R. v. Parkland Construction Ltd.

R. v. Parkland Construction Ltd.

The application was dismissed because the applicants failed to discharge the burden of showing the MES medical records were 'likely relevant' to issues at trial; the asserted links (suicidal ideation, disorientation, or other medical causes explaining presence at the rear or manner of death) were speculative, unsupported by case-specific evidence, and the records were not shown to be probative of the work area or risk-of-fall issues.

Citation
2016 NSPC 4
Parties
Crown/prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused/employer: Parkland Construction Limited; Accused/employee/supervisor: Daniel Davison; Third Party/medical Examiner: Medical Examiner Service
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Regulatory Criminal (occupational Health and Safety Act) / Pre Trial Third Party Production Application (o'connor/mc Neil Stage 1)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Third Party Records Disclosure, O'connor/mc Neil Test, Privacy of Medical Records, Stinchcombe Disclosure Obligations, Workplace Safety Regulations, Cause and Manner of Death
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Administrative Law Privacy Law Occupational Health and Safety Law Third Party Records Disclosure O'connor/mc Neil Test Privacy of Medical Records Stinchcombe Disclosure Obligations +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown/prosecution

Parkland Construction Limited

Accused/employer

Daniel Davison

Accused/employee/supervisor

Medical Examiner Service

Third Party/medical Examiner

Procedural Posture

Regulatory Criminal (occupational Health and Safety Act) / Pre Trial Third Party Production Application (o'connor/mc Neil Stage 1)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether medical records in MES possession are "likely relevant" to issues at trial
  2. 2 Whether production is required for full answer and defence under O'Connor/McNeil
  3. 3 Whether MES is authorized to release medical records

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the applicants failed to discharge the burden of showing the MES medical records were 'likely relevant' to issues at trial; the asserted links (suicidal ideation, disorientation, or other medical causes explaining presence at the rear or manner of death) were speculative, unsupported by case-specific evidence, and the records were not shown to be probative of the work area or risk-of-fall issues.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for production of Mr. Alan Fraser's medical records in the possession of the Medical Examiner Service dismissed