News & Publications

Can a Statement Made to an Alberta OHS Officer be used as Evidence in a Criminal Proceeding?

Submitted By Firm: McLennan Ross, LLP

Contact(s): Gerhard Seifner, Glenn D. Tait


David G. Myrol

Date Published: 4/16/2012

Article Type: Legal Article

Share This:

For several years the following question has been asked: “Can a statement given
to OHS Officers investigating a workplace accident be used as evidence in a
criminal prosecution in Alberta?” In other words, can your own words, which are
compelled by provincial law on pain of jail for refusing, be used as evidence
against you in a criminal prosecution? The question has not been answered
definitively by Alberta courts but a recent case from Ontario suggests the answer
is “no”. The case is not binding on Alberta courts, and a different approach could
be taken in Alberta, but the reasoning from Ontario seems persuasive. The
analysis is not without complexity as one drills into the details, and with the state of law in Alberta
being uncertain, employers and in-house counsel would be well advised to take a few simple
precautions when employees are talking to OHS Officers regarding a serious workplace accident.

Section 19 of the Alberta Occupational Health and Safety Act (“OHS Act”) compels a person with
information relating to a workplace accident to provide that information to an OHS Officer when
requested to do so. If the person refuses to provide the information requested by the OHS Officer, or
the person knowingly gives a false statement or false information to the OHS Officer, then the
person can be charged and sentenced up to six months in jail if convicted. This requirement is
balanced by a “use immunity” clause in section 19 which provides that the statement is inadmissibleor any purpose in a trial or other proceeding. The wording of this “use immunity” clause is broad in scope. How then, in the face of this seemingly straightforward rule of evidence, can a statutorily compelled statement be used in evidence against its maker in a criminal proceeding?

The legal problem, like many in Canada, rests in our constitutional division of powers. Provinces
are not entitled to pass legislation on federal matters. The OHS Act is provincial legislation.
Criminal law is governed under federal legislation. Therefore, the rule of evidence in section 19 of
the OHS Act does not apply to a criminal proceeding. In simplistic terms, prosecutors could argue
the provincial rule of evidence in section 19 does not apply to criminal cases. This argument has
been used by prosecutors in other circumstances, in other jurisdictions.

For example, the Ontario Court of Appeal recently dealt with this issue in an analogous situation. In
R. v. Soules (2011), 273 C.C.C. (3d) 496 (Ont. C.A.), the main issue was whether a statement
compelled under the Highway Traffic Act (i.e. provincial legislation) was admissible in a trial under
section 253(b) of the Criminal Code for exceeding the legal blood alcohol limit (i.e. federal legislation). In that case prosecutors attempted to introduce the defendant’s compelled statement to
police officers which was given under the Highway Traffic Act. The compelled statement gave the
officer a suspicion that the defendant had alcohol in his body. This was important because once the
officer formed the suspicion that the defendant was operating a motor vehicle with alcohol in his
body, the officer was entitled to demand a roadside screening sample. The defendant failed the
roadside screening device which entitled the officer to escalate things by demanding breath samplesfrom an approved instrument. Accordingly, the compelled statement under the Highway Traffic Act became pivotal to the success of the prosecution. Without the statement, there was no suspicion; without the suspicion, there was no ability to demand a roadside sample; and without the roadside sample, there was no ability to demand breath samples from an approved instrument. Thus, without the evidence of the compelled statement, there would be no conviction.

In Soules, the defendant’s vehicle rear-ended another vehicle that was turning right into a driveway.
The roads were wet at the time of the accident. The defendant’s vehicle was also rear-ended by
another vehicle. The police investigated the accident and spoke with each driver. In speaking with
the defendant, he identified himself as the driver of his vehicle. The police officer, based on his
observations in speaking with the defendant, formed a suspicion that the defendant had alcohol in
his system. The police officer demanded a roadside screening sample. The defendant failed the
roadside test and subsequently provided breath samples of 143 and 136 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood (the legal limit is 80 milligrams) and was charged accordingly.

At trial the defendant argued that his rights under sections 7 and 10(b) of the Charter were violated.
He defended himself on the basis that the breath samples should be excluded as evidence because they were obtained in violation of his Charter rights. In particular, the defendant argued, amongst other things, that his right against self-incrimination under section 7 of the Charter was violated by having his compelled statement used against him in a criminal proceeding. The trial judge agreed, the evidence of the compelled statement was ruled inadmissible and with it the results of theoadside and breath samples, and the defendant was acquitted.

The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s decision and affirmed the acquittal. The Court
summarized the applicability of provincial “use immunity” clauses to criminal proceedings in the
following manner at paragraphs 47-48:

46 Use immunity created by a provincial statute cannot extend to proceedings under the Criminal Code,because it would be ultra vires the province to restrict the admissibility of evidence in criminal matters: White at para. 35. As Iacobucci J. explains further in para. 72, the purpose of this type of provincial legislation is not to assist the police in the investigation of specific crimes; rather,

  • The provinces are entitled to inquire into factual circumstances that may involve the commission of a criminal offence, but their jurisdiction does not extend so far as to trench upon the federal power under s.1(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867 over the criminal law.

48 Use immunity therefore is limited to the jurisdiction of the provincial legislature and relates to whether or not there has been compliance with the legislated reporting requirement. Thus, although the Ontario Highway Traffic Act does not have similar use immunity provisions, this simply means that in Ontario the statutorily compelled accident report can be used to prove non-compliance as required by the Highway Traffic Act;nothing more.

In reviewing this passage one might be inclined to assume there is little risk of having a compelled
statement under the OHS Act used in a criminal proceeding. However, there are a few points to keep
in mind before this conclusion can safely be reached.

First, it is important to note that Soules is somewhat incomplete in the sense that the Crown did not
seriously advance an argument that any infringement of section 7 of the Charter was reasonably
justified under section 1 of the Charter. The Crown did not raise this issue at trial, nor at the first
level of appeal, and only raised the issue in a cursory fashion before the Ontario Court of Appeal.
On that basis the Ontario Court of Appeal gave the argument no consideration. Accordingly, the
door was left slightly open in the future for this type of argument.

Second, the immunity clause contained in section 19(5) of the OHS Act is only triggered when an
OHS Officer “requests” the information while investigating a serious workplace accident.
Accordingly, if the statement is voluntarily made, without being requested by the OHS Officer, then
arguably the immunity may not apply. The “use immunity” also does not apply to a police officer
conducting a criminal investigation who requests information in respect of a serious workplace

Third, one of the common elements in both Soules and White was that the defendants believed they
were compelled to provide the information requested by the police. Clearly, they both understood
their statutory obligations. Does the analysis change if the person has no knowledge of being
compelled to provide the information and simply offers the information freely and voluntarily? Will
section 7 of the Charter still apply? Will the statement still be excluded under section 24(2) of the
Charter? There are no clear answers to these questions but employers can avoid the confusion after
a serious workplace by advising their workers of their post-accident duties and responsibilities
under the OHS Act.

Finally, section 19(5) of the OHS Act is not a complete immunity clause. It is more accurately
described as a “limited use immunity” clause, meaning the statement can still be used for two
limited purposes. Under section 19(5) the compelled statement can still be used in a provincial OHS
prosecution to prove the person refused to provide the information requested, or the person
knowingly gave a false statement or false information to the OHS Officer. Accordingly, immunity
may not be granted to a person refusing to provide the information, or a person who knowingly lies
to OHS Officers.

Find an Employment Lawyer

View or print a complete ELA member list »

Client Successes

Altra Industrial Motion Inc.

Altra Industrial Motion Inc. has multiple locations in the U.S., as well as Central America, Europe, and Asia. The Employment Law Alliance has proved to be a great asset in assisting us in dealing with employment issues and matters in such diverse venues as Mexico, Australia, and Spain. We have obtained excellent results using the ELA network for matters ranging from a multi-state review of employment policies to assisting with individual employment issues in a variety of foreign jurisdictions.

In one instance, we were faced with an employment dispute with a former associate in Mexico that had the potential for substantial economic exposure. The matter had been pending for over a year, and we were not confident in the employment advice we had been receiving. I obtained a referral to the ELA counsel in Mexico, who was able to obtain a favorable resolution of the dispute in only a few days. Based on our experiences with the ELA, we would not hesitate to use its many resources for future employment law needs.

American University in Bulgaria

In my career I have been a practicing attorney, counsel to the Governor of Maine, and CEO of a major public utility. I have worked with many lawyers in many settings. When the American University in Bulgaria needed help with employment litigation in federal court in Syracuse, New York, we turned to Pierce Atwood, the ELA member we knew and trusted in Maine, for a referral. We were extremely pleased with the responsiveness and high quality of service we received from Bond Schoeneck & King, the ELA's firm in upstate New York. I would not hesitate to recommend the ELA to any employer.

David T. Flanagan
Member of Board of Trustees 

Arcata Associates

I really enjoyed the Conducting an Effective Internal Investigation in the United States webinar.  We are in the midst of a rather delicate employee relations issue in California right now and the discussion helped me tremendously.  It also reinforced things that you tend to forget if you don't do these investigations frequently.  So, many, many thanks to the Employment Law Alliance for putting that webinar together.  It was extremely beneficial.

Lynn Clayton
Vice President, Human Resources

Barrett Business Services, Inc.

I recently participated in the ELA-sponsored webinar on the Employee Free Choice Act.  I was most impressed with that presentation.  It was extremely helpful and very worthwhile.  I have also been utilizing the ELA's online Global Employer Handbook.  This compliance tool is absolutely terrific. 

I am familiar with several other products that purport to provide up-to- date employment law information and I believe that this resource is superior to other similar compliance manuals.  I am delighted that the ELA provides this free to its members' clients.

Boyd Coffee Company

Employment Law Alliance (ELA) has provided Boyd Coffee Company with a highly valued connection to resources, important information and learning. With complex operations and employees working in approximately 20 states, we are continually striving to keep abreast of specific state laws, many of which vary from state to state. We have participated in the ELA web seminars and have found the content very useful. We appreciate the ease, cost effectiveness and quality of the content and presenters offered by these web seminars.  The Global Employer Handbook has provided our company with a very helpful overview of legal issues in the various states in which we operate, and the network of attorneys has helped us manage issues that have arisen in states other than where our Roastery and corporate headquarters are located in Portland, Oregon.

Capgemini Outsourcing Services GmbH

As an international operating outsourcing and consulting supplier Capgemini has used firms of the Employment Law Alliance in Central Europe. We were always highly satisfied with the quality of employment law advice and the responsiveness. I can really recommend the ELA lawyers.

Hirschfeld Kraemer

As an employment lawyer based in San Francisco, I work closely with high tech clients with operations around the globe. Last year, one of my clients needed to implement a workforce reduction in a dozen countries simultaneously. And they gave me 48 hours to accomplish this. I don't know how I could have pulled this off without the resources of the ELA. I don't know of any single law firm that could have made this happen. My client received all of the help they needed in a timely fashion and on a cost effective basis.

Stephen J. Hirschfeld

Hollywood Entertainment Corporation

As the Vice President for Litigation & Associate General Counsel for my company, I need to ensure that we have a team of top-notch employment lawyers in place in every jurisdiction where we do business. And I want to be confident that those lawyers know our business so they don't have to reinvent the wheel when a new legal matter arises. With more than 3400 stores and 35,000 employees operating in all 50 U.S. states and across Canada, we rely on the ELA to partner with us to help accomplish our objectives. I have been delighted with the consistent high quality of the work performed by ELA lawyers. I encourage other in-house counsel to use their services, as well.

Ingram Micro

Ingram Micro is the world's largest technology distributor, providing sales, marketing, and logistics services for the IT industry around the globe. With over 13,000 employees working throughout the U.S. and in 35 international countries, we need employment lawyers who we can count on to ensure global legal compliance. Our experience with many multi-state and multi-national law firms is that their employment law services are not always a high priority for them, and many do not have experts in many of their offices. The ELA has assembled an excellent team of highly skilled employment lawyers, wherever and whenever I need them, and they have proven to be an invaluable resource to our company.

Konami Gaming

Our company, Konami Gaming, Inc., is growing rapidly in a very diverse and highly regulated industry. We are aggressively entering new markets outside the domestic U.S., including Canada and South America. I have had the recent opportunity to utilize the services provided by the ELA. The legal advice was both responsive and professional. Most of all, the entire process was seamless since our Nevada attorney coordinated the services and legal advice requested. I look forward to working with the ELA in the future, as it serves as a great resource to the legal community.

Jennifer Martinez
Vice President, Human Resources

Nikkiso Cryo, Inc.

Until recently, I was unaware of the ELA's existence. We have subsidiaries and affiliates throughout the United States, as well as in Asia, the Middle East and Europe. When a recent legal issue arose in Texas, our long-time Nevada counsel, who is a member of the ELA, suggested that this matter be handled by his ELA colleague in Dallas. We are very pleased with the quality and timeliness of services provided by that firm, and we are excited to now have the ELA as an important asset to help us address employment law issues worldwide.

Palm, Inc.

The ELA network has been immensely important to our company in helping us address an array of human resources challenges around the world. I strongly encourage H.R. executives who have employees located in many different jurisdictions to utilize the ELA's unparalleled expertise and geographic coverage.

Stacy Murphy
Former Senior Director of Human Resources

Rich Products

As the General Counsel for a company with 6,500 employees operating across the U.S. and in eight countries, it is critical that I have top quality lawyers on the ground where we do business. The ELA is an indispensable resource. It has taken the guesswork out of finding the best employment counsel wherever we have a problem.

Jill K. Bond
Senior Vice President/General Counsel, Shared Services and Benefits

Ricoh Americas Corporation

We have direct sales and service offices all over the U.S., but have not necessarily had the need in the past for assistance with legal work in every state where we have a business presence. From time to time, we suddenly find ourselves facing a legal issue in a state where we have no outside counsel relationship. It has been a real benefit to know that the ELA has assembled such an impressive team of experts throughout the U.S. and overseas.

A few years ago, we faced a very tough discrimination lawsuit in Mississippi. We had never had to retain a lawyer there before. I was absolutely delighted with the Mississippi ELA firm. We received an excellent result. They will no doubt handle all of our employment law matters in Mississippi in the future. I have also obtained the assistance of several other ELA firms around the U.S. and have received the same outstanding service. The ELA is a tremendous resource for our company.

Roberts-Gordon LLC

Our affiliated companies have used the Employment Law Alliance in connection with numerous acquisitions, and have always been extremely pleased with our ability to obtain the highest quality legal advice on due diligence issues from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. We have found the Employment Law Alliance firms to be not only first rate with respect to their legal advice but also responsive and timely in assisting us with federal and state law issues critical to our due diligence efforts. We consider the Employment Law Alliance to be an important part of our team.

Rockwell Collins, Inc.

We have partnered with many ELA firms on the development and execution of case management strategies with very positive results. We have been very pleased with the legal advice and counsel provided by the law firms we have utilized who are affiliated with the Employment Law Alliance. The ELA firms we have worked with are customer focused, responsive, and thorough in their approach to handling labor and employment law matters.

Elizabeth Daly
Assistant General Counsel


Sanmina-SCI has facilities strategically located in key regions throughout the world. Our customers expect that we will provide them with the highest quality and most sophisticated services in the marketplace. We have that same expectation for the lawyers with whom we do business. With operations in 17 countries, we need to be certain that we have a team of lawyers working together to address our employment law needs worldwide. The ELA has delivered exactly what it promised-- seamless and consistent high quality services delivered in each locale around the globe. It has quickly become a key asset for our human resources department.


We own, manage, and franchise hotels throughout the U.S. and in more than 90 countries. With more than 145,000 employees worldwide, ensuring that we comply with the complex web of local labor and employment laws in every one of these jurisdictions is a daunting task. The Employment Law Alliance has served as an important resource for us and we have benefited greatly from its expertise and long reach. When a legal dispute or issue has arisen in some far-flung place, Employment Law Alliance lawyers have always provided responsive, practical, and cost-effective assistance.

Wilmington Trust Corporation

Wilmington Trust has used the ELA to locate firms in California, Washington State, Georgia, and Europe. Our experience with the ELA lawyers with whom we have worked has always been one of complete satisfaction and prompt, practical advice.

Michael A. DiGregorio
General Counsel