Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The SCAC’s legal error was reweighing evidence and substituting its view for the trial judge’s findings, which were supported by the evidence.

• A core evidentiary issue involved the poor quality of video footage and the blaster’s lack of memory of specific events depicted in that footage.

• The appeal focused on whether acquittals on counts 1 and 6 could reasonably be supported by the trial judge’s assessment of the evidence.

• The interpretation of terms like “blasting incident” and “misfire” under section 12 of the Blasting Safety Regulations was central to the cross-appeal.

• Admissibility of blast logs and related records was disputed, with the Crown arguing that their exclusion constituted an error.

• The Court ultimately restored the acquittals on counts 1 and 6 and denied leave to appeal on the cross-appeal.

Facts of the case
In February 2019, Thomas Wilson, a first-class blaster with 40 years of experience employed by a subcontractor of Atlantic Road Construction and Paving Limited (ARCP), conducted blasting operations at a construction site on Pepperell Street in Halifax, Nova Scotia. These operations were regulated under the Blasting Safety Regulations, N.S. Reg. 89/2008, made pursuant to the Occupational Health and Safety Act, S.N.S. 1996, c. 7. Wilson reported a “misfire” as required by the regulations, prompting an investigation by the Department of Labour (DOL). This investigation included a review of CCTV footage from a nearby rooftop and records related to the delivery of blasting materials. ARCP was charged with multiple offences relating to the storage and handling of explosives and the reporting and record-keeping requirements associated with the blasting activities.

At trial, the Provincial Court acquitted ARCP of all charges. The primary evidence included Wilson’s testimony, CCTV footage, and blasting material delivery records. Wilson admitted under cross-examination that he had no independent memory of the relevant events or the specific days charged, and the poor quality of the video footage did not provide clear evidence of what occurred.

Procedural history and policy terms at issue
The SCAC overturned the acquittals on counts 1 and 6 and ordered a new trial on those counts. Count 1 alleged that on February 5, 2019, ARCP failed to ensure explosives were stored in a magazine or day box, contrary to section 31 of the Blasting Safety Regulations and section 74(1)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Count 6 alleged that on February 6, 2019, ARCP failed to ensure explosives were properly stored, contrary to the same provision of the Act. The SCAC found that the trial judge erred in law by not adequately considering the totality of the evidence. The Crown also sought leave to appeal acquittals on other counts, arguing errors in the interpretation of “blasting incident” and “misfire” in section 12 of the Blasting Safety Regulations and in the exclusion of blast log evidence.

Outcome of the appeals
The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal restored the acquittals on counts 1 and 6, holding that the SCAC erred by reweighing the evidence and substituting its view for that of the trial judge, who had properly considered the reliability of the evidence. The Court emphasized that the trial judge was entitled to find that the evidence did not prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court denied leave on the cross-appeal, concluding that no clear legal error or issue of broader significance had been demonstrated regarding the interpretation of the regulations or the admissibility of blast logs.

Final disposition
The Court set aside the SCAC’s decision on counts 1 and 6, restoring the acquittals, and denied leave to appeal on the cross-appeal, thereby concluding the proceedings at this level.

The decision does not mention any monetary award, costs, or damages being granted or ordered.