drive succeeded, although it
wasn’t certified until after the explosion
The Charges
hh
Westray was charged with 52 OHS violations, 34 of which were
later dismissed by the court. In 1993, the remaining safety
charges were dismissed by prosecutors based on concerns
that they might jeopardize future criminal charges.
April 29, 1992: a government inspector gave oral and
written orders to clean up and treat coal dust immediately
and to produce stonedusting and dust sampling plans
hh
May 6, 1992: the inspector revisited the mine but didn’t
follow up on his prior orders
Two of the mine’s managers were charged with 26 counts
of manslaughter and criminal negligence causing death. But
on Feb. 27, 1995—almost four years after the disaster—the
charges were stayed by the trial judge because prosecutors
had deliberately failed to disclose key evidence to the
defence. The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal ordered a new
trial, which was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada.
However, prosecutors opted not to pursue the criminal
charges because they decided there wasn’t enough evidence
to secure convictions.
hh
May 9, 1992: the explosion killed 26 miners
hh
May 15, 1992: Justice K. Peter Richard was appointed
to head the Royal Commission of Inquiry’s investigation
of the incident
hh
March 1993: OHS violations against the mining
company were dropped to protect the integrity of
pending criminal charges
hh
Feb. 1995: two mine managers went on trial for criminal
negligence and manslaughter
The Inquiry
hh
March 1997: the Supreme Court of Canada ordered
a new trial because the prosecution failed to disclose
certain evidence
hh
June 30, 1997: the prosecution dropped criminal
charges, saying there wasn’t enough evidence to win
hh
1998: the Royal Commission’s report was released
hh
March 31, 2004: Bill C-45 took effect, changing the
Criminal Code to make it easier to hold companies and
corporate officers criminally liable for serious workplace
safety incidents
The Nova Scotia government conducted a Royal Commission
of Inquiry into the Westray disaster and the related safety
issues. The inquiry’s 1998 report included numerous
recommendations covering topics from training and ventilation
to dealing with methane and coal dust as well as mine rescue
procedures. A key recommendation: “The province of Nova
Scotia should review its occupational health and safety
legislation and take whatever steps necessary to ensure that
officers and directors of corporations doing business in this
province are held properly accountable for the failure of the
corporation to secure and maintain a safe workplace.”
A Timeline of Key Events
in the Westray Incident
2012 © Bongarde • www.OHSInsider.com
WESTRAY: 20 YEARS LATER
5
BILL C-45—WESTRAY’S LEGACY
A
s a result of the failure to successfully prosecute the
mine’s owners and managers and in light of the
inquiry’s recommendations, the Canadian Labour
Congress and some affiliates started a lobbying campaign
to get the Criminal Code (Code) changed to make it easier to
hold corporate managers and directors who failed to take
steps to protect the lives of their workers criminally liable. In
2003, the federal government enacted Bill C-45, which took
effect on March 31, 2004.
C-45 COMPLIANCE CENTER
For more information on C-45, including the elements of a criminal
negligence charge and how to protect your company and individuals,
such as officers and directors, supervisors, JHSC members and even
safety coordinators, from facing such a charge, go to the OHS Insider’s
C-45 Compliance Center.
C-45 OVERVIEW
The criminal law at the time of Westray was out of touch and
needed to be “modernized,” says Alberta OHS lawyer David
Myrol. For example, to hold a corporation or other organization
criminally liable as an entity, a “directing mind”—that is,
a senior member of the organization with policy-making
authority—had to have committed the offence, he explains.
In other words, the guilt of the corporation had to be proven
through the guilt of the “directing mind.”
That’s where C-45 comes in. C-45 updated the criminal law
to do three key things:
Create a new duty. C-45 added Sec. 217.1 to the Code, which
says that every person “who undertakes, or has the authority,
to direct how another person does work or performs a task”
must “take reasonable steps” to protect that other person
from bodily harm arising out of the work. This section didn’t
create a new criminal offence. But by clarifying this legal
duty, it enabled prosecutors to apply the already existing
offence of criminal negligence, which is partly predicated
on the existence of a legal duty, to serious workplace safety
incidents. As a result, it’s now possible to hold a company or
individual guilty of criminal negligence for failing to meet the
duty to protect a person doing work if the failure to protect
was the result of wanton or reckless disregard for life or safety
and caused death or bodily harm to the worker or a person
affected by the work.
2012 © Bongarde • www.OHSInsider.com
Change criminal liability of organizations for acts of
representatives. C-45 changed how corporations and other
organizations can be held criminally liable. It’s no longer
necessary for a “directing mind” to have committed the
crime. Instead, the term “representative” was redefined to
expand the group of people whose acts or omissions can be
attributable to a corporation or other organization to include
all employees, members, agents and contractors. In addition,
Sec. 22.1 was added to state that, for a crime requiring proof
of negligence, such as criminal negligence, a company or
organization is a party to an offence if:
1. Acting within the scope of their authority:
a. one of its representatives is party to the offence; or
b. two or more of its representatives engage in
conduct, whether by act or omission, such that, if it
had been the conduct of only one representative,
that representative would have been a party to the
offence; and
2. The senior officer responsible for the relevant aspect
of the organization’s activities departs—or the senior
officers, collectively, depart—markedly from the
standard of care that, in the circumstances, could
reasonably be expected to prevent a representative
from being a party to the offence.
For crimes requiring fault other than negligence, such
as intent, new Sec. 22.2 says that a corporation or other
organization is liable when a senior officer, with the intent to
at least partly benefit the company:
hh Is a party to the offence;
hh Directs the work of other representatives so that they
commit the act or omission required by the offence; or
hh Knows that a representative is or is about to commit the
offence and fails to take all reasonable steps to prevent
or stop the commission of the offence.
6
WESTRAY: 20 YEARS LATER
BILL C-45—WESTRAY’S LEGACY, Cont'd
Set factors for sentencing a company. C-45 wasn’t just
about liability. It also dealt with the consequences of crimes
for an “organization,” such as a company. It added Sec. 718.21
to the Code, setting out 10 factors that a court must consider
when sentencing an organization that was convicted of a
crime, including criminal negligence:
1. Any advantage realized by the organization as a result
of the offence;
2. The degree of planning involved in carrying out the
offence and the duration and complexity of the offence;
3. Whether the organization attempted to conceal or
convert its assets in order to show that it’s not able to
pay a fine or make restitution;
6. Any regulatory penalty imposed on the organization or
one of its representatives for the conduct that formed
the basis of the offence, such as a fine imposed in a
regulatory OHS prosecution;
7. Whether the organization was—or any of its
representatives who were involved in the commission
of the offence were—convicted of a similar offence or
sanctioned by a regulatory body for similar conduct;
8. Any penalty imposed by the organization on a
representative for his role in the commission of the
offence;
4. The impact that the sentence would have on the
organization’s economic viability and the continued
employment of its workers;
9. Any restitution that the organization is ordered to make
or any amount that the organization has paid to a victim
of the offence; and
5. The cost to public authorities of the investigation and
prosecution of the offence;
10. Any measures that the organization has taken to reduce
the likelihood of it committing a subsequent offence.
Westray Miners Memorial Park
New Glasgow, Pictou County, Nova Scotia
2012 © Bongarde • www.OHSInsider.com
WESTRAY: 20 YEARS LATER
7
BILL C-45—WESTRAY’S LEGACY, Cont'd
ANSWERS TO 10 FREQUENTLY
ASKED C-45 QUESTIONS
Q. Can You Be Prosecuted for Both Criminal Negligence
& an OHS Offence for the Same Incident?
A. Yes. The concept of “double jeopardy” protects people
from being prosecuted twice for the same crime based on
the same facts. But it doesn’t prevent the government from
going after companies or individuals for violations of different
laws for the same event. A wanton or reckless disregard for
safety that results in death or bodily injury may be both an act
of criminal negligence under C-45 and a violation of OHS law.
So a defendant could be prosecuted and penalized under
either or both laws.
For example, several defendants were charged with
criminal negligence in Ontario for the collapse of a scaffolding
platform in which four workers died and one was seriously
injured. They were also charged with OHS violations based
on this incident.
Q. Is There a Time Limit for Bringing Criminal Negligence
Charges?
A. There’s no “statute of limitations,” or time limit, on criminal
negligence charges. So if a serious safety incident happened
on April 1, 2004—the day after C-45 took effect—the Crown
could still bring criminal negligence charges based on it now.
But C-45 isn’t retroactive. That is, C-45 took effect March 31,
2004. So the Crown may file criminal negligence charges only
for serious safety incidents that occurred after that date.
Q. Which Workplaces Does C-45 Cover?
A. C-45 works differently than OHS law. Most workplaces
are subject to the OHS laws in their particular province
or territory. (Federal OHS law applies to workplaces in
designated industries with national scope, such as railways,
regardless of where they’re located.) In contrast, the Criminal
Code is a national law that applies across Canada. Thus, C-45
charges can be brought against any kind of workplace located
anywhere in the country.
2012 © Bongarde • www.OHSInsider.com
Q. Does Criminal Negligence Apply Just to Fatalities?
A. No. There are two kinds of criminal negligence charges
that can now be brought in a serious safety incident:
hh Sec. 220 applies to anyone who by criminal negligence
causes a death; and
hh Sec. 221 applies to anyone who by criminal negligence
causes bodily harm to another person.
For example, in the Ontario scaffolding case mentioned
above, the defendants were charged with four counts of
criminal negligence causing death for the fatalities and one
count of criminal negligence causing bodily harm for the
injured worker who survived.
Q. Does C-45 Apply Only to Death or Injuries Suffered
by Workers?
A.
No. Criminal negligence charges simply require the
defendant to cause death or bodily harm to another person.
So such charges could be brought if, say, a crane collapses at a
construction site and kills a passer-by. In fact, in a pending BC
case, the navigating officer of a ferry faces criminal negligence
charges in the deaths of two passengers.
Q. Is Due Diligence a Defence to Criminal Negligence?
A. Technically, due diligence isn’t a defence to criminal
negligence charges in the same way that it’s a defence to
OHS violations. But as a practical matter, proving that you
exercised due diligence makes it impossible to be convicted
of criminal negligence.
Explanation: To prove criminal negligence, the Crown must
show that the company or an individual: 1) violated the duty
to take “reasonable steps” to prevent bodily harm; and 2)
showed wanton or reckless disregard for the safety of others.
If a defendant can prove that it exercised due diligence—that
is, took all reasonable steps to prevent the incident and the
injury or fatality—then it can create reasonable doubt as to
either or both of these elements of the crime. For example,
if a company implemented measures to keep the incident
from happening, it’ll be hard for the Crown to prove that it
acted wantonly or recklessly. Thus, due diligence is, in effect,
a defence to criminal negligence charges.
8
WESTRAY: 20 YEARS LATER
BILL C-45—WESTRAY’S LEGACY, Cont'd
Q.
Are Criminal Negligence Charges the Same for
Companies & Individuals?
A. No. The elements the Crown must prove for a criminal
negligence charge differ depending on whether the defendant
is an individual or an “organization,” such as a company. For an
individual, the government must show that the individual, in
directing how another person does work:
hh Violated his duty to take “reasonable steps” to prevent
bodily harm; and
hh Showed wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or
safety of others.
For organizations, the Crown must prove that:
hh One or more “representatives,” while acting within the
scope of their authority, committed criminal negligence
as described above; and
hh A “senior officer” departed markedly from the standard
or care that could reasonably be expected to prevent a
representative from committing that offence.
C-45 AT A GLANCE
1. You can be prosecuted for both criminal negligence and OHS
violations for the same incident.
2. There’s no time limit on when the government can bring criminal
negligence charges.
3. C-45 applies to all workplaces across Canada.
4. Criminal negligence charges may apply not only when there’s a
fatality but also when someone has been injured. It also applies to
the deaths of or injuries to anyone—not just workers.
5. Due diligence is essentially a defence to criminal negligence,
although not in the same way as to OHS violations.
6. What the Crown has to prove for a criminal negligence charge depends
on whether the defendant is an individual or an “organization,” such
as a company.
7. The definitions of “representative” and “senior officer” for C-45
purposes are very broad.
8. You can’t assign or contract out of C-45 liability.
9. Insurance won’t cover your fine for a criminal negligence conviction.
Q. Who’s a “Representative” under C-45?
A. The Code defines a “representative” of an organization as
a director, partner, employee, member, agent or contractor
of the organization. Thus, nearly anyone associated with a
company could arguably be considered its representative—
from the lowest worker all the way to the CEO.
It’s important to stress that the word “contractor” is
specifically included in the definition of “representative.” As a
result, you can’t assign or contract out of liability for criminal
negligence to a prime contractor or constructor like you can
for some OHS liability in certain jurisdictions. In other words, if
your contractor engages in conduct that constitutes criminal
negligence, your company could also be on the hook.
Q. Who’s a “Senior Officer” for C-45 Purposes?
A. As noted above, for a company to be held
liable for
criminal negligence, a “senior officer” must depart markedly
from the standard or care that could reasonably be expected
to prevent a representative from committing the offence.
“Senior officers” are a subset of “representatives.” The Code
defines “senior officer” as a representative who:
hh Plays an important role in the establishment of an
organization’s policies; or
hh Is responsible for managing an important aspect of the
organization’s activities.
In the case of a corporation, this definition would include
a director, its CEO and its CFO. Thus, members of upper
management are considered senior officers for C-45 purposes.
But because the definition is so broad, in some cases, a person
lower down in the corporate hierarchy, such as a plant manager
or project manager could also be considered a senior officer.
Q. Does Insurance Cover Liability under C-45?
A. Many companies have directors and officers
(D & O)
insurance to protect their senior management from liability
when they act on the company’s behalf. But if a company
officer or director is convicted of criminal negligence for acts
or omissions performed while carrying out his duties for the
company, D & O insurance (or any other insurance for that
matter) probably won’t cover the fine, although it might cover
the legal costs.
2012 © Bongarde • www.OHSInsider.com
WESTRAY: 20 YEARS LATER
9
ARE WORKERS SAFER SINCE WESTRAY?
C
ritics of C-45 argue that the bill was the result of
political posturing by the federal government and a
need to do something in response to intense public
pressure and didn’t think it would really change how safety
disasters were prosecuted. To some extent, the critics have
been right.
The first criminal negligence charges under C-45 were
brought in 2005 but the defendant was a supervisor, not a
corporate official, who later pleaded guilty to OHS violations.
In 2008, Transpavé became the first company to be convicted
of criminal negligence but none of the individual company
officials were charged.
In 2010, there was a small flurry of criminal negligence
prosecutions:
hh In February, an Ontario crane owner and operator were
charged with criminal negligence for the death of a
worker in a crane collapse—but the prosecution later
dismissed these charges because it didn’t think it could
prove them;
hh In March, the navigation officer of a BC ferry company
was charged with criminal negligence for the death of
two passengers in the sinking of the Queen of the North;
hh In October, officials of an Ontario scaffolding company
were charged in the Toronto Christmas Eve scaffolding
disaster, the first time company officials were actually
charged under C-45; and
hh There were two C-45 prosecutions in Québec, one that
resulted in a conviction (more on this case below) and
the other in an acquittal.
Why haven’t there been more cases? And should there be
more cases?
Myrol believes that when C-45 was passed, its impact was
overhyped by politicians using lots of rhetoric. As a result,
there were unrealistic expectations, especially on the part
of unions, as to how this new law was going to change the
prosecution of safety incidents. Some expected a flood of
criminal cases for workplace tragedies—and clearly that
hasn’t happened.
But Myrol notes that the Department of Justice made it clear
when C-45 became law that it was still going to exercise the
“principle of restraint” and use the criminal law only in the most
egregious cases. After all, there was already a process in place
for addressing safety incidents—regulatory prosecutions
for violations of the OHS laws. And Myrol points out that it’s
2012 © Bongarde • www.OHSInsider.com
easier to secure convictions in OHS prosecutions. In addition,
regulatory prosecutions are effective and have significant
penalties, including the possibility of jail sentences.
Myrol says that two fairly recent cases illustrate the proper
application of C-45 to workplace safety incidents:
Scrocca. Pasquale Scrocca, a landscape contractor in
Québec, was performing landscaping work at a commercial
building using a backhoe. When its brakes failed, he collided
with a worker, who died. Scrocca was convicted of criminal
negligence causing death in the first trial since C-45 took
effect. Experts confirmed that the 30-year-old backhoe was
very poorly maintained and that the brakes were completely
non-functional. The court concluded that, in neglecting to
perform maintenance on the backhoe, Scrocca markedly
departed from the standard of care expected of a prudent
and diligent person. It sentenced him to pay costs and comply
with certain conditions, failing which he could be sent to jail
for two years [R. v. Scrocca].
Weyerhaeuser. In 2004, a worker smothered to death after
getting trapped by debris in the hog (a machine that converts
wood waste to chips) at Weyerhaeuser’s New West Division
sawmill. In March 2007, WorkSafeBC fined Weyerhaeuser
$297,000 for this incident—the highest fine it had ever
imposed against an employer at the time. In March 2010, the
United Steelworkers union launched a rare private criminal
negligence prosecution against the company. A BC court
ruled that the union had presented enough information
supporting this claim for it to go forward. But in Aug. 2011,
the Crown essentially dismissed the prosecution, saying the
evidence didn’t present “a substantial likelihood of conviction
against the company.”
Myrol believes that Scrocca is the type of case for which C-45
was designed. Based on the facts, anyone would conclude
that his conduct was so negligent that it was criminal. For
example, the backhoe had absolutely no braking capacity
in the front two wheels, no brake fluid in the reservoir and
an all-over braking capacity of less than 30%. A mechanical
inspection uncovered 14 additional major issues, including
the fact that the horn, brake lights, parking brake and brake
pressure gauge didn’t work. Scrocca admitted that a certified
mechanic hadn’t inspected the backhoe for at least five years
and that he’d failed to check the brake fluid in the previous
year because the reservoir cap was broken. In short, Scrocca
didn’t appear to have done anything to ensure the backhoe
was safe to use.
10
WESTRAY: 20 YEARS LATER
ARE WORKERS SAFER SINCE WESTRAY? Cont'd
In contrast, the conduct in Weyerhaeuser didn’t rise to the
same level, says Myrol. In that case, management did take
steps to protect workers from the hazards posed by the hog.
For example, it implemented written procedures to make
unclogging the hog safer that warned workers not to insert
their arms or heads into the hog. It also provided a mirror
device for workers to use to view blockages underneath the
hog. True, those efforts fell short. As a result, the company
was appropriately hit with a hefty administrative penalty for
violating BC’s OHS law. But to criminally prosecute it based
on these facts would be to misapply the law of criminal
negligence, says Myrol. “Weyerhaeuser could prove it took
repeated steps to protect its workers from harm. It may have
missed the mark but the effort and intent were clearly there.
The same can’t be said for Scrocca,” explains Myrol.
CONCLUSION
So has workplace safety improved in the 20 years since Westray?
And has C-45 been effective? Myrol says the answer depends
on who you ask and how you measure success. Unions seem
to measure C-45’s success by the number of cases brought,
which he believes is a “poor barometer.” If the law’s goal was
to better protect workers, that goal was achieved, according
to Myrol. “C-45 has had a profound impact on how companies
are run,” he explains, “It captured the attention of corporate
Canada and they responded quite well.” For example, safety
has a much higher profile at the executive management level
and more resources are spent on keeping workers safe than
ever before, says Myrol.
Bottom line: When workers die on the job, it’s tragic and
emotions run high. But the bringing of criminal charges must
be driven by the facts of each case and not by emotions.
As for those cases in which criminal negligence charges
were brought and then dismissed, pressure from unions
may very well have led to the initial charges. Myrol, a former
Crown prosecutor, explains that “public pressure has a way of
unconsciously creeping into the case assessment even for the
most disciplined of prosecutors.” But the process eventually
yields an objective result, as the evidence is sifted through
several prosecutors and new evidence is considered, he says.
Of course, the public isn’t privy to this process. However,
Myrol says prosecutors should be applauded for making
tough decisions and encouraged to exercise their discretion
when the evidence doesn’t support prosecution. “The easiest
path for a prosecutor is to let the judge make the decision, but
then,” as Myrol explains, “we all lose because our court system
bogs down and valuable resources are needlessly spent on
cases that don’t have a chance.”
INSIDER SOURCE
David Myrol: McLennan Ross LLP, 600 W. Chambers, 12220
Stony Plain Rd., Edmonton, AB T5N 3Y4; (780) 482-9290;
[email protected].
SHOW YOUR LAWYER
R. v. Scrocca, 2010 QCCQ 8218 (CanLII), Sept. 27, 2010
2012 © Bongarde • www.OHSInsider.com
succeeded,
although it
wasn’t certified
until after the
explosion
Source: AWCBC
2008:
87
2009: 69
2010: 82
DEATHS in the
Mining, Quarrying
& Oil Well Industries
March 1993:
OHS violations
against
the mining
company
were dropped
to protect
the integrity
of pending
criminal charges
Bill C-45 took effect, making it easier to hold
companies and corporate officers criminally liable
for serious workplace safety incidents
negligence conviction.
u You can’t assign or contract out of C-45 liability.
v Insurance won’t cover your fine for a criminal
officer” for C-45 purposes are very broad.
t The definitions of “representative” and “senior
charge depends on whether the defendant is an
individual or an organization, such as a company.
For more information on C-45, including the elements of a criminal negligence charge and how to protect your company and individuals,
such as officers and directors, supervisors, and JHSC members, from facing such a charge, go to the OHS Insider’s C-45 Compliance Center.
negligence, although not in the same way as to OHS
violations.
r Due diligence is essentially a defence to criminal
when there’s a fatality but also when someone has
been injured;
p C-45 applies to all workplaces across Canada.
q Criminal negligence charges may apply not only
bring criminal negligence charges.
o There’s no time limit on when the government can
and OHS violations for the same incident.
1998: the Royal
Commission’s report
was released
March 31, 2004: passed in response to Westray,
the prosecution
dropped the
criminal charges,
saying there
wasn’t enough
evidence to win
June 30, 1997:
s What the Crown has to prove for a criminal negligence
Court of Canada ordered
a new trial because the
prosecution failed to
disclose certain evidence
March 1997: the Supreme
managers went on trial
for criminal negligence
and manslaughter
Feb. 1995: two mine
n You can be prosecuted for both criminal negligence
C-45 at a Glance:
Richard was appointed to head
the Royal Commission of Inquiry’s
investigation of the incident
May 15, 1992: Justice K. Peter
killed 26 miners; only 15
bodies were recovered
May 9, 1992: an explosion
inspector revisited
the mine but didn’t
follow up on his
prior orders
May 6, 1992: the
C- 4 5 C o m p l i a n c e C e n t e r
9
Sept. 200
ustry
ining ind
The BC m
d a mine
ce
n
e
ri
e
hasn’t exp
since
s fatality
operation
,
me
ti
f
o
d
o
st peri
the longe
s
talitie
without fa
8.
since 189
inspector gave oral and written
orders to clean up and treat coal dust
immediately and produce stonedusting
and dust sampling plans
April 29, 1992: a government
the drive to
unionize the miners
officially began
Oct. 2, 1991:
“The mining workplace is inherently dangerous. It is not a muffin shop. Everyone
who works at a mine site recognizes the dangerous nature of the work.”
— Judge B.A. Bruser, R. v. Supreme Steel Ltd.
20 Years Later
Westray Mining
Disaster
A Ti
m
, the
in t eline
Since 1976
industry’s
g
he
in
o
in
m
Ontario
Wes f K
ry rate
ju
in
lost time
ey
tr
ed by
has improv
ay
E
96%.
In ven
Sept. 11, 1991:
c
Spring 1992:
id t s
the mine officially
en
the union drive
opened
The
t