It (seemingly) starts innocently enough ...
... well, as "innocently" as anything can seem in the aftermath of two guest workers being killed through a fault of their employer's equipment ...
Supreme Court nixes Chinese company’s appeal in oil sands worker death
Two temporary workers died in 2007 when a storage tank collapsed at Horizon project.
OTTAWA: The Supreme Court says it will not hear an appeal of a lower court ruling that says a Chinese state-owned corporation should face charges in the deaths of two oilsands workers in Alberta.
Sinopec Shanghai Engineering Co. was seeking to challenge an Alberta Court of Appeal judgment that ordered the company to stand trial on 53 health and safety charges.
Two temporary workers from China died in 2007 near Fort McMurray when a storage tank collapsed at Canadian Natural Resources Ltd.’s Horizon project.
Sinopec Shanghai, which brought the workers to Alberta, argued it has no official presence in Canada and therefore could not be charged.
Alberta Justice says Sinopec and two other companies, Canadian Natural Resources and SSEC Canada—a Sinopec subsidiary with just one employee—are to stand trial on the charges on Oct. 1 in St. Albert provincial court.
As is customary, the Supreme Court of Canada gave no reasons for its decision.
But, Sinopec will (presumably) be prosecuted under Canada's Criminal Code <http://yourlaws.ca/criminal-code-canada/321> ... the so-called "Westray provision" [section 217.1], added by Bill C-45
217.1 Every one who undertakes, or has the authority, to direct how another person does work or performs a task is under a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm to that person, or any other person, arising from that work or task.As to penalties upon conviction ...
... first, an explanation as to culpable parties (again, everything to do with the aftermath of the Westray tragedy) ...
22.1 In respect of an offence that requires the prosecution to prove negligence, an organization is a party to the offence if
(a) acting within the scope of their authority
(i) one of its representatives is a party to the offence, or
(ii) two or more of its representatives engage in conduct, whether by act or omission, such that, if it had been the conduct of only one representative, that representative would have been a party to the offence; and
(b) the senior officer who is responsible for the aspect of the organization’s activities that is relevant to the offence departs — or the senior officers, collectively, depart — markedly from the standard of care that, in the circumstances, could reasonably be expected to prevent a representative of the organization from being a party to the offence.
(a) acting within the scope of their authority
(i) one of its representatives is a party to the offence, or
(ii) two or more of its representatives engage in conduct, whether by act or omission, such that, if it had been the conduct of only one representative, that representative would have been a party to the offence; and
(b) the senior officer who is responsible for the aspect of the organization’s activities that is relevant to the offence departs — or the senior officers, collectively, depart — markedly from the standard of care that, in the circumstances, could reasonably be expected to prevent a representative of the organization from being a party to the offence.
22. (1) Where a person counsels another person to be a party to an offence and that other person is afterwards a party to that offence, the person who counselled is a party to that offence, notwithstanding that the offence was committed in a way different from that which was counselled. Idem
(2) Every one who counsels another person to be a party to an offence is a party to every offence that the other commits in consequence of the counselling that the person who counselled knew or ought to have known was likely to be committed in consequence of the counselling.
(3) For the purposes of this Act, “counsel” includes procure, solicit or incite.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 22; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 7.
(2) Every one who counsels another person to be a party to an offence is a party to every offence that the other commits in consequence of the counselling that the person who counselled knew or ought to have known was likely to be committed in consequence of the counselling.
(3) For the purposes of this Act, “counsel” includes procure, solicit or incite.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 22; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 7.
Degrees of conviction [no, not as in "yup, I'm very convinced" !!] are discussed in
718.3 (1) Where an enactment prescribes different degrees or kinds of punishment in respect of an offence, the punishment to be imposed is, subject to the limitations prescribed in the enactment, in the discretion of the court that convicts a person who commits the offence.
(2) Where an enactment prescribes a punishment in respect of an offence, the punishment to be imposed is, subject to the limitations prescribed in the enactment, in the discretion of the court that convicts a person who commits the offence, but no punishment is a minimum punishment unless it is declared to be a minimum punishment.
(3) Where an accused is convicted of an offence punishable with both fine and imprisonment and a term of imprisonment in default of payment of the fine is not specified in the enactment that prescribes the punishment to be imposed, the imprisonment that may be imposed in default of payment shall not exceed the term of imprisonment that is prescribed in respect of the offence.
(2) Where an enactment prescribes a punishment in respect of an offence, the punishment to be imposed is, subject to the limitations prescribed in the enactment, in the discretion of the court that convicts a person who commits the offence, but no punishment is a minimum punishment unless it is declared to be a minimum punishment.
(3) Where an accused is convicted of an offence punishable with both fine and imprisonment and a term of imprisonment in default of payment of the fine is not specified in the enactment that prescribes the punishment to be imposed, the imprisonment that may be imposed in default of payment shall not exceed the term of imprisonment that is prescribed in respect of the offence.
And, in general ...
743. Every one who is convicted of an indictable offence for which no punishment is specially provided is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
743.1 (1) Except where otherwise provided, a person who is sentenced to imprisonment for
(a) life,
(b) a term of two years or more, or
(c) two or more terms of less than two years each that are to be served one after the other and that, in the aggregate, amount to two years or more,
shall be sentenced to imprisonment in a penitentiary. ...
(b) a term of two years or more, or
(c) two or more terms of less than two years each that are to be served one after the other and that, in the aggregate, amount to two years or more,
shall be sentenced to imprisonment in a penitentiary. ...
745. Subject to section 745.1, the sentence to be pronounced against a person who is to be sentenced to imprisonment for life shall be ...
(b) in respect of a person who has been convicted of second degree murder where that person has previously been convicted of culpable homicide that is murder, however described in this Act, that that person be sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole until the person has served twenty-five years of the sentence;
... (c) in respect of a person who has been convicted of second degree murder, that the person be sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole until the person has served at least ten years of the sentence or such greater number of years, not being more than twenty-five years, as has been substituted therefor pursuant to section 745.4; and
(d) in respect of a person who has been convicted of any other offence, that the person be sentenced to imprisonment for life with normal eligibility for parole.
They face $100ks fines and/or imprisonment. Ain't gonna happen!
Methinks that this will be plea-bargained.
No comments:
Post a Comment