Recently, our firm represented an Alberta employer facing multiple Occupational Health and Safety charges arising from a serious workplace incident involving equipment and overhead power lines.
As is often the case in regulatory prosecutions, the charges sounded straightforward on paper.
But trials are not decided on paper.
They are decided on evidence, legal burden, and whether the Crown can actually prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.
So what did we do?
We prepared the case for trial in detail. That included:
Careful review of the disclosure;
Examination of the worksite circumstances and operational realities;
Analysis of foreseeability and reasonable practicability;
Scrutiny of whether the alleged “reasonable steps” were truly required in the circumstances or would have made a difference;
Challenging assumptions embedded in the prosecution theory; and
Raising disclosure concerns that affected the fairness of the proceeding.
We shared our concerns with the Crown in advance of the trial, and pushed for withdrawal of the charges. But the Crown wasn’t willing to abandon the prosecution.
The result?
After just three days into what was scheduled to be a two week trial, the matter was adjourned, and the Crown withdrew the entirety of the charges. Not just “stayed” the charges, but withdrew them completely; all without the defence having to call a single witness.
Not every charge that starts in court finishes there. A disciplined defence, careful preparation, and a willingness to take a matter to trial can materially change the outcome.