Question #1 Gerald is a safety inspector that works for ABC Inc. ("ABC"). Four months ago he discovered that the machines used at ABC's factory could potentially malfunction and injure workers using the machine. In fact, in the past, a worker was almost injured due to a malfunction of the type described by Gerald and ABC knew of this incident. Gerald reported this to ABC and recommended that ABC install a small latch which would provide complete protection against the potential malfunction. ABC had intended to install the small latch onto its machines but delayed in doing so because it was preoccupied with developing new products. Three weeks ago, a worker at ABC was seriously injured due to the malfunction that Gerald had reported about. ABC was charged under the Occupational Health and Safety Act for failing to take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of the worker at a workplace.
Is it likely that ABC will be convicted of the charged offence? Explain fully.
Write your explanation here: (typically there is enough space for a short paragraph or a few sentences.
Question #2 XYZ Inc. ("XYZ") was recently convicted of an absolute liability offence in Ontario for failing to abide by regulations relating to the installation of pollution control devices. XYZ has evidence that it undertook precautions to avoid committing the offence but acknowledges that those precautions failed.
(a) Would XYZ's evidence be relevant at all at any stage of the case?
(b) Do your text book authors feel that a minimum fine is a good way of addressing absolute liability offences? Explain their reasoning. (Typically there is enough space for a short paragraph or a few sentences)