Skip to content


Charge(s): Failing to comply with the regulations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act
Location: Peterborough, Ontario
Our Client(s): Mr. M
Year: 2019
Lawyer/Paralegal: Dan Lemaire
Dan Lemaire - Criminal Defence LawyerLEARN MORE

Please Note: Past results not predictive of future results.

The Background

Mr. M was constructing his home and hired sub-contractors to do some work. Because Mr. M was managing the construction himself, he allegedly unwittingly assumed certain obligations under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. As a result of improper use of scaffolding, a worker suffered serious injuries. Mr. M was charged under the Act for non-compliance with the regulations.

At trial, Mr. Lemaire argued that Mr. M’s right to be tried within a reasonable time as protected by section 11(b) of the Charter was violated by the lengthy period of time that it took for Mr. M. to receive trial time. The Justice of the Peace disagreed, and dismissed Mr. M’s Charter application. As such, Mr. M was convicted at trial and sentenced to $6,000 in fines plus a 30% statutory surcharge tax.

On appeal, the Crown argued that there had been no violation of Mr. M’s section 11(b) rights and that the appeal should be dismissed.

The Goals

Mr. M wished to successfully appeal his conviction and have his fines overturned.

The Strategy

Mr. M was able to convince the Ontario Court of Justice that the Justice of the Peace had erred in calculating the total period of delay. In order to assess whether somebody’s section 11(b) rights have been violated, the Court must first calculate the total period of delay. On appeal, the Crown argued that the period of delay runs from the date of charge to the last day of trial. Mr. Lemaire argued that the period of delay for the purpose of section 11(b) runs from the date of the charge to the date a decision is rendered. In other words, the days, weeks, or months, it takes the Judge to decide on the case ought to count as section 11(b) delay.

The Results

Mr. Lemaire successfully appealed Mr. M’s conviction.  This was a novel issue of law that had not previously been decided. One of Mr. Lemaire’s first cases became a reported case in a reputable law journal.

Note: Dan Lemaire was a student-at-law at the time of this appeal.


Tell us a bit about yourself and the situation.  Completing this form helps us book your free consultation with the most appropriate lawyer at our firm and at a time that is most convenient to you.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.
Let's start with the basics. What is your name?
More information on our privacy policy can be read here: Privacy Policy.

Please note that the submission of this form does not mean that we are your retained lawyer. This is a form establishing preliminary information regarding the scheduling of a free, 30-minute consultation. Any personal information collected through means such as consultation forms will not be conveyed or shared except to the extent necessary to properly represent you and your case. Aitken Robertson will never sell any personal information. We value your privacy.

SMS Disclosure: By providing a telephone number for SMS/Text purposes and submitting this form you are consenting to be contacted by SMS text message. Message & data rates may apply. You can reply STOP to opt-out of further messaging.

Back To Top