Apotex - contamination     www.apotexholocaust.com            www.pharmaholocaust.com
I live like a walking death in twilight zone / some where in between death and a life being deprived of all Human Rights and Constitutional / Law 
protection by habitual offenders. I was assessed by three (3) independent psychiatrists to eliminate offender's speculations about my insanity 
prompting "delusions" etc. All psychiatrists stated clearly, that I am sane /I do NOT have/had any mental illness. No family history of any.
WSiB DOES PROCESS INJURED WORKERS IN CRIMINAL MANNER AND CAUSES DETERIORATION OF EXISTING INJURIES, DEVELOPMENT OF NEW A SPECIALLY PSYCHOLOGICAL AND MUST BE CHARGED EQUALLY WITH NEGLIGENT EMPLOYERS 
(BILL-C-45, CRIMINAL CODE etc.).
Dear Sir/Madam,
WSiB DOES PROCESS INJURED WORKERS IN CRIMINAL MANNER AND CAUSES 
DETERIORATION OF EXISTING INJURIES, DEVELOPMENT OF NEW A SPECIALLY 
PSYCHOLOGICAL AND MUST BE CHARGED EQUALLY WITH NEGLIGENT EMPLOYERS 
(BILL-C-45, CRIMINAL CODE etc.).WSiB in majority employs incompetent 
personnel which has only one asset /attribute - it is rootless and criminal, 
equipped in criminal immunity and other far reaching Legislatives allowing 
WSiB to torture, abuse, defraud injured workers).WSiB by its incompetence, 
luck of education / professionalism / expertise and criminal orientation as 
a Policy, totally ignores / is oblivious about side effects of treatments 
and medications they forcibly subject injured workers to undergo, 
additionally deteriorates injured workers condition and it is imposed on 
"victims" in criminally sadistic manner etc. A number of medications 
intended to treat psychiatric disorders are themselves capable of causing 
psychiatric adverse effects. Unfortunately,
these medication-induced adverse effects can be mistaken for a lack of 
therapeutic efficacy, leading to increased dose prescribing, leading to even 
more adverse effects. In addition, a number of medications not intended to 
treat psychiatric disorders are capable of causing psychiatric adverse 
effects..The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB), is an AGENCY with 
4,000 + employees and a budget of $2.7 billion +.
Savings and Restructuring Act introduced Amendments to the Employment 
Standards Act (ESA) clarifying or strengthening the rights of WORKERS.
The Act stipulated to discontinue use of the proxy comparison method.
Important additional changes were made by Workers' Compensation Reform Act 
to the Workers' Compensation system. In particular, new priorities were set: 
the focus is first on prevention of workplace injury and illness as well on 
compensation and other benefits.
Changes in the compensation system included a tightening of provisions for 
mental stress and chronic pain.
Bill C-45 questions get answered by Cheryl Edwards
By way of reminder, Bill C-45 amended the Criminal Code to create new duties 
and possible criminal liability for individuals and organizations, which 
include corporations. Because of the complexity of these Criminal Code 
requirements, and the amount of time that has been passed since they became 
law in March 2004, answers to key questions about Bill C-45 amendments are 
set out below, as follows. By way of reminder, Bill C-45 amended the 
Criminal Code to create new duties and possible criminal liability for 
individuals and organizations, which include corporations. Because of the 
complexity of these Criminal Code requirements, and the amount of time that 
has been passed since they became law in March 2004, answers to key 
questions about Bill C-45 amendments are set out below, as follows:
Is the new Criminal Code duty different from OH&S duties to take all 
reasonable precautions or all reasonable care? How?
The new duty found in section 217.1 of the Criminal Code requires that 
"everyone 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". "Everyone" includes individuals, organizations as 
broadly defined, and corporations.
This duty parallels traditional OH&S standards, but also expands on the 
matters contained in most OH&S statutes. The duty applies to any individual 
with authority to direct another person in the performance of work, while 
OH&S legislation generally imposes duties on employers, supervisors, 
constructors, owners, directors and officers. The Criminal Code may apply 
more widely to anyone who "undertakes" to direct work, including lead hands 
and working forepersons.
The Criminal Code duty also requires that reasonable steps be taken to 
prevent bodily harm to any person, which would include the public or 
volunteers who may enter the workplace or be affected by workplace 
activities.
Does violation of the Criminal Code duty mean we are guilty of criminal 
negligence?
Breach of the Criminal Code duty does not necessarily mean that an 
organization or individual is guilty of criminal negligence. In order for a 
breach of the duty of care to amount to criminal negligence, the Crown must 
prove beyond a reasonable doubt in court that the breach of the duty 
occurred in a "wanton or reckless" manner.
Section 219 of the Criminal Code states that, "Everyone is criminally 
negligent who (a) in doing anything, or (b) in omitting to do anything that 
it is his duty to do, shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or 
safety of other persons." The provisions of Section 219 broadly state that 
for the purposes of the criminal negligence section, Section 219 of the 
Criminal Code, "duty" means a duty imposed by law.
Criminal cases have found that for criminal negligence to occur, a breach of 
a duty must represent a "marked" and significant departure from the standard 
of a reasonably prudent person in the circumstances. There must be more than 
mere failure to meet an OH&S or Criminal Code standard through inadvertence. 
There must be evidence of behaviour which shows complete disregard for, or 
indifference to the duty. As one court put it, there must be a finding of a 
"devil-may-care" attitude that shows a criminal standard has been met.
Wasn't Bill C-45 all about creating criminal liability for directors and 
officers?
Not exactly. While the Westray inquiry which concluded in 1997 recommended 
that Canada "amend or introduce legislation to ensure that corporate 
executives and directors are held properly accountable for workplace safety 
and the wrongful and negligent acts of their corporations," ultimately Bill 
C-45 created a mechanism which allowed corporations to be more readily 
convicted of criminal negligence. The Criminal Code continues to allow 
individual charges of criminal negligence, which could include charges 
against a supervisor, or director or officer, for breach of a duty in a 
wanton or reckless manner, but that was not the primary focus of the Bill 
C-45 amendments when they were passed and came into force in 2004.
Does Bill C-45 create both corporate and individual criminal liability?
Yes, it does both. The provisions create new criminal duties and liabilities 
for both individuals and organizations (which are defined to include 
corporations). Both individuals and organizations can now be convicted of 
criminal negligence for failure to perform the duty, when it occurs in a 
manner that shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of 
others.
What is necessary for an organization (including a corporation) to be 
convicted under the Criminal Code of criminal negligence?
The process for convicting an organization of criminal negligence in the 
workplace safety context involves two steps. First, the Crown must prove 
beyond a reasonable doubt that the actions of a single representative 
(employee, partner, contractor, agent of the organization) breached the 
Criminal Code duty in a wanton or reckless way. This could involve reckless 
ignoring of safety rules or physical protective devices where the potential 
result is serious harm or death.
Second, after the breach of duty is established, the Crown must then show 
that a senior officer with operational or executive authority, or as 
drafters put it, someone with "real clout" who is responsible for the part 
of the organization involved in the breach, either failed to act or 
insulated themselves from obtaining the knowledge to act. The Crown has to 
prove a marked departure from what would reasonably be expected of a senior 
officer with obligations to protect workers and the public.
What are the potential liabilities under the Criminal Code provisions as 
amended by Bill C-45?
For individuals, the maximum penalty for criminal negligence causing death 
is life imprisonment, and the maximum penalty for criminal negligence 
causing bodily harm is ten years' imprisonment. However, individuals are 
subject to a range of Criminal Code sentencing options from absolute 
discharge, to probation, to life in prison, depending on the specific 
circumstances of the contravention.
Organizations, including corporations, are subject to different penalties 
depending on how the Crown proceeds. Where the Crown proceeds by summary 
conviction (the least serious manner of proceeding), the maximum fine is 
$100,000 for an organization.
Where the Crown proceeds by indictment (the most serious manner of 
proceeding), there is no limit on the amount of the fine for the corporation 
or organization.
Organizations may also be placed on probation and the terms of a 
probationary order can include such matters as: requiring the organization 
to make restitution, financial or otherwise, relating to the offence; 
requiring the organization to report to the court or the public on 
implementation of remedial steps; requiring the appointment of a senior 
officer to be responsible for implementing remedial procedures; requiring 
the organization to disclose its conviction to the public.
Probation orders including these types of terms are available in addition to 
monetary penalties.
Cheryl A. Edwards is a former Ontario Ministry of Labour OH&S prosecutor.