Professional Documents
Culture Documents
R V Tower Arctic, 2020 NUCJ 39
R V Tower Arctic, 2020 NUCJ 39
________________________________________________________________________
I. INTRODUCTION
[1] Tower Arctic has pleaded guilty to a charge pursuant to s. 4(1) of the
Safety Act, RSNWT (Nu) 1988, c S-1, which states:
II. FACTS
[2] On September 19, 2018, Steven Innuara started his first day on a job
with Tower Arctic in Pond Inlet, Nunavut. The company was making
signs for work sites by taking old metal barrels and cutting a square
hole in the top of the barrel into which a sign was placed.
[3] Mr. Innuara's first task at his new job was to accompany his
supervisor to the dump to retrieve some barrels. Two barrels were
scavenged from an area of the dump marked “hazardous materials”.
The two returned to the company's workshop known as the “sea can
shop”.
[4] Mr. Innuara's supervisor showed him how to cut a hole in the top of a
barrel using a handheld grinder. Before starting work on the second
barrel the supervisor was called away.
[5] Mr. Innuara understood that he was to proceed with cutting the
second barrel. While he was cutting the barrel, sparks from the
grinder ignited combustible gases in the barrel, causing an explosion.
[6] The force from the explosion blew the top off the barrel, hitting Mr.
Innuara in the face and breaking his face shield before continuing
upward and damaging the tent roof of the sea can shop. Mr. Innuara
was knocked to the ground. He was semi-conscious.
3
[7] Other workers in the shop responded immediately. First aid was
administered to Mr. Innuara and a call was made for emergency
assistance. The RCMP responded and took Mr. Innuara to the Health
Centre. Mr. Innuara had several broken teeth, a laceration to his face
and chin, and singed hair. He was med-evaced to Iqaluit and on to
Ottawa. He was released from the hospital in Ottawa on September
24, 2018. He returned to work on October 2, 2018.
[8] Tower Arctic violated s. 4(1) of the Safety Act by: failing to perform a
hazard assessment before undertaking the work; failing to determine
what materials the barrels had contained; failing to decontaminate the
barrels; failing to provide Mr. Innuara with a safety orientation; and
failing to properly supervise Mr. Innuara.
[9] The parties jointly submit that an appropriate sentence is a fine in the
amount of $75,000, along with the victim of crime surcharge.
[11] Fines payable under the Act are deposited into the Workers’
Protection Fund (s. 22(6)). The Workers’ Protection Fund is
established pursuant to s. 67 of the Workers' Compensation Act, SNu
2007, c 15 and is used to pay out compensation for injuries, diseases,
and deaths in the workplace and to pay the costs associated with
administering the workers’ compensation scheme.
4
[12] Section 14(1) of the Victims of Crime Act, RSNWT (Nu) 1988, c 9,
establishes a Victims Assistance Fund which is used for:
[13] Section 2 of the Victims of Crime Regulations, NWT Reg (Nu) 013-92,
promulgated pursuant to the Victims of Crime Act, establishes a
surcharge of 15% of any fine be paid by an offender into the fund.
V. ANALYSIS
[14] Many activities and enterprises which are undertaken daily by both
individuals and organizations are regulated to ensure safety of the
public. Just as we expect and rely upon the government, through the
imposition of a licensing regime, to ensure that drivers on the road are
knowledgeable and capable, so too do we rely upon a multitude of
regulatory regimes to ensure such things as environmental protection
and food safety. As stated in R v Cotton Felts Ltd., [1982] OJ No 178,
2 CCC (3d) 287:
[15] Safety in the workplace is such a regulated activity. All workers, most
of whom have no option but to participate in the wage economy and
place themselves in the workplace, are entitled to safe working
environment. It is the employer who must be responsible for providing
such an environment.
5
[21] This should include a consideration of the harm done and the degree
of culpability of the corporate offender, which might be reflected in
efforts to comply with the regulatory regime, the duration of the
misconduct, the motivation for the misconduct, and any profits flowing
from the misconduct.
[23] This will involve a consideration of the size and wealth of the
corporate offender, steps that the offender took to rectify the
misconduct, any history of non-compliance, and the nature of the
corporation’s relationship with the regulating agency.
[28] Similarly, I have not been provided with any information regarding the
nature of Tower Arctic Ltd. It is not possible for me to assess the
impact of the proposed fine on the corporate offender. I am reliant
upon counsel and must assume that they have made that assessment
and, for some reason, do not wish to provide the court with the
information.
8
[31] I have been provided information that reflects on the attitude of the
corporate offender. The corporation does not have other convictions
for safety violations. Following the incident, the corporation undertook
immediate and significant steps to address safety issues and attitudes
in the workplace. The practice of repurposing steel barrels was
abolished. The supervisors who were responsible for the workplace at
the time of the incident either resigned or were replaced by individuals
with more safety experience. A new position of Safety Agent was
established. Reviews were undertaken not only of the circumstances
that led to the incident but also a broader review of the corporation’s
safety program. All supervisors undertook safety training. The
corporation worked with the WSCC in providing the training.
Essentially, the corporation undertook a corporation wide
reinvigoration of its safety culture.
9
VII. CONCLUSION
[32] The joint submission on sentence is acceded to. There will be a fine
of $75,000 payable by March 31, 2021. There will be a victims of
crime surcharge of $11,250 also payable by March 31, 2021.
___________________
Justice S. Cooper
Nunavut Court of Justice