R. v. Tricell Construction Ltd.

R. v. Tricell Construction Ltd.

The Crown proved the actus reus on all four regulatory counts: the stairwell coverings met the definition of temporary flooring but the Peri panel portion was not securely fastened, creating a fall hazard and triggering the guardrail requirement; the defendant, through its directing mind, knew or should have known of the risk and failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that it took all reasonable care (due diligence), therefore guilty on all counts.

Citation
2008 NSPC 31
Parties
Prosecution (crown): R.; Defendant (employer): Tricell Construction Limited
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Regulatory Prosecution Under Occupational Health and Safety Act / Decision (guilty Finding)
Outcome
Defendant found guilty on all four counts as charged
Legal Topics
Fall Protection, Temporary Flooring, Guardrails, Due Diligence, Strict Liability
Source Language
English
Occupational Health and Safety Regulatory Offences Construction Safety Criminal Law Fall Protection Temporary Flooring Guardrails Due Diligence +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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R.

Prosecution (crown)

Tricell Construction Limited

Defendant (employer)

Procedural Posture

Regulatory Prosecution Under Occupational Health and Safety Act / Decision (guilty Finding)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the stairwell coverings constituted "temporary flooring" under the Regulations
  2. 2 Whether the stairwell coverings were securely fastened as required by s.14(2) of the Fall Protection and Scaffolding Regulations
  3. 3 Whether a guardrail was required around the second floor opening under s.9 read with s.7 of the Fall Protection and Scaffolding Regulations

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown proved the actus reus on all four regulatory counts: the stairwell coverings met the definition of temporary flooring but the Peri panel portion was not securely fastened, creating a fall hazard and triggering the guardrail requirement; the defendant, through its directing mind, knew or should have known of the risk and failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that it took all reasonable care (due diligence), therefore guilty on all counts.

Court Disposition

Defendant found guilty on all four counts as charged