[ad_1]
Article content continued
“The judge made none of the errors identified by the appellants on substantive matters,” wrote Madam Justice Lauri Ann Fenlon in the 29-page decision.
Fenlon noted the judge correctly applied a contextual approach in concluding that the Workers’ Compensation Board (known as WorkSafeBC) did not breach the appellants’ Charter rights by gathering evidence using its regulatory powers.
“The judge did not err in imposing the injunction, as a permanent injunction was reasonable given the appellants’ repeated breaches of the Act. Nor was the sentence unfit; the judge took into account all relevant circumstances,” wrote Fenlon.
The Court of Appeal did allow an appeal to go ahead on the issue of who is responsible for paying court costs of the parties in the lower court suit.
The decision determined that it was not open to the lower court judge to offset Shawn Singh’s court costs against those owed by Mike Singh to WorkSafeBC. Often, the loser in a civil suit is responsible for paying some court costs.
As a result, Fenlon wrote the costs’ order is changed so that Shawn Singh is entitled to costs against WorkSafeBC and WorkSafeBC is entitled to costs against Mike Singh and Seattle Environmental.
Singh has 60 days to make an application to appeal at Canada’s high court from the date of the Appeal Court decision on Dec. 17.
In 2019, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Francesca Marzari had found Seattle Environmental was responsible for repeated and egregious breaches of the Workers’ Compensation Act and regulation, including significant failures to properly dispose of asbestos waste, to ensure adequate containment during high-risk work and to provide safe supervision of workers.
[ad_2]
Source link
