The front page of the citizen says that there are no charges pending?

There is a recommendation to lay charges. That does not meant that there will be none laid unless the Crown has stated that they will not lay charges.

Let us see if WorksafeBC learned from their experience in Burns Lake and got their act together.

Worksafe one part let a Judge hear all the evidence and let the judge decide what’s admissible not lame lawyers, there is a lot more info and first hand info before this explosion took place and many, many warnings

According to the citizen

“However, WorkSafeBC spokesperson Scott McCloy said the agency is not recommending any criminal charges in the April 23, 2012 explosion”

and later in the same article

“McCloy declined to comment further on the investigation – and the nature of the charges recommended “????

Any willful neglect on the part of the owners of either mill will be very hard to prove in court.

Similar to the Babine Forest Products investigation, the Lakewood explosion will be deemed “preventable”. The two parties responsible for preventing this explosion (WorkSafeBC through, lack of enforcement, and the sawmill owners, through lack of compliance) will get off scott free!

I would be extremely surprised, if WorkSafeBC did not F up this investigation as well.

No kidding hey. Worksafe is investigating the West Vancouver Police at this time as well. I wonder how that’ll turn out?

Its BS to continue to say we want to work and prevent this from ever happening again. The employer put construction deadlines first and worksafe even after Burns Lake allowed it to happen. Worksafe just employer insurance…. so maybe they pay a fine big deal,Worksave gave employers back millions and lower rates in the passed 10 years its disgusting

“Any willful neglect on the part of the owners of either mill will be very hard to prove in court.”

Here is what the criminal code of Canada states:

“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 I understand it, the neglect does not have to be willful. Either an “error of commission” or “error of omission” may meet the “reasonable steps” requirement of 217.1

I am not sure why there is a reliance on WorkSafeBC alone. There should also be a police investigation to see whether criminal charges can/should be laid. Has that occurred?

The scaffolding case gives some idea of how “easy” it can be to win a case of criminal negligence.

http://www.gowlings.com/KnowledgeCentre/enewsletters/ohslaw/htmfiles/ohslaw20120719.en.html

It also states in the other local paper that “the B.C. Coroners Service announced it will conduct an investigation into the Babine explosion.”

WorkSafeBC, Coroner, Police ….. they all have a potential kick at the can.

The charges being considered are regulatory not criminal. I would imagine it would be under section 196 of the wcb act.

http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/LOC/freeside/–%20W%20–/Workers%20Compensation%20Act%20RSBC%201996%20c.%20492/00_Act/96492_03.xml#part3_division15

It will be hard to prove that the employer knowing failed to supply a safe workplace unless there were some outstanding inspection orders that were not properly dealt with especially any that mention dust buildup. One other thing that will be taken into consideration is the amount of buildup that is considered unsafe before and after these events.

Posted by: lonesome sparrow on February 23 2014 5:16 AM
The charges being considered are regulatory not criminal. I would imagine it would be under section 196 of the wcb act.

————–

Glad to see someone actually read the article.

Those that were in the mill before know the amount of dust,piles thoughout the plant and construction equipment. They new the employees told them but construction timelines took priority the company rolled the dice and the results are death and injury.

“According to an inspection report issued Feb. 9 by WorkSafe BC, dust has been an issue at the Lakeland mill, although concentrations were below the exposure limit and the agency issued no orders.”

“There are accumulations of piles of wood dust in various areas of the mill,” wrote Kim Hess, an occupational hygiene officer, in the report. “We reviewed the requirement to prevent the accumulation of hazardous amounts of wood dust.”

“The issue of wood dust also arose in an inspection report issued Feb. 3, 2009.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/04/25/lakeland-sawmill-dead-worker-alan-little_n_1451188.html

So wood dust was a concern in at least two WorkSafeBC inspection reports at Lakeland prior to the explosion. Yet WorkSafeBC did not “enforce” compliance and obviously the sawmill owner did not followup.

The two parties that were responsible for ensuring a safe work site dropped the ball, and the workers paid for it with their lives and body parts.

Not to worry, everyone will walk, and no one will get the least bit of dust or dirt on themselves because of this!

Gus:-“The scaffolding case gives some idea of how “easy” it can be to win a case of criminal negligence.”
——————————————-

Especially when the company was facing the prospects of legal bills to defend itself in Court that would likely exceed the penalties WCB was going to impose on it.

Unfortunately, they couldn’t afford to defend themselves, even though the facts when properly considered, (the foreman on the swing stage and several of the others that died had enough marijuana in their systems to cause almost certain impairment), should have led to an acquital on any charges of criminal negligence on the part of the employer.

No employer can ever ‘ENFORCE’ all his directives to employees all the time if they are not willing to comply. And many times they are definitely NOT, even when compliance is clearly for their own safety.

Sadly, this case has set a precedent now, that every accident is the ’employer’s’ fault, even when often it isn’t.

I hope all those who think otherwise won’t be first in line to complain when many employers simply exit trying to operate their businesses, eliminate their employees as unaffordable liabilities, and the few businesses that are left put their prices up to the full cost of compliance with the inanities they then have to work under.

so credible states; “No employer can ever ‘ENFORCE’ all his directives to employees all the time if they are not willing to comply. And many times they are definitely NOT, even when compliance is clearly for their own safety.”

Wow, between you and Hart Guy, “victim blaming” is becoming an elevated art form on this discussion board.

Just exactly what “evidence” can you provide to the rest of us that the workers were directed by their employer to clean up the work site but refused to do so?

Further more socredible, your comment; “(the foreman on the swing stage and several of the others that died had enough marijuana in their systems to cause almost certain impairment), ” may be considered libellous, and grievously harmful, to the reputations of the deceased and to their families.

Have you any thought about how the family members of those dead worker’s would feel, and think, reading your comment socredible? Sometimes a person’s thoughts on certain matters should remain in their heads, and not be posted publicly, I would say this is one of those times!

People#1; Have you ever worked in an industrial environment? What I took from Socredible’s post is what I have seen in industry for almost 30 years. Employers, management & even WSBC can put out all kinds of directives & site guidelines when it comes to safety or cleanliness (both go hand in hand), but unless there is complete buy in from the employees to take “ownership” of their responsibilities for a safe work environment, sadly, workplace accidents & deaths will always happen.
This is not “blame the victim”. This is the reality of most industrial work environments.