Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The case examined the proper scope of worker liability under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) for workplace safety violations.

• Mr. Benevides was acquitted at trial due to the Crown’s failure to provide evidence connecting his specific actions to the accident.

• Central to the appeal was whether a worker can be held liable simply for participating in a task that ultimately leads to a safety incident.

• The Crown sought to broaden the definition of actus reus to include involvement, regardless of causation or assigned responsibility.

• A key dispute was whether private contractual terms should influence statutory liability under OHSA.

• The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal on key questions of law, emphasizing the need to clarify the legal framework for worker responsibility.

Facts and procedural background

In Ontario (Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development) v. Benevides, the case arose from a workplace incident that occurred on April 15, 2020, at a construction site in Vaughan, Ontario. A crane was being used to hoist elevator cable spools stacked on wooden pallets to the roof of a tower. The top pallet broke due to the weight of the load—approximately 4,000 pounds in total—causing the spools to fall onto a nearby Walmart store. No one was injured, but the event posed a significant safety risk.

Luis Benevides, an employee of Hardwall Construction Limited, was designated as the “swamper” for the lift. He made adjustments to the load's strapping after it had been rigged by employees of Selko Elevators Limited and subsequently signaled the crane operator to lift. Mr. Benevides was charged with four counts under the OHSA and O. Reg. 213/91 (Construction Projects), including failing to ensure that material was moved safely and that rigging devices met specific safety standards.

Trial and appeal outcomes

At trial, Mr. Benevides was acquitted on all counts. The trial judge found that there was no evidence connecting his specific conduct to the cause of the load failure—namely, the structural failure of a pallet, which he was not responsible for inspecting. The Crown’s case failed to demonstrate that he had breached any statutory duty through his own actions. The judge granted a directed verdict of acquittal, concluding that there was “absolutely no evidence” to show that Mr. Benevides committed any offence.

The Crown appealed the acquittals at the provincial offences appeal level but was again unsuccessful. The appeal judge upheld the acquittals, agreeing with the trial judge’s reasoning and finding no legal error in the directed verdict decision.

Court of Appeal decision

The Crown then brought a motion for leave to appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal. Justice Paciocco granted leave on three key legal questions. First, whether the directed verdict test had been misapplied by failing to interpret the elements of the offences broadly enough. Second, whether the lower courts erred by focusing on causation of the load failure rather than whether Mr. Benevides had met his safety obligations. Third, whether the trial judge improperly relied on a private contract between Hardwall and Selko to define Mr. Benevides’ duties under the OHSA.

The Court noted that the scope of worker liability under section 28(1)(a) of the OHSA—requiring workers to “work in compliance with the Act and regulations”—is not definitively settled. The Crown’s interpretation would significantly expand liability, potentially to all workers involved in a process, regardless of their individual roles or expertise. The Court recognized the public interest in clarifying whether a worker's responsibility under safety legislation is limited to their specific tasks or extends to all risks associated with the broader activity.

However, the Court denied leave on a fourth ground, where the Crown alleged that the trial judge erred by considering due diligence and foreseeability at the directed verdict stage. The Court found no indication that these concepts played a determinative role in the trial decision or that their mention created any risk of legal precedent.

Conclusion

Leave to appeal was granted on three key legal questions surrounding the scope of worker liability, the use of private contractual obligations in statutory interpretation, and the definition of actus reus under OHSA offences. The Court of Appeal emphasized the significance of these questions for the due administration of justice and public workplace safety, setting the stage for a broader legal clarification in a future hearing.