R. v. Jardine

R. v. Jardine

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused failed to take every reasonable precaution under s.17(1)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (strict liability); the accused did not establish due diligence or a mistaken-facts defence, and the evidence (including expert opinion) established contact/arcing within 6 metres of a 69,000V line while the accused did not know the voltage, contrary to s.126(2) OSGR, therefore guilty on both counts.

Citation
2016 NSPC 22
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty; Accused: Carmen Boyd Jardine
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Regulatory Offence (occupational Health and Safety) / Trial Decision
Outcome
Guilty on both counts: conviction for failure to take every reasonable precaution under s.17(1)(a) OHS Act and for working within 6 metres without knowing voltage contrary to s.126(2) OSGR.
Legal Topics
Strict Liability, Due Diligence Defence, Workplace Electrocution, Proximity to Overhead Power Lines, General Duty to Take Reasonable Precautions
Source Language
English
Occupational Health and Safety Law Regulatory Offences Criminal Law Strict Liability Due Diligence Defence Workplace Electrocution Proximity to Overhead Power Lines General Duty to Take Reasonable Precautions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty

Crown

Carmen Boyd Jardine

Accused

Procedural Posture

Regulatory Offence (occupational Health and Safety) / Trial Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether accused failed to take every reasonable precaution under s.17(1)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act
  2. 2 Whether accused carried out work within 6 metres of an energized overhead power line without knowing its voltage contrary to s.126(2) OSGR
  3. 3 Whether the due diligence/mistaken-facts defence applies to absolve the accused

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused failed to take every reasonable precaution under s.17(1)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (strict liability); the accused did not establish due diligence or a mistaken-facts defence, and the evidence (including expert opinion) established contact/arcing within 6 metres of a 69,000V line while the accused did not know the voltage, contrary to s.126(2) OSGR, therefore guilty on both counts.

Court Disposition

Guilty on both counts: conviction for failure to take every reasonable precaution under s.17(1)(a) OHS Act and for working within 6 metres without knowing voltage contrary to s.126(2) OSGR.

Orders

  • Convictions recorded for offences contrary to s.17(1)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and s.126(2) of the Occupational Safety General Regulations.
  • No sentence is addressed in this decision.