R v. Murphy

R v. Murphy

On the facts the relationship between Zinck and the defendant was closer to independent contractor/joint venture than employer‑employee: there was profit‑sharing, no evidence of control or direction by the defendant, and multiple sources of dependence; consequently the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was an "employer" under the Act and s.13(1)(a) did not apply to impose criminal liability on the defendant.

Citation
2004 NSPC 30
Parties
Crown: R.; Defendant: Ausman William Murphy
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution Under Occupational Health and Safety Act / Trial Decision
Outcome
Not guilty
Legal Topics
Employer Definition, Dependent Contractor, Duty to Take Reasonable Precautions, Status of Fishers, Standard of Proof
Source Language
English
Occupational Health and Safety Criminal Law Labour Law Maritime/fisheries Law Employer Definition Dependent Contractor Duty to Take Reasonable Precautions Status of Fishers +1 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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R.

Crown

Ausman William Murphy

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Prosecution Under Occupational Health and Safety Act / Trial Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was an "employer" under the Occupational Health and Safety Act
  2. 2 Whether Chadwick Zinck was an employee or a "dependent contractor" under s.3(j) of the Act
  3. 3 Whether the Crown established employer status beyond a reasonable doubt

Ratio Decidendi

On the facts the relationship between Zinck and the defendant was closer to independent contractor/joint venture than employer‑employee: there was profit‑sharing, no evidence of control or direction by the defendant, and multiple sources of dependence; consequently the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was an "employer" under the Act and s.13(1)(a) did not apply to impose criminal liability on the defendant.

Court Disposition

Not guilty

Orders

  • Charge dismissed; defendant found not guilty of the offence charged under s.13(1)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act