Publications

Construction Project Manager Sentenced to 3½ Years for Workplace Accident in R. v. Vadim Kazenelson (aka “Metron”)

Published:

March 9, 2016

Author(s):

David Eaton, QC

In what appears to be the first case of the conviction of a front line supervisor under section 217.1 of the Criminal Code and sentencing to a substantial term of imprisonment, a court sentenced a front line supervisor to imprisonment for 3½ years for four counts of criminal negligence causing death and one of criminal negligence causing bodily harm. The 2015 conviction and the January 2016 sentence reflect the trends in occupational health and safety law of more charges, more prosecutions, more jail time and harsher sentences. It also sends a very clear message: the obligation under section 217.1 that everyone with authority to direct how another person does work or performs a task to “take reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm to that person or any other person arising from that work” is very real – and the consequences of failing to meet it grave. To learn more about personal liability exposure for occupational health and safety violations, read McInnes Cooper’s Legal Update: 3 Reasons for Directors, Officers and Supervisors to Take Occupational Health and Safety Personally. To learn more about the legal defence of due diligence to occupational health and safety charges, read McInnes Cooper’s Legal Update: The Legal Defence of Due Diligence – Top 5 FAQs.

THE ACCIDENT

Vadim Kazenelson was the project manager for the Metron Construction site. On Christmas Eve 2009, six workers with their tools were returning to the ground on a swing stage at the end of the work day. There were only two life lines available for the workers to attach their lanyards; only one worker attached himself. The project manager didn’t encourage or coerce the workers to travel together on the stage. He was aware that there were only two life lines and that life lines were required by law and industry standard for workers on a stage like that being used; he raised the issue with the site foreman (who reported to him), but was told “not to worry”. He wasn’t aware of the capacity of the stage or whether it had been properly assembled or installed.

The swing stage failed and the five workers not attached to life lines fell over 100 feet to the ground. Four died and only one survived, but with serious injuries.

THE CHARGES

The project manager was charged with four counts of criminal negligence causing death and one of criminal negligence causing bodily harm based on the duty under section 217.1 of the Criminal Code that requires everyone who has authority to direct how another person does work or performs a task to “take reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm to that person or any other person arising from that work.”

THE CONVICTION & SENTENCE

The court convicted the project manager in 2015. The court concluded there was a patent violation of occupational health and safety regulations and of the industry standard that was well-established and part of mandatory training for working at heights. The failure to take reasonable steps to stop the workers from the activity that they apparently undertook voluntarily was sufficient to breach the section 217.1 duty.

Criminal negligence requires that the accused’s action constitutes “wanton and reckless disregard for the lives and safety of others” so there must be proof that the accused’s conduct was a marked and substantial departure from that expected of a reasonable person in similar circumstances. The project manager’s knowledge of the industry standards and his failure to take reasonable steps to prevent the workers from travelling on the stage was sufficient to justify a conviction.
For criminal law purposes, it’s sufficient that the accused’s action or inaction was a significant contributing cause that was sufficient. The fact the workers were themselves negligent and acted contrary to their training and knowledge didn’t relieve the project manager of liability; his failure to take steps to prevent them was a sufficient contributing cause to support a conviction.

The court sentenced the project manager on January 11, 2016. The court made it clear the sentence must reflect the offender’s degree of responsibility as required by section 718.1 of the Criminal Code, which considers the seriousness of the crime’s consequences and the offender’s moral blameworthiness. Conduct that could be considered as deliberate endangerment would receive a more substantial prison term. The court imposed a 3½ year term of imprisonment.

Imprisonment wasn’t needed to deter the project manager from committing any further offences, to protect the public, to promote a sense of responsibility in the manager or to assist in his rehabilitation; he was of good character before and after the accident, devoted to his family and community and was genuinely remorseful. But a significant term of imprisonment was necessary to denounce the conduct and to deter others with authority over workers in potentially dangerous workplaces from breaching their legal duty under section 217.1 and to take reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm to workers.
The project manager’s failure was momentary; he didn’t ignore safety for days or weeks. He didn’t encourage or coerce his workers to work under dangerous circumstances; in fact, they were all trained in working at heights and knew better. His failure was to take steps to prevent the workers from doing something they knew they shouldn’t do.

Please contact your McInnes Cooper lawyer or any member of our McInnes Cooper Occupational Health and Safety Team to discuss this topic or any other legal issue.

McInnes Cooper has prepared this document for information only; it is not intended to be legal advice. You should consult McInnes Cooper about your unique circumstances before acting on this information. McInnes Cooper excludes all liability for anything contained in this document and any use you make of it.

© McInnes Cooper, 2016. All rights reserved. McInnes Cooper owns the copyright in this document. You may reproduce and distribute this document in its entirety as long as you do not alter the form or the content and you give McInnes Cooper credit for it. You must obtain McInnes Cooper’s consent for any other form of reproduction or distribution. Email us at [email protected] to request our consent.

Team Members ()

Publications ()

News ()

Pages ()

Services ()

Construction Project Manager Sentenced to 3½ Years for Workplace Accident in R. v. Vadim Kazenelson (aka “Metron”)

Published:

Author(s):

Share

Share

Related Lawyers

David Eaton, QC

Related Services

Related Industries

Related Publications

5 Key COVID-19 Labour & Employment Litigation Learnings

N.B. Construction Remedies Act: 7 Key Changes from the Mechanics’ Lien Act

Hiring a Foreign Company to Provide Services in Canada? 3 Immigration Issues

3 Legal Tools to Help Foster a Diverse & Inclusive Workplace

Federal OHS Violence & Harassment Prevention: 10 Key Changes January 1, 2021

10 COVID-19 Workplace Vaccination Policy Tips

Dutch Court Orders Corporation to Reduce Emissions in Landmark Decision

The N.S. Shared Solar Energy Program: 3 Key Facts

Tax Implications of Working from Home During COVID-19: 10 Employer FAQs

Atlantic Canada Minimum Wage Increases Effective April 1, 2021

10 Employer FAQs About Employee COVID-19 Testing & Vaccination

Contracting Chaos: 5 Key 2020 Employment Contract Lessons

CCDC 2 (2020): 8 Key Changes to the Stipulated Price Contract

The Indigenous Right to a Moderate Livelihood: A Need for Clarity

Waksdale v. Swegon North America Inc.: Cause for Termination Clause Concern

P.E.I. Workplace Harassment Prevention Obligations: 5 Key Regulatory Changes July 1, 2020

Matthews v. Ocean Nutrition Canada Ltd.: Employee Bonus Entitlement Lives On

Canadian Governance Diversity Disclosure Obligations: Get on Board

Playing it Safe: Employer Obligations To Employees Working From Home

Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller: One-Sided Standard Form Clauses May Be Unenforceable

Temporary Immigration Measures Make Hiring Temporary Foreign Workers Easier

Coping with COVID-19: Planning for Business Reopening

Coping with COVID-19: The Impact on Contractual Performance in the Energy and Natural Resources Sector

Coping with COVID-19: Employers’ Top 10 Immigration Law FAQs

Coping with COVID-19: New Requirements for Employer Relief

Atlantic Canada Minimum Wage Changes Effective April 1, 2020: More Than Wage Rates

Coping with COVID-19: (More) Employer FAQs

Coping with COVID-19: 5 Steps to Compliant Socially Distant AGMs

Coping with COVID-19: Employer FAQs

Coping with COVID-19: 3 Legal Remedies for Contractual Liability Risks

N.S. Battens Down Marine Renewable Energy Power Purchase Agreement (PPA)

Prompt Payment Coming Down the Pike in NS: What Owners & Contractors Must Know

CSA Staff Notice 51-359: Corporate Governance Compliance by Public Cannabis Co.’s

Amanda Nash in The Advisor by NLOWE | The Top 10 Employment Contract Terms

5 Key Requirements of Canada’s Federal Environmental Emergency Regulations

Atlantic Canadian Employees’ Rights & Employers’ Obligations at Election Time

Toward More Transparency: 3 More Key Changes to the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA)

5 Key Changes to N.L. OHS Workplace Violence & Harassment Prevention Obligations January 1, 2020

5 Key FAQs About Canadian Cannabis Company “Key Investor” Disclosure Requirements

Managing Social Media @ Work: 3 Steps to an Effective Workplace Social Media Policy

“Register for Individuals with Significant Control”: 5 Key Facts CBCA Corporations Need to Know to Comply

Atlantic Canada Seafood Processing Mergers & Acquisitions: 3 Due Diligence Tips

5 Basics Every Startup & Growing Business Should Know About Employment Law

Atlantic Canada Minimum Wage Changes Effective April 1, 2019: In Like a Lamb

New N.B. Workplace Anti-Violence & Harassment Obligations April 1, 2019

Webinar | No Joking Matter: Complying with N.B. Workplace Anti-Violence & Harassment Requirements

Immigration Law Compliance: 5 Key Best Practices for Human Resources Professionals

Privacy Interest in Personal Computer Contents: Supreme Court of Canada Confirms Ownership Isn’t 9/10 of the Law in R. v. Reeves

Collateral Damage: How Canada’s New Impaired Driving Penalties Will Impact Canadian Immigrants & Employers

10 Burning Employer FAQs About Cannabis @ Work

Webinar | 5 Key Immigration Law Compliance Best Practices for Human Resource Professionals

Sarah McInnes in workplace.ca | The Top 5 Immigration Law Facts Every HR Professional Should Know

P.E.I. Joins (Most of) the Rest of Canada: 3 Ways the New P.E.I. Business Corporations Act Will Modernize Prince Edward Island Corporations

No Minimal Impact: Atlantic Canada’s 2018 Minimum Wage Increases

Extended Parental Leave in Atlantic Canada: What to Expect When Your Employee is Expecting

Dan Watt in Energy Regulation Quarterly | The Impact Assessment Act, Canadian Energy Regulator Act and Offshore Energy: A View from Atlantic Canada

The Evolving Duty to Consult Indigenous Peoples: N.S. Court Recognizes a “Duty of Enforcement Consultation” in R. v. Martin

Webinar | 5 Workplace Policy Areas to Manage Marijuana Risks

No Matter the Chatter, the Bid is the Bottom Line: N.S. Supreme Court Issues a Reminder in CF Construction v. Town of Westville

You’ve Come a Long Way, CBCA: 3 Key Changes Modernize the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA)

Medical Marijuana, Residual Impairment & The Duty to Accommodate in Re Lower Churchill Transmission Construction Employers’ Assn. Inc. and IBEW, Local 1620 (Tizzard)

The Global Talent Stream: 5 Practical Learnings About the Latest Immigration Star

Accommodating Mental Disability: 5 Practical Tips

N.S. Appeal Court puts a Lid on medical Pot: No health plan coverage & no workers compensation benefits in Canadian Elevator Industry Welfare Trust Fund v. Skinner & Skinner v. Nova Scotia (Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal)

Webinar | #It’s Time: A 5-Step Sexual Harassment Risk Mitigation Strategy for Employers