R. v. McPhee

R. v. McPhee

McPhee was the constructor with the greatest degree of control over site operations; given the site's configuration, pedestrian use of the adjacent sidewalk and regular vehicle movements the risk of vehicle-pedestrian conflict was reasonably foreseeable; McPhee failed to take reasonable precautions (such as...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2013 NSPC 77
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: Darren Joseph McPhee
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Regulatory Criminal Prosecution (occupational Health and Safety) / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Guilty
Legal Topics
Constructor Duty, General Duty Under S.15(a) OHSA, Due Diligence Defence, Strict Liability
Source Language
english
Occupational Health and Safety Criminal Law Regulatory Offences Constructor Duty General Duty Under S.15(a) OHSA Due Diligence Defence Strict Liability

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Darren Joseph McPhee

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Regulatory Criminal Prosecution (occupational Health and Safety) / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Darren McPhee, as a constructor, failed to take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances to ensure the health and safety of persons at or near the project contrary to s.15(a) OHSA
  2. 2 Whether the hazard that caused the death of Dylan LeBlanc was reasonably foreseeable to McPhee
  3. 3 Whether McPhee established the defence of due diligence

Ratio Decidendi

McPhee was the constructor with the greatest degree of control over site operations; given the site's configuration, pedestrian use of the adjacent sidewalk and regular vehicle movements the risk of vehicle-pedestrian conflict was reasonably foreseeable; McPhee failed to take reasonable precautions (such as providing traffic control or protocols) and did not establish due diligence; guilty verdict follows for breach of s.15(a) OHSA.

Court Disposition

Guilty

Orders

  • Convicted of failing to take every reasonable precaution that was reasonable in the circumstances to ensure the health and safety of persons at or near a project contrary to subsection 15(a) and thereby committing an offence contrary to subsection 74(1)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.N.S. 1996 c.7