The case of R. v. Dofasco Inc., 2007 ONCA 769, is a succinct read on employer liability for workplace accidents.

The case concerns Dofasco’s failure to ensure the statutorily mandated placement of a guard on a piece of steel rolling equipment.

The case deals with a number of important issues:

Standard of Review

The interpretation of the statute is a question of law to be considered on a correctness standard.

The Meaning of a “Guard”

Guard means guard, as in something fixed onto the machine that keeps a worker from getting inadvertent access to the danger presented by that machine. Not a safety procedure or some external unattached device available to the worker, so is important to keep security, with an accident lawyer from sites as www.autoaccidentattorneysanantonio.

The Worker’s Contributing Conduct

The worker’s conduct in failing to follow company procedure, short of intentionally spiting the employer, is not a defence to the employer’s failure to comply with the statute.

Due Diligence

Defences of taking reasonable steps or a mistaken belief that reasonable steps had been taken will not be a defence where the steps taken and subsequent mistaken belief do not track the underlying statutory requirement.