Apotex - contamination www.apotexterror.homestead.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.
