Workplace death-Transpave Inc.

On December 7, 2007, Transpave, Inc., a concrete block manufacturer northwest of Montreal,

pled guilty in Saint Jerome, Quebec to charges of “criminal negligence causing death” under the
Criminal Code. These charges arose from a 2005 workplace death taking place at the company.
A 23-year-old worker, Steve L’Écuyer, was killed while trying to clear a jam in a machine.
Investigations by Quebec’s Health and Safety Board and provincial police found the company
was negligent when it allowed L’Écuyer to operate the machine while its motion detector safety
mechanism deactivated.

In the Transpave case, the Crown and the Defence attorney made a joint submission to the
Court and agreed that a fine of $100,000 would be an appropriate punishment. In sentencing
Transpave Inc., the Court noted that the severity of the offence was high given that a death of a
person ensued. However, the Court also noted that Transpave is a family corporation and it had
derived no advantage from the perpetration of the offence. Furthermore, there had been no
planning of any sort to commit the offence in question. The Court also commented that safety
regulations had been in place prior to the accident, noting that there was an existing Health and
Safety Committee at Transpave, as well as a Code of Conduct for the employees to follow.

In addition to the above noted factors, the Court, in deciding what an appropriate penalty
would be, took note of the amount of money Transpave had invested in its safety systems
subsequent to the accident. For instance, in 2006, Transpave spent more than half a million
dollars to put its two plants at the safety level of Europe, which is higher than the one in force
in North America. Following the accident, Transpave undertook many measures to help ensure
that such an accident did not reoccur.

What this decision demonstrates is that, while there are no hard-and-fast rules to play by to
ensure an organization remains insulated from liability, it would be prudent for a corporation to
incorporate all the best practices and industry standards into an occupational health and safety
management system. As discussed above, in rendering its decision, the Court appeared to be
particularly influenced by the measures implemented after the employee’s death to prevent a
recurrence. Implementing health and safety measures will help demonstrate to a court that all
reasonable steps are being taken by the organization to ensure the workplace is safe.

More importantly, however, is that although it took four years for this first conviction and fine
to be imposed under the amendments, employers, senior management and members of Boards
of Directors should not allow themselves to suppose that the Criminal Code will not be used in
the future to prosecute where there is a statutory breach. Bill C-45 has made it easier to convict
a corporation criminally based on the conduct of its employees, and it will likely be increasingly
used in the future.

A final comment may be made about the rule against duplicity under the Criminal Code which
ensures that an accused cannot be convicted of the same offence more than once.

Questions-

1. What possible safety Regulations could Transpave Inc. have in place in order to avoid
such workplace deaths and accidents?
2. Was the severity of offence placed by the Crown on Transpave Inc. really high?