Poor report card scores and minimal police presence highlighted day 3 of the trial against the City of Greater Sudbury in the Sept. 30, 2015, death of Cecile Paquette.
Judge Karen Lische heard the testimony of Ken Edwards, an Interpaving Limited senior project manager, Tuesday as he was cross examined by Ministry of Labour prosecutor David McCaskill and the city's defense lawyer, Ryan Conlin.
Much of McCaskill's questioning focused on the communication between Interpaving and the city throughout the course of the road project on Elgin Street that ran from May through November of 2015.
Paquette was killed Sept. 30, 2015, when she was struck by a grader at the corner of Beech and Elgin Street.
During McCaskill's questioning, Edwards said Interpaving was in charge of developing a traffic control plan for the job site, which was to be submitted to the city for approval.
"Does the city have a say in the content of the traffic control plan?" McCaskill asked.
"Yes," Edwards replied. "They review it and if there's something they'd like added to it or changed, then they give it back to us to make changes."
McCaskill then asked if traffic control plans change throughout the course of these types of projects. Edwards said the plan could change throughout the project, based on the work that needed to be done.
The Ministry of Labour prosecutor pored over numerous email exchanges and invoices between the city and Interpaving, highlighting questions and concerns that arose during the course of the six-month project.
Edwards said the city's project manager for the Elgin Street job, Rob Rocca, held regular meetings throughout the course of the work to highlight concerns, and that city inspectors were on the job site daily. The city oversaw the project in case there were any changes that needed to made to the scope of work, pricing or scheduling.
"No changes could be made without discussing it with the city," said Edwards.
The city was also in charge of hiring police officers to control traffic in the area. Edwards said that during entirety of the Elgin Street project, Greater Sudbury Police officers were at the construction site between 20-25 days total.
Mid-project, the city completed a report card on Interpaving's safety procedures, safety equipment and traffic control plan. The traffic control plan got a grade of "below average" and overall, the report card gave the company a barely passing grade of 54 per cent.
"It's not acceptable on our part," said Edwards.
A meeting was called Sept. 15, where Edwards had to sign off on a form indicating that there was a scheduled police presence at the intersection of Elgin Street and Beech Street for Sept. 15. The work being done in the area was 90 per cent completed on that day.
But when Interpaving workers showed up to the site to finish the work, there were no police officers there to control traffic.
"When I got there (on Sept. 15) my workers were flagging the intersection," said Edwards. "I told them to leave the intersection and arrange for police. The officers are hired and arranged by the city to maintain traffic. Years ago it was the contractors who would arrange with police, but recently the city has taken on that role."
Adam Peddie is a 17-year veteran with Interpaving Ltd. and was curb and sidewalk supervisor on the day Paquette was killed. During his time on the stand on day 2 of the trial, Peddie said he doesn't recall ever seeing paid duty police officers on site during construction.
When it came time for defense counsel Ryan Conlin to cross-examine Edwards, he led off by questioning if Edwards had any knowledge of a forged traffic safety plan submitted by Interpaving to the Ministry of Labour in its investigation of the fatality -- evidence that was brought to light on March 29.
"I know about it because it was on the news," said Edwards.
"Do you know who submitted this document?" asked Conlin.
"No," said Edwards.
"Do you know who prepared it?"
"No."
Conlin then moved into a line of questioning as to whether Edwards ever felt that the city had more on the ground control in the project in the role of "constructor."
The city entered a not guilty plea last week, contending that under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, it should be considered an “owner” and Interpaving the “constructor,” meaning it had less on-the-ground responsibility.
"In your view, at any point in time was Interpaving not acting as the constructor?” Conlin asked. “Did you ever believe that the city had assumed the role of constructor? If you had concerns that your job was being taken would you not have contacted the Ministry of Labour?"
Edwards said he would have contacted the city of Greater Sudbury, but he's never had to take action like that before.
The trial broke off for lunch in the midst of Conlin asking questions about Interpaving being barred from bidding on contracts in Greater Sudbury. When court resumed, McCaskill brought up that Interpaving had gone to divisional court to get the bar lifted. That decision has not yet been reached and an Interpaving lawyer for that trial reached out to McCaskill with his concerns.
"I have no horse in this race, this is not my argument, I'm just raising this because the issue has been raised with me," said McCaskill. "I'm not arguing whether or not the evidence should go in and I'm not taking objection to it, but they're concerned that it's still before the divisional court and they asked me to raise it."
Lische deliberated shortly before deciding that "out of caution" she would adjourn until Wednesday morning before deciding on whether or not questions regarding Interpaving's bar would be admissible.
The trial resumes Wednesday at 10 a.m.
