If real justice was served, this individual would serve multiple week sentences in the same asbestos laden facilities they are forcing employees to work in
In
reading the following post, you may wonder, as did I, how an individual could
possibly remain in business with multiple stop work orders – especially
relating to asbestos removal. WHY is the
provincial NDP government allowing someone with over SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND
DOLLARS IN UNPAID FINES ... contempt of court charges for continued violations
... and multiple stop work orders to continue in business.
HOUSE ARREST in a pig-eye!
HOUSE ARREST in a pig-eye!
This
individual, and others like them, should be forced to serve multiple week sentences
in the same asbestos laden facilities they are forcing employees to work in ...
and people living in neighbouring homes to be in contact with!
VANCOUVER: (COUNCIL OF CONSTRUCTION
ASSOCIATIONS)
Labour advocates are calling on the province
to require asbestos removal companies to be licensed after a serial offender
was sentenced to house arrest for exposing workers and residents to harmful
materials.
Insulation industry advocates say this
case and others highlight the need for regulation.
“The asbestos removal business is simply
out of control and it is critical that the BC government immediately move to
license all asbestos removal and consulting firms so workers and residents’
lives are not being put at risk,” said Neil Munro, business manager for the
BC Insulators Union, in a media release. “The flagrant violations happening
across the province demand that action be taken to save lives from exposure to
deadly asbestos.”
Last month the Supreme Court of BC sentenced
Mike Singh, principal of Seattle Environmental Consulting Ltd. and Skylite
Building Maintenance Ltd., to six weeks house arrest and one-year probation by
Madam Justice Francesca Marzari after being found guilty of contempt of court
for not obeying Workers Compensation Board orders to protect workers doing
asbestos removal.
Justice Marzari
stated that previous punishments had little impact on Singh’s compliance. Since
2010 he has faced more than $600,000 fines, mostly unpaid, for repeatedly
breaching health and safety laws. He has also been permanently banned from
working in the asbestos removal business after WorkSafeBC issued over 230
orders to comply with regulations.
The Workers Compensation Board had asked for
a one-year jail term for Singh, however Justice Marzari opted for house arrest
instead due to Singh’s personal life-threatening health concerns.
The BC Insulators Union, Vancouver-New
Westminster Building Trades Council and BC Federation of Labour called Singh
and his companies a “flagrant violator of safety laws”. They also noted
that recently another company, H & B Construction Inc., was issued four
stop-work orders by the Workers Compensation Board after it was reported that
its workers were removing asbestos-contaminated material from a Vancouver house
demolition site without proper protection.
Josh Towsley, president of the Vancouver-New
Westminster Building Trades Council, says the Vancouver house demolition case
put the community at risk as well as the workers removing asbestos from outdoor
stucco.
“There is absolutely no safe level of
asbestos exposure for anyone, worker or neighbour, and this case shows how
urgently we need the province to license any company removing asbestos,”
said Towsley. “In addition to this outrageous situation, other unscrupulous
asbestos removal companies have dumped bags of asbestos-contaminated drywall in
back alleys in Vancouver and Burnaby in recent years, meaning anyone could be
exposed to this carcinogenic material.”
According to the insulator’s union, the
Workers Compensation Board issued 764 compliance orders in 2018 – on average
two orders every day. The Workers Compensation Board also issued 95 immediate
stop-work orders to asbestos abatement employers because of the seriousness of
the violations and risk to workers.
 |
| Mike Singh of Seattle Environmental Consulting |
Munro says that in 2018 alone, the Workers
Compensation Board issued 37 administrative penalties related to
violations of asbestos regulations totaling $237,386 in fines – but only 17
have been paid in full, with $66,256 collected to-date.
There are other firms that owe hundreds of
thousands of dollars in unpaid fines, with one company at well over $1 million
owed to the Workers Compensation Board, Munro added. The B.C. Supreme Court has
issued 12 injunctions against asbestos employers at the Workers Compensation
Board’s request – to force them to obey the law, Munro says.
Laird Cronk, BC Federation of Labour
President, explained that unions and the federation have been calling for the
licensing and regulation of asbestos firms for several years.
“These cases show the pressing need for
the BC government to act now,” Cronk said. “They also demonstrate the
need for a certified program for workers handling asbestos, as well as more
resources to support proactive enforcement and monitoring.”
The officials highlighted that several other
jurisdictions have licensed asbestos removal firms, including Washington State
and Oregon in the U.S., the United Kingdom and Australia.
“The models are there, the need is urgent
and people are going to die from asbestos exposure, so let’s get it done and
done now,” Munro said.
Labour advocates are also asking the province
to train and certify asbestos workers, consultants and surveyors. In addition,
they want the province to create new disposal sites, a disposal rebate program,
standardized asbestos testing for laboratories and an awareness program on
exposure risks in the automotive repair sector.
Finally, they want proper compensation for
workers who suffer asbestos-related diseases. Asbestos is the leading cause of
workplace deaths in B.C., predominantly from mesothelioma, with 47 work-related
deaths recorded in 2018.
Both the trail judge and the court of Appeal overlooked or ignored this fact as stated in section 196(7) of the Act.
ReplyDelete7. The Respondent’s In-house counsel made a “confession” before Mr. Justice Macintosh that was overlooked or ignored by the Court of Appeal and the Court a quo... In house Counsel stated or “confessed” as follows: -
MR. BOWER: It may. But when dealing with exposing people or putting people at risk of exposure to asbestos, then those elements need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In order to prove that someone was put at risk of exposure to asbestos, well, first, the board would be required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was asbestos there. And on a practical level that would require expert evidence. It would require a chain of custody beyond a reasonable doubt, from the taking of samples through to the testing and back to court. And in many cases that may simply not be practically workable where you're dealing with work sites, again, that are being torn down and disposed of in a matter of days.
THE COURT: M'mm-hmm.
MR. BOWER: The RCMP have to do that with drug cases. They have to do that when establishing DNA for court purposes and criminal cases.
THE COURT: M'mm-hmm.
MR. BOWER: They have more resources. They have internal laboratories. Practically speaking, the evidence that we are putting forward is the best that we can do at this point. And can we on the evidence prove beyond a reasonable doubt that people were in fact exposed to asbestos or were in fact at risk of exposure to asbestos? On this evidence we cannot prove those. And we're not even alleging that because of the burden of proof.
(the “Bower Confession”)
8. In-house Counsel of the Respondent throughout the various applications before the Court including the hearing before Marzari J., made crucial misrepresentations pertaining the nature of the Russell J. Order. For example, it is not evident ex facie the Order of Russell J. that it was an interim Order and that the Order was made without considering the facts and the merits.
9. The following statements made to the Court before Macintosh J .is indicative of the misrepresentations made by In-house Counsel of the Respondent:
15 THE COURT: All right. Just one second.
16
17 MR. BOWER: The order at issue, Madam Justice Russell's
18 order of 2012, was not made ex parte. It was made
19 after hearing fully from counsel for both parties,
20 and rules governing an ex parte order, such .. as
21 positive disclosure requirements on the party
22 seeking the order or the test to set aside an
23 ex parte order, are not applicable here. This
24 order is not an interim injunction in the course
25 of a proceeding that's hearing -- towards a final
26 hearing that temporarily balances rights of the
1 parties until a final hearing conclusively
2 determines those rights. It was sought by
3 petition pursuant to section 198.
4
5 THE COURT: She called it interim.
6
7 MR. BOWER: She called it interim, in my submission,
8 simply to make clear that it could be, as in the
9 application before you, My Lord, amended or
10 perhaps even set aside at a later date. But it's
11 not interim in that once the order was granted,
12 there was not any further matter to be heard.
13
14 THE COURT: Oh, I see. It wasn't interlocutory.
15
16 MR. BOWER: It's not interlocutory.
17
18 THE COURT: It wasn't pending a final resolution on a
19 point.