Case Law Summaries – Labour And Employment

MINES OPINACA LTÉE C. COMMISSION DES NORMES, DE L'ÉQUITÉ, DE LA SANTÉ ET DE LA SÉCURITÉ DU TRAVAIL DES NORMES, 2018 QCCS 4899

This decision was an appeal from a conviction under Québec's occupational health and safety regime. The appellant, Mines Opinaca ltée, operates a gold mine in Northern Québec. During the construction of the mine, the appellant installed fire doors in two underground mechanical workshops. During an inspection, an occupational health and safety inspector issued a correction notice requiring the appellant to install an automatic closing device on the fire doors within a specified timeframe.

Mines Opinaca complied with the requirement and installed an automatic closing system, but failed to comply with the time limit. In 2017, Mines Opinaca was convicted of violating provisions of the Act Respecting Occupational Health and Safety and the Regulation respecting occupational health and safety in mines.

Mines Opinaca contested the conviction because it was unreasonable on the evidence, arguing that the convicting judge erred in law. Mines Opinaca argued that it was impossible to install the automatic closing device within the required time frame, since the steel fire door onto which the device was to be installed was defective. The underlying defect had to be corrected before the automatic closing device could be installed.

The Québec Superior Court agreed. The Court reversed the conviction on the basis that the evidence showed that it was impossible for the appellant to comply with the timeframe in the correction notice. The Court held that the trial judge erred in dismissing the defence of impossibility, allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant of the offence charged.

MOUNT POLLEY MINING CORPORATION V. UNITED STEEL, PAPER AND FORESTRY, RUBBER, MANUFACTURING, ENERGY, ALLIED INDUSTRIAL AND SERVICE WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 1-2017., 2018 CANLII 64302

This case involved allegations by a union that Mount Polley Mining Corporation breached s. 54 of the B.C. Labour Relations Code (Code) when it failed to give 60 days' notice before laying off a significant number of employees in early 2018.

Mount Polley argued that it should be relieved of its obligation under s. 54 because the layoff resulted from circumstances outside of its control, or alternatively because the requirements of s. 54 would only result in increased layoff notice to individual employees who were already appropriately compensated in accordance with...