ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE CITATION: R. v. Don Anderson Haulage Ltd., 2017 ONCJ 91 DATE: January 31, 2017 INFORMATION NO. 16:07731 BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN — AND — DON ANDERSON HAULAGE LTD. SENTENCING Before Justice Joseph F. Kenkel January 31, 2017. Mr. Stephane Marinier .............................................................. counsel for the Federal Crown Mr.

Michael Anderson ...................................................................... counsel for the defendant KENKEL J.: [1] The company has pleaded guilty to an offence contrary to s.148(2) of the Canada Labour Code RSC 1985 c L2, where injurywas caused. The Crown elected to proceed summarily. The admitted facts disclose further contraventions arising out of the sameincident. [2] In this case a co-op student and part-time employee was operating a crane moving steel beams. He had not been trained in thesafe use and operation of that crane. None of the employees present knew he hadn’t been fully trained.

A beam fell onto a workercrushing his leg. That person was off work for two years and has now returned to the company doing office work as he’s unable toresume his prior job as a truck driver. [3] The Federal Crown and the company jointly submit a fine of $70,000.

I find that fine is appropriate in this case for thefollowing reasons: • the guilty plea at a very early opportunity is an acknowledgement of responsibility and remorse • the company was cooperative with the investigation • the company has taken several steps to remedy the deficiencies including bringing in an outside consultant to review allsafety issues and acting upon those recommendations • the company has a good history of workplace safety over 60 years • the company has provided financial information to the Crown showing significant business losses in the past two years dueto external industry factors [4] I accept that the fine proposed is a significant penalty for this mid-sized company of 100 employees in these circumstancesand I find it is otherwise a fit sentence that addresses the purpose and principles of sentence in this context.

See: R v Cotton Felts (ON CA), [1982] OJ No 178 (CA). Released: January 31, 2017.

________________________ Justice Joseph F. Kenkel