1. The Metron Case & Criminal Liability
What does it mean to your company?

2.  What actually happened?
 What was done wrong?
 On what counts could the prosecution prove criminal
negligence?
 What consequences arose out of this case?
 What does the Metron Case mean to your company?

3.  Involves workers on a balcony restoration project in
Toronto on December 24, 2009
 5 workers + supervisor climbed onto a swing stage,
which almost immediately collapsed
 5 out of 6 men fell 14 floors to the ground
◦ 4 of the 5 workers died as a result of injuries from the fall
◦ The 5th worker survived but suffered serious injuries
 The 6th worker was uninjured

4.  The swing stage that
collapsed
◦ Appeared new
◦ Had no markings, serial
numbers, identifiers, or labels
regarding the stage’s
maximum capacity
◦ Arrived without any manual,
instructions, or other product
information (e.g., design
*OHSA requires that all equipment arrive with
drawings prepared by an manuals and other necessary materials, as
engineer)* specified by s.139(5)

5.  The swing stage hadn’t been properly constructed
◦ It wouldn’t have been safe for even 2 workers
◦ Only 2 lifelines were available for the swing stage
 It was “the normal and usual practice on the project for only two
workers to be on the swing stage at any time.”
 Only 1 of the 6 workers had used the lifelines – he didn’t fall.

6.  3 of the 4 deceased workers (including the supervisor)
had marijuana in their systems
◦ The levels of marijuana were consistent with having recently
ingested the drug

7.  Metron’s supervisor failed to take reasonable steps to
prevent bodily harm and death
1. He directed and/or permitted 6 workers to work on the swing
stage (along with various construction materials)
 He knew or should have known that it was unsafe to do so
2. He directed and/or permitted 6 workers to board the swing
stage knowing that only 2 lifelines were available (and he
permitted that only 1 of those lifelines was actually used)
3. He permitted persons under the influence of drugs to work on
the project

9. The offence took place
on December 24, 2009

10. The individual was a supervisor
with associated work directing-
based job duties

11. (As seen on the previous slide)
The supervisor acted
wrongfully on several accounts

12. The supervisor had also
ingested marijuana and he
permitted 6 workers onto a
swing stage that was built for 2

13. 4 out of 6 workers died and 1
worker was severely injured

14. Metron Construction is a
recognized company,
therefore, it is considered an
“organization”

15. The people injured were all
employed by Metron
Construction and they were
completing a work-related project

16. The supervisor was authorized to
be working at the high-rise
apartment complex, and all
workers were taking his direction

17. The supervisor had ingested
marijuana and he permitted 6
workers to be on the swing stage
at once without proper safety
restraints

18. The supervisor should have
• …Normally known to and
made use of the proper safety
lifelines;
• …Allowed the proper number
of people on the swing stage;
and
• …Not been ingesting an illegal
substance

19.  The Crown sought a $1,000,000 fine against Metron
 Metron pleaded guilty, but asked for a fine of $100,000
◦ Real cause for accident was faulty construction of the swing stage
◦ Prior, the corporation had “good character”
◦ $1M would send Metron into bankruptcy and never pay fine
 The Court decided upon $200,000
◦ Acknowledged likelihood of bankruptcy if Metron was to pay $1M
fine
◦ Metron had no previous criminal record
◦ Agreed with the Crown that $100K didn’t properly fit the crime

20.  Joel Swartz, the owner of
Metron, pleaded guilty
under the OSHA, as he…
◦ Failed to ensure written
instructions in workers’ own
languages
◦ Failed to ensure proper
training
◦ Failed to ensure the swing ► Swartz was fined $22,500
stage was not defective + 25% victim surcharge,
◦ Failed to ensure the swing per victim
stage was not overloaded ► Total fine = $112,500

21. Criminal Code & the Metron Case
C-45 and Criminal Liability
What does the Metron Case
mean for your business?

22.  Metron Construction was prosecuted on OH&S Criminal
charges
◦ These are different from OHSA violations
◦ These charges come from C-45
 The Metron case is considered the highest profile OH&S
Criminal prosecution to date

23.  Canadian Criminal Code amendment
◦ National in scope
◦ Took effect on 3/31/2004
 New section of the Criminal Code (Section 217.1)
◦ “Everyone who undertakes, or has the authority, to direct how
another person does work or performs a task” must take
“reasonable steps” to protect the person who does the work or
another person against bodily injury arising out of the work.
 “Reasonable steps”
◦ Decided one case at a time by the courts
◦ Compliance with local OHSA laws (at minimum)
◦ Industry standards, best practices, etc.

24.  Criminal Liability can result from:
◦ Failure to follow OHS laws
◦ Failure to ensure workplace health and safety
 Conviction results in…
◦ High fine (maximum $100,000)
◦ Jail
◦ If someone is killed, no maximum on the amount of fine or time of
jail sentence
 Criminal negligence is only proven from a show of total
disregard or indifference to workplace health and safety

25.  Companies are liable under C-45 for convictions against:
◦ Their employees
◦ Their contractors
◦ Other agents not on company’s payroll
 Liability isn’t based on a person’s title (e.g., “employer,”
“supervisor,” or “contractor”)
◦ Based on whether the person directs or has authority to direct
how the work is done

26.  Who directs or has authority to direct how the work is
done? They…
◦ Have control over who can do a job;
◦ Have control over what tools or methods are used;
◦ Train the people who actually perform the job; and/or
◦ Have authority to stop work because it’s unsafe.
 Note: A person, like a worker, who just decides to direct
work even if he doesn’t have the authority to do so is
liable under C-45

27.  Show due diligence:
◦ Have an effective OHS program in place
◦ Prove that you protected workers
◦ Prove compliance with OHS laws
 By showing due diligence, you can make it impossible
for the prosecutor to convict you of criminal negligence
under C-45
◦ Save your reputation, time, and money
◦ Most Importantly: Keep your workers safe!
 Know the laws (both OHS and Criminal Code)

28.  This Court decision set a precedent for fines against
senior officers under OHSA
◦ Maximum fine is $25,000 per C-45 charge
◦ Additionally, 25% victim surcharge fees
 “Senior Officer” is a broad term
◦ Has come to include front-line supervisors (e.g., Metron)
 The Crown didn’t insist upon incarceration
◦ I.e., jail sentences were and will continue to be rare under OHSA
 Fines charged to the guilty party will be determined with
consideration upon the party’s financial situation

29. SafetySmart makes it easy to manage a compliant and effective safety program. Join
the thousands of safety professionals who rely on SafetySmart to keep their people
safe and their programs compliant.
Sign up today for more information about SafetySmart!