Has the application of section 217.1 of the Criminal Code succeeded in remedying the deficiencies in Canadian criminal law at the time of the Westray disaster?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bill C-45 became Canadian law in 2004. It created new criminal law duties for workplace health and safety (Bill C-45, 2004). This Bill implemented, in part, section 217.1 of the Criminal Code which established a new criminal law duty, applicable to everyone who has the authority to direct how another person does their work, to take reasonable steps to ensure their safety (Criminal Code, SC 2003, c. 21, s. 3). Sixteen years have passed since this Bill became law, providing ample time to analyze the success or failure of section 217.1 in remedying the issues in Canadian law present at the time of the Westray disaster (Criminal Code, SC 003, c. 21, s. 3). This paper evaluates, based on available evidence and primarily Canadian Court decisions which have considered this "new" section of the Criminal Code, whether Bill C-45has been successful and achieved its stated purpose (Criminal Code, 1985) (Bill C-45,2004). In that regard I will consider the following more specific, and in some cases counterfactual questions: (1) whether sections 217.1 and 22.1 of Bill C-45 would have resulted in a successful criminal prosecution in the Westray case (2)the judicial consideration of section 217.1 since 2004 (3) and cases where there has been a successful prosecution with respect to section 217.1, the impact that sentencing decisions have had on possible deterrence and workplace safety in Canada (Criminal Code, SC 2003, c. 21, s. 3). I conclude that (1) sections 217.1 and 22.1 would not have resulted in a successful criminal prosecution of any managers or officers of Curragh Inc., the owners of the Westray mine, (2) since 2004 there have been very few successful prosecutions using section 217.1, and the narrow judicial interpretation of section 217.1, and the fact that it does not create a separate criminal offence but merely a criminal law duty, has limited the effectiveness of Bill C-45 (Bill C-45, 2004). Moreover, where there have been successful prosecutions the sentences have been relatively lenient, (3) the relevant statistics and caselaw since 2004 illustrate limited deterrence or at least no positive trend in workplace injuries and deaths in Canada (Criminal Code, SC 2003, c. 21, s. 3). Given this analysis, section 217.1 and Bill C-45 generally have not succeeded in remedying the deficiencies in Canadian criminal law since (Bill C-45, 2004, "Section 217.1"). One of the main reasons for this is that this section does not create a criminal offence per se but rather a criminal law duty. For the "Westray Bill," and in particular section 217.1, to fulfill its intended purpose, it must be revised.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".