In a significant decision, the Supreme Court of Canada (“CSC”) has widened the concept of responsibility in the case of R. v. Grand Sudbury (City). The CSC ruled Grand Sudbury (the “City”), as an “employer” under the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act (“OHSA”), could be held accountable for a pedestrian’s death, even though the City had contracted a third party to undertake the construction project as the “constructor”. This decision brings a critical shift to our understanding of legal duty and liability, as it enables corporations to bear responsibilities beyond their immediate sphere of actions.
The pedestrian was killed near a construction site managed by a third-party the City had appointed. The CSC’s ruling means that Grand Sudbury City, though not directly involved in construction operations, still held a certain degree of responsibility as the “employer.” Consequently, this suggests that corporations might be required to take extensive measures to ensure safety and compliance with the OHSA, even when they entrust tasks to other entities.
As detailed in the judgment, the core debate was about the City’s status and obligations under the OHSA. The court was tasked to decide whether Grand Sudbury City was, indeed, an “employer” or “constructor” as per the statute definitions.
According to the OHSA, a “constructor” is defined as a person or agency who oversees the execution of a project, while an “employer” is anyone who employs one or more workers. The CSC resolved this dilemma by stating that Grand Sudbury City’s role was that of an “employer”, not a “constructor”, and so had certain safety obligations. Even though the city had outsourced the construction assignments to a third party, it could not completely delegate its duties under the OHSA.
As legal professionals, it would be best to keep an eye on this evolving terrain of corporate responsibility. Companies should review their activities and operations to ensure compliance with laws like the OHSA, and be prepared for expanded interpretations of what it means to be an “employer”. Developing informed safety protocols for all stakeholders, even those one step removed from the direct business operation, could be a significant step towards this compliance.