Greater Sudbury and Interpaving will make a first court appearance Oct. 14 on charges both are facing as a result of the death of a Sudbury senior in 2015.
On Sept. 19, the Ontario Ministry of Labour announced the city was facing seven charges and Interpaving three as a result of the tragedy.
The charges come as the one year anniversary of the death of 58-year-old Cécile Paquette approaches. Paquette was struck and killed in September last year at the corner of Elgin and Beech Street. Her family is suing the city, Interpaving Ltd. and the driver of the road grader for $2 million.
Interpaving has since been banned from bidding on future city contracts, although has been able to bid on subcontracting jobs.
Ministry of Labour spokesperson Gloria Yip said in an email Greater Sudbury is facing the following seven charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and is accused of failing to:
- ensure that the provisions of s.104(3) of Ontario Regulation 213/91 were complied with, at a workplace located at Beech St. and Elgin St., contrary to s. 23(1)(a) of the Act. That refers to the requirement to have signallers on site if there is a concern about machine operators having an obstructed view that could put a person's life in danger.
- ensure that the provisions of s. 65 of Ontario Regulation 213/91 were complied with, at a workplace located at Beech St. and Elgin St., contrary to s. 23(1)(a) of the Act. That refers to the requirement that a sturdy fence at least 1.8 metres in height be constructed between the public way and the project ff work on a project may endanger a person using a public area.
- ensure that the provisions of s. 67(4) of Ontario Regulation 213/91 were complied with, at a workplace located at Beech St. and Elgin St., contrary to s. 23(1)(a) of the Act.
- ensure that every employer and every worker on a project complied with the OHSA and its regulations, contrary to s. 23(1)(b) of the Act. Particulars: The defendant failed to ensure that Interpaving Limited complied with the provisions of Regulation 231/91 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act that says: “Every employer shall develop in writing and implement a traffic protection plan for the employers’ workers at a project if any of them may be exposed to a hazard from vehicular traffic.”
- ensure that the provisions of s.104(3) of Ontario Regulation 213/91 were complied with, at a workplace located at Beech St. and Elgin St., contrary to s. 25(1)(c) of the Act. That refers to the city's responsibility to ensure the contractor was following that section of the act.
- ensure that the provisions of s. 65 of Ontario Regulation 213/91 were complied with, at a workplace located at Beech St. and Elgin St., contrary to s. 25(1)(c) of the Act. That also refers to the city's responsibility to ensure the contractor was following that section of the act.
- ensure that the provisions of s. 67(4) of Ontario Regulation 213/91 were complied with, at a workplace located at Beech St. and Elgin St., contrary to s. 25(1)(c) of the Act. That refers to the requirement to have a traffic protection plan in place.
The three charges against Interpaving Ltd. accuse them of failing to:
- ensure that the provisions of s.104(3) of Ontario Regulation 213/91 were complied with, at a workplace located at Beech St. and Elgin St., contrary to s. 25(1)(c) of the Act.
- ensure that the provisions of s. 65 of Ontario Regulation 213/91 were complied with, at a workplace located at Beech St. and Elgin St., contrary to s. 25(1)(c) of the Act.
- ensure that the provisions of s. 67(4) of Ontario Regulation 213/91 were complied with, at a workplace located at Beech St. and Elgin St., contrary to s. 25(1)(c) of the Act.
In a statement Tuesday, the city said it “will be vigorously defending the charges laid by the Ministry of Labour stemming from the Sept. 30, 2015 incident,” adding that "We are not in a position to comment further as the matter is before the courts."
The maximum fine for a corporation convicted of breaking the act is $500,000 per charge. That means the city faces maximum fines of $3.5 million, while Interpaving faces a maximum of $1.5 million.
