Corporate fines are generally higher to reflect their larger economic capacity
The Ontario Court of Appeal increased Dairy Queen's fine for a workplace injury, ruling that the lower courts improperly considered the corporation's size and economic scope and incorrectly treated it like an individual offender.
In September 2017, a 16-year-old high school student suffered a spinal injury while working at a Dairy Queen. Her hair became entangled in the rotating spindle of a Blizzard machine, leading to a serious injury. The safety guard on the machine had been removed, which was against Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) regulations. The employee had no training on machine guarding or general occupational health and safety.
The Dairy Queen operator was charged with two OHSA violations. The court found the respondent guilty of failing to ensure the machine was guarded but acquitted them on the charge of failing to ensure the employee's hair was confined. The justice of the peace initially fined the respondent $7,500, despite the Crown's request for a $75,000 fine. The Crown's subsequent appeal to the Ontario Court of Justice was dismissed, prompting an appeal.
The Court of Appeal found that the lower courts had erred in their sentencing approach. The appeal court had restricted its consideration of the corporation's size to the local operation, contrary to established principles that require considering the corporation as a whole to determine an appropriate fine that ensures specific and general deterrence. Furthermore, the lower court had inappropriately compared the corporation's sentence to an individual offender, failing to recognize that corporate fines are generally higher to reflect their larger economic capacity.
The Court of Appeal emphasized that fines for corporate defendants must reflect the size and scope of their economic activity to be effective deterrents. In this case, Dairy Queen operates seven stores with 84 full-time employees, necessitating a more substantial fine than initially imposed.
Considering the severity of the injury, the lack of safety training, and the corporation's size, the Court of Appeal determined that a fine of $40,000 was appropriate. This fine aims to ensure both specific and general deterrence, addressing the nature of the offence and the harm caused.
