Category Archives: Canada

Radiohead stage collapse victims let down by the justice system


On September 5, 2017, Justice Nelson of the Ontario Court of Justice stayed all quasi-criminal charges against the three corporate and one individual accused in the deadly stage collapse at the Radiohead concert in Downsview Park on June 16, 2012.  These charges under the Occupational Health & Safety Act (“OHSA”) are some of the latest in a series of serious regulatory and criminal charges, that have been stayed for unreasonable delay as a result of the Jordan decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Radiohead, a British rock band, was scheduled to perform at a concert in Toronto at Downsview Park.  Just hours before the start of the concert, the stage superstructure collapsed.  Scott Johnson, a drum technician, and resident of the United Kingdom,  was fatally injured.  Others were also seriously injured.

On June 6, 2013, the Government of Ontario’s Ministry of Labour laid charges against a number of parties under the OHSA, including but not limited to, Live Nation Canada Inc., Optex Staging & Services Inc., and the professional engineer who provided advice and engineering drawings and certification, Domenic Cugliari.

The case was factually and legally serious and complex.  It proceeded to trial in November 2015, before Justice Nakatsuru, of the Ontario Court of Justice.  Although during that trial, there had been an Application for Delay, after the Jordan decision was released by the Supreme Court of Canada on July 8, 2016, it was rejected by the trial judge.  The trial proceeded, the prosecution and defense evidence was completed, and the lawyers were in the process of making final, written submissions on the merits of the prosecution.

However, on April 12, 2017, before all the final arguments were made, Justice Nakatsuru was appointed to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, by the Federal Attorney General, Jody Wilson-Raybould.  As a result, and under instructions from the Department of Justice not to do any further work on any matter, including the completion of the Live Nation case, Justice Nakatsuru ruled that he had no jurisdiction to continue the trial, and declared a mis-trial.

The  policy and practice of the Department of Justice did not permit Justice Nakatsuru to complete the trial, after his appointment to the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario.  Justice Nelson, was appointed to be the second trial judge. On a pre-trial Charter delay motion, to stay the OHSA charges for a breach of s. 11(b) of the Charter, said the following at paragraph 70:

[70] Both Cugliari and Live Nation submit that Justice Nakatsuru’s appointment should not be treated as a discrete event because although unforeseen by the Crown in this case, it was not unforeseen by the state.  Further, the state failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate any delay that did ensue.  Specifically, counsel point to the following:

  • The Provincial government failed to pass legislation which would have permitted Justice Nakatsuru to complete the trial;
  • Justice Nakatsuru would have known that he was presiding over this trial when he applied to the Superior Court bench thus risking the mistrial;
  • Justice Nakatsuru could have deferred his appointment until after he completed this case;
  • The Federal government should have ensured that Justice Nakatsuru was not appointed until this trial was completed.[1]

Although the Crown prosecutor persuaded Justice Nelson that the judicial appointment was a discrete exceptional event, it still did not permit this type of overall delay that occurred in this case.  The trial justice held that even if one was to give thirty (30) months to complete this type of trial, rather than the presumptive eighteen (18) months, that the delay still far exceeded that period of time;  the case having been in the judicial system for almost five (5) years.

The charges were stayed for breach of the constitutional right, under the Charter, to a trial within a reasonable period of time under section 11(b).

[1]       Ibid., para. 70.

Deferred Prosecution Agreements Regime: A Canadian Proposal

Diversion programs for those accused of criminal offences are not new in Canada.  In Québec, for example, first-time individual accused or accused suffering from a psychiatric or medical condition may participate in a diversion program, which results in the criminal charges being dropped.  Corporations may also benefit from diversion programs, such as the Competition Bureau’s Immunity and Leniency Programs.

Transparency International Canada (“TI Canada”), a non-governmental anti-corruption organization, released a report in July, 2017 “urging” the Canadian government to adopt a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (“DPA”) mechanism, modeled closely to the current regime in the U.K.  A DPA is an agreement between the prosecutor and the accused suspending outstanding charges and requiring the accused to fulfill a certain number of commitments.  Once the accused has completed its contractual undertakings, the prosecutor will drop the charges.

TI Canada’s Recommended DPA Mechanism

The proposed scheme, according to TI Canada, addresses all the pitfalls of the current DPA regime in the U.S., but retains all of the advantages, including encouraging greater enforcement and self-reporting, saving costs and resources for both parties, and promoting certainty and transparency for all stakeholders involved.

TI Canada recommends that the proposed DPA scheme only be available to corporate accused who are charged with economic crimes.  The DPA scheme would be legislatively enacted and judicially monitored to fulfill the underlying three objectives of financial reparations, sincere compliance reform, and accountability of individual wrongdoers.

Below is a summary of the proposed regime.

Continue Reading »

Government of Canada Launches Federal Contracting Fraud “Tip Line”

On April 20, 2017, the Government of Canada introduced a new tool in the fight against federal fraud.[1] The federal contracting fraud tip line is a joint initiative between the Competition Bureau, Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP).  It allows anyone who suspects unethical business practices in federal contracting, such as bid-rigging, price-fixing, bribery, undisclosed conflict of interest and fraudulent contract schemes, to report it anonymously. Individuals may report either by calling in to a toll-free number or by completing an online form.[2] The information provided through the tip line will be shared with three federal organizations and will be used to help conduct investigations and to introduce due diligence measures, where warranted. Any suspected criminal activity that is uncovered as a result will be turned over to the Competition Bureau and/or the RCMP.

The tip line complements measures already in place at the Competition Bureau to detect fraud in the realm of federal contracting. The immunity and leniency programs are currently the most relied upon by the Competition Bureau to detect and investigate criminal offences under the Competition Act. Under these programs, individuals with evidence of criminal offenses under the Competition Act are given immunity or lenient treatment if they cooperate with the Competition Bureau and Crown in investigating and prosecuting others implicated in the illegal activity.  However, the Competition Bureau has still encountered challenges over the years in securing convictions with the evidence obtained through these programs. The primary reason being insufficient resources and the lack of experience and training of Competition Bureau investigators.

This was evident in the 2014-2015 trial of several information technology companies and individuals charged with conspiracy and working together to obtain contracts with the federal government. The trial arose from charges laid following an investigation at the Competition Bureau and ultimately led to a defeat for the Competition Bureau, due to the weaknesses in the Crown’s case. At trial, it was shown that the Competition Bureau had relied almost exclusively on the testimony of self-interested people who were competing against the accused when making its referral of the case to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Competition Bureau investigators had essentially taken the immunity and leniency reports of these individuals without independent investigation. The evidence at trial disclosed that the Bureau investigators in charge of the case, while seizing hundreds of thousands of documents from the suspect companies, failed to seek any significant material from the government agencies involved. The resulting, 8-month jury trial resulted in 60 not-guilty verdicts.

It will be interesting to see if the Competition Bureau, with its new Tip Line has learned from such cases and how it investigates future potential criminal offences under the Competition Act. By collaborating with RCMP officials, this hopefully marks the beginning of additional measures being implemented by the Competition Bureau to ensure that allegations of illegal conduct are investigated thoroughly and that only appropriate action is taken. It is not clear whether the Competition Bureau, PSPC or the RCMP will take the lead in investigations arising from tip line complaints. The addition of a combined task force, signals that the Competition Bureau is getting serious in its efforts to  detect and investigate Anti-corruption crimes.

[1]       “Government of Canada launches tip line to help Canadians report federal contracting fraud

[2]       “Report wrongdoing in government contracts and real property agreements

Workplace Manslaughter Charge Going To Trial Says Quebec Superior Court

 

construction-site-1477687_1280

The Quebec Superior Court recently released a decision with broad implications for corporate employers, owners, managers and supervisors across Canada.  In R. c. Fournier,[1] Justice Villemure held that an individual’s  contravention of provincial health and safety legislation was an “unlawful act”, under section s. 222(5)(a) of the Criminal Code (“Code”) and therefore a basis for committal to trial under a criminal charge of manslaughter.  This case involved the owner of a small construction company, who is now personally being charged with manslaughter arising from a workplace fatality. This is the first decision of its kind in Canada.

The decision must not only have been a shock for Mr. Fournier, the owner of a small construction firm, who had lost a worker in a tragic workplace accident, but also for criminal lawyers across Canada, since this is the first time this issue has been considered by the courts.  It  will be even more shocking for individuals, supervisors and employers, and others, bound to comply with provincial, strict liability health and safety laws.  Since there were 852 workplace fatalities in Canada in 2015 – there were 852 potential opportunities for a contravention of health and safety laws to give rise to criminal manslaughter charges.[2]

What Happened in this Case

According to the Superior Court’s decision the facts of the case include the following:

  • Lévesque and Mr. Fournier were working together at a construction project replacing in-ground sewer and water main lines;
  • The Quebec Safety Code was applicable to the excavation that was taking place;
  • Fournier and Mr. Lévesque were both working in an excavation on the day of the fatality;
  • The walls of the excavation were not shored, and dirt and other material removed from excavation was placed too close to the edge of the excavation;
  • Lévesque died when the walls of the excavation collapsed. He was working alone at the time of the collapse.[3]

Mr. Fournier was charged with two counts under the Code — criminal negligence for breach of the duty of persons directing work under section 217.1 thereby violating s. 220 of the Code, and manslaughter by unlawful act under section 222(5)(a) of the Code. There is no mention in the Superior Court decision about whether strict liability offences under the Quebec Safety Code were also laid against Mr. Fournier and what the outcome, if any of those charges were.

Following a preliminary inquiry, a judge committed Mr. Fournier to stand trial on both charges.  Mr. Fournier challenged the committal to stand trial on the manslaughter charge.

Continue Reading »

Upcoming Event: Is Canada taking White Collar Crime Seriously?

17-0195-LA-NormKeithSeminar_Social_Banner

Norm Keith, LL.M., partner at Fasken Martineau, will address this timely and important topic of the accountability, criminal enforcement and the social responsibility of corporations in Canada. Topics to be covered will include:

1. The “new normal” of criminalizing corporate behavior;
2. How the Westray Mine disaster changed corporate criminal liability;
3. The problem of proof in white collar prosecutions (Dunn & Duffy);
4. Recent examples of white collar convictions (Karigar & Kazenelson);
5. Will criminal prosecutions make businesses “more ethical”;
6. Towards a rationale model of corporate accountability and compliance.

When:
Wednesday, March 22, 2017
7:45am Breakfast
8:15am Presentation
9:00am Q&A

Where:
Fasken Martineau, 333 Bay Street, 24th Floor, Bay Adelaide

>> Register Now – Space is limited <<

A New “Certainty” in Plea Bargaining

rogers-centre-828923_1280
In R v Anthony-Cook[1], the Supreme Court in a unanimous judgement authored by Moldaver J. has settled the test to be applied where a judge is faced with a joint submission he or she has difficulty accepting.  This case has important implications for accused and their counsel in negotiating a Plea bargain with the Crown in criminal and quasi-criminal, regulatory prosecutions.

Joint submissions are the culmination of the plea bargaining process in criminal cases. They are the result of discussions and negotiations, often with the assistance of a judge conducting pre-trial conference. The Crown inevitably focuses on the seriousness of the allegations and the harm to the alleged victims. The defence will focus on numerous considerations including mitigating factors, circumstances of the accused, evidentiary problems with the Crown’s case and remedial steps taken by the accused. Sometimes the negotiations involve consideration of what’s often referred to as a “rehabilitative remand” where the accused is given time to undergo a restorative justice program, make restitution, or initiate procedures to prevent the harm caused from reoccurring.

Continue Reading »

Corporate Compliance to Prevent Criminal Liability in Canada

tie-690084Introduction: The Bill C-45 Initiative

Effective corporate compliance to prevent regulatory risk requires a foundation of legal understanding. While corporate accountability and criminal liability has been a recent focus of legislation, law enforcement and regulatory agencies, the modern legislative framework for holding corporations criminally responsible for the wrongdoing[1] was enacted over a decade ago with the passing of Bill C-45 – An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Criminal Liability of Organizations).

These amendments to the Criminal Code (“Code”) expanded the range of individuals whose acts and omissions could result in corporate criminal liability from those who were “directing minds” to the current standard descried in the Code as “senior officers”. Somewhat surprisingly, there have been few cases interpreting the new Code provisions and considering the scope of individuals that may be “senior officers” for the purposes of the Code. The limited jurisprudence does affirm the increased risk of criminal liability for corporations arising from the Bill C-45 amendments. Decisions from the Courts of Appeal for Ontario and Quebec[2] indicate that courts will interpret the term “senior officer” broadly, encompassing certain lower level managers as well as those employees who manage an important aspect of the corporation’s business.

Replacement of “Directing Mind” with Statutory Formula

The historical and political impetus for Bill C-45 was the 1992 Westray mine disaster, where 26 miners were killed in Pictou County, Nova Scotia. No individuals or corporate employer was ever convicted of a criminal or occupational health and safety regulatory offence. In response to a public inquiry, failed legal proceedings and union lobbying, Bill C-45 was passed to amend the Code to facilitate the conviction of organizations for criminal offences.

Under the former identification theory, a corporation faced criminal liability for the criminal acts of a “directing mind” of the corporation. At common law, the directing mind was defined as a person with:[3]

authority to design and supervise the implementation of corporate policy rather than simply to carry out such policy. In other words, the courts must consider who has been left with the decision making power in a relevant sphere of corporate activity.

The amendments were designed to remedy the inherent limitations of the attached to the “directing mind” paradigm and to better align the Code with the reality of modern, large corporations. As a result, Bill C-45 introduced the defined term “senior officer”. Under the Code, “senior officer” is:

  • a representative who plays an important role in the establishment of an organization’s policies; or
  • is responsible for managing an important aspect of the organization’s activities; and,
  • in the case of a body corporate, includes a director, its chief executive officer and its chief financial officer.

Continue Reading »

Securities Regulatory Authorities Release Results of Gender Diversity and Term Limit Disclosure Review

pexels-photo-70292

This post was originally published on Timely Disclosure (a Fasken Martineau blog) and authored by Tracy L. Hooey.

Securities regulatory authorities in Ontario and nine other provinces and territories of Canada published CSA Multilateral Staff Notice 58-308 Staff Review of Women on Boards and in Executive Officer Positions – Compliance with NI 58-101 Disclosure of Corporate Governance Practices on September 28, 2016.  The staff notice summarizes a review of the gender diversity and term limit disclosure of 677 non-venture issuers (being those listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange with year-ends between December 31, 2015 and March 31, 2016).  As a result, these statistics do not include data regarding most banks.

Key findings of the gender diversity disclosure review include:

  • there are more women on boards than last year. Of the 215 issuers with over $1 billion market capitalization, 18% of board seats are held by women (up from 10% last year);
  • only 21% of issuers adopted a policy relating to the identification and nomination of women directors (up from 15% last year) and issuers with such a policy had higher average female board representation (18%) as compared to those with no policy (10%);
  • only 9% of issuers set a target for the representation of women on boards (up from 7% last year) and those issuers with targets had a greater number of women on their boards (25%) than those without a target (10%);
  • 66% of issuers disclosed that they consider the representation of women on their boards as part of their director identification and nominating process (up from 60% last year);
  • board and executive officer representation by women varied significantly by industry.

Key findings of the board renewal disclosure review include:

  • 20% of issuers adopted director term limits (up from 19% last year);
  • of those issuers with term limits, 48% set age limits, 23% had tenure limits and 29% had both;
  • the most common reason cited for not adopting board renewal mechanisms was that term limits reduce continuity or experience on the board.

This release follows Ontario Securities Commission Chair and CEO Maureen Jensen’s call for leadership on women on boards.  Chair Jensen highlighted the low number of women filling board vacancies.  She noted that “of the 521 board seats vacated during the year, just 15% were filled by women” and “without an improvement in the vacancy fill rate, we will never reach 30% female board representation”.

Proposed Amendments to CBCA

In addition, the Government of Canada released proposed amendments to the Canada Business Corporations Act which, among other things, would require that distributing CBCA corporations identify the gender composition of their boards and senior management and disclose their diversity policies or explain why none are in place.

OSC Launches Whistleblower Program

The Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) has launched the Office of the Whistleblower and published OSC Policy 15-601 Whistleblower Program effective July 15, 2016. Together, these initiatives establish a new whistleblowing program that offers financial awards of up to $5 million for tips on possible violations of Ontario securities law that lead to enforcement action.

The OSC program allows whistleblowers to make anonymous reports to the OSC, and new protections have been enacted for whistleblowers that access the program. In particular, the Securities Act has been amended to add anti-reprisal provisions protecting employees who have sought advice about, expressed an intention to or actually provided information about a possible securities violation to the OSC.  In addition, the Act invalidates gag or confidentiality provisions or agreements that would otherwise silence or prevent whistleblowers from participating in an investigation.

Continue Reading »

Competition Bureau secures second-largest fine in Canadian bid-rigging history

On April 1, 2016, the Competition Bureau and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC), formerly the Federal Department of Justice, secured their ninth guilty plea in the Bureau’s years-long investigation of the Japanese auto parts industry. .The Showa Corporation—a Japanese manufacturer and supplier of auto parts—pleaded guilty in Court to one count of bid-rigging under section 47 of the Competition Act. The Showa Corporation was sentenced to pay a fine of $13 million—the second largest fine ever ordered by a Canadian court for a bid-rigging offence.

Continue Reading »