Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Characterisation of the employer’s obligation of “diligence raisonnable” in occupational health and safety prosecutions under the construction safety code
• Assessment of whether a single worker’s unsafe conduct, contrary to clear instructions and training, can be legally dissociated from the employer in a penal CNESST proceeding
• Weight given to contemporaneous site evidence (presence of proper fall-protection equipment, prevention program, rescue plan) versus the inspector’s observation of a momentary infraction
• Impact of the worker’s prior safety breaches, prior discipline, and experience on the evaluation of employer fault and adequacy of supervision
• Interpretation and application of fall-protection requirements under article 2.9.1 of the Code de sécurité pour les travaux de construction to a bridge-refurbishment platform over a frozen river
• Determination that the incident bears the “sole signature” of a recalcitrant employee, leading to the employer’s acquittal despite the occurrence of a regulatory breach on site

Facts of the case
La Commission des normes, de l’équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (CNESST) instituted a penal proceeding before the Cour du Québec (Chambre criminelle et pénale) against Stellaire Construction inc., a civil engineering contractor performing refurbishment works on a steel bridge over a river at Batiscan. On 10 December 2024, the company was in the process of demobilising the site at the request of the maître d’œuvre. About six workers were present, including two foremen, Jonathan Fontaine and Tommy Boudreau. The works involved several temporary structures or “axes” installed on the bridge to permit access to the steel members. The incident occurred on axis 5, a cantilevered work platform extending from one of the bridge piers and situated more than three metres above a frozen river. Because the platform was being dismantled, the guardrails functioning as a first physical barrier had already been removed. In these circumstances, workers’ safety against falls depended entirely on their personal fall-arrest systems: safety harnesses connected to an available and functional self-retracting lifeline (enrouleur) anchored on the structure. Early that morning, Fontaine, acting as foreman and also working physically on the bridge, gave the team safety directives tailored to the day’s tasks. He testified that from the beginning of the shift until he left the site around 11:00 for a dental appointment, worker Mario Isabel was always observed properly tied off. Stellaire’s prevention practices included review and signature of the site-specific prevention program by each worker and regular “pause sécurité” meetings every two weeks, where crews reviewed evolving risks depending on work progression. Isabel himself was a senior steel erector, over 50 years old, employed by Stellaire for approximately 18 years. Earlier in 2024 he had obtained health and safety-related certifications, including level-1 rescue, representative in health and safety training, and training to sit on a site safety committee. In January 2024, he signed the employer’s health and safety guide and accompanying disciplinary procedure, and management had initially seen him as a strong candidate to assume safety responsibilities on sites. However, in autumn 2024, his safety record deteriorated. On a separate Gaspésie job, he had been expelled from the site for failing to comply with safety directives, leading Stellaire to impose a one-week unpaid suspension and to prohibit him from operating any lifting devices. Management also instructed Fontaine to monitor him closely and “tighten the screws” at the slightest misconduct.

The incident and inspection
Around 13:15, CNESST inspector Marie-Ève Tardif arrived unannounced at the Batiscan site. Standing near the shore at the site trailer, she began speaking with foreman Boudreau, who was occupied unloading a truck on the ground following the morning’s dismantling operations. From that vantage point she had a clear view of axis 5, where Isabel was working on the platform and moving a blue plastic barrel placed there. Although he wore a safety harness, the inspector observed that the lanyard was not connected to the anchorage system. When the inspector pointed this out, Boudreau looked and immediately saw that Isabel was working without being tied off. He shouted at the worker in strong terms to clip in, and he acknowledged that the work stoppage ordered by the inspector was warranted. Tardif then performed a site inspection. She confirmed the presence and proper state of the self-retracting lifeline that Isabel should have been using, as well as the availability of all required safety equipment. In the site trailer, she found the written prevention program and rescue plan; both were up to date and compliant. No irregularities were identified concerning the other workers, who were all acting in conformity with safety rules. About fifteen minutes later, around 13:30, after verifying that appropriate measures were in place, she authorised resumption of work.

Employer’s safety framework and prior discipline
At trial, three defence witnesses — Fontaine, Boudreau, and shareholder-manager Simon Dionne — described Stellaire’s safety culture and its specific dealings with Isabel. They testified that all workers, including Isabel, were required to study and sign the prevention program and that two-weekly safety pauses were held to address evolving risks. The safety equipment on the bridge, including fall-protection gear, was described as adequate and in good condition, a description corroborated by the inspector’s testimony. Dionne explained that, despite Isabel’s long service and earlier reliability, the Gaspésie incident had triggered a formal disciplinary response: a one-week suspension without pay, a ban on operating lifting devices in future, and explicit warnings regarding compliance with safety directives. When Boudreau phoned Dionne after the Batiscan incident to report that Isabel had again breached safety rules only weeks after that sanction, Dionne reacted strongly and consulted his associate. Concluding that this latest event was “the last straw,” the employer decided to summarily dismiss Isabel. For the court, this sequence showed that the company not only had preventive systems and training in place but also used progressive discipline and strong corrective measures when faced with individual non-compliance.

Legal issues and standard of diligence
The CNESST alleged that Stellaire, as employer, had contravened article 2.9.1 of the Code de sécurité pour les travaux de construction by allowing a worker to be exposed to a fall of more than three metres without adequate protection at his work position. The core legal question was whether the employer had exercised “diligence raisonnable” (reasonable diligence) such that it should be acquitted despite the occurrence of the unsafe act. The court analysed this through the established three-part framework for reasonable diligence in occupational health and safety: duty of foresight, duty of effectiveness, and duty of authority. It relied in particular on prior case law, including CNESST v. Fréchette Construction inc. and C. Corp. Inc. v. Québec (Procureur général), which emphasise that diligence is an obligation of means, not of result. The jurisprudence confirms that the law does not require employers to assume all employees are “stupid, grossly negligent or irresponsible,” nor to follow them “step by step.” Rather, employers must set realistic preventive measures, provide proper equipment, structure, and training, and in good faith ensure their application. In this case, even the prosecution conceded that Stellaire had not failed in terms of foresight and authority; its criticism focused on effectiveness, arguing that the company had not sufficiently controlled Isabel’s conduct since he still managed to work unsecured in a high-risk context.

Court’s assessment of employer fault versus worker misconduct
The judge carefully weighed the evidence relating to the site configuration, the demobilisation context, Isabel’s experience, and the employer’s systems. He noted that demobilisation had led to removal of certain external safety layers (rescue boats withdrawn because of ice on the river, guardrails already dismantled on axis 5), which increased reliance on personal fall protection. However, he considered it logical for Boudreau to assume that an experienced, long-serving steel erector would resume his tasks after lunch in the same safe manner observed all morning, especially where harness and lifeline were available and Isabel knew the rules. The court accepted that Fontaine and Boudreau had observed Isabel tied off in the morning, that the necessary equipment remained in place and functional in the afternoon, and that no other workers breached safety protocols. The inspector’s own evidence reinforced that the only non-compliant element at the time of her visit was Isabel’s personal choice or omission in failing to attach his harness. The judge rejected the idea that reasonable diligence required Boudreau to physically shadow Isabel on the structure “like a child learning to ride a bicycle” to confirm that he clipped in to the lifeline, especially given his senior status and recent safety training. Given the employer’s established safety framework, recent formal discipline, and immediate strong reaction after the incident (including Isabel’s dismissal), the court found that Stellaire had not been negligent in supervision or enforcement. It characterised the event as bearing “the sole signature of a recalcitrant employee” who knowingly acted contrary to explicit directives and at his employer’s unknown.

Outcome and monetary consequences
Concluding that Stellaire had “done its homework” in health and safety and had met its obligations of foresight, effectiveness, and authority in the specific circumstances, the court held that the employer had established reasonable diligence on a balance of probabilities. Accordingly, the Cour du Québec, per Judge of the Peace Magistrate Ghislain Lavigne, acquitted Stellaire Construction inc. of the alleged offence under the Code de sécurité pour les travaux de construction. The successful party is therefore Stellaire Construction inc., and because this was a penal/regulatory prosecution resulting in an acquittal, no fine, damages, or specific costs award in its favour is set out in the judgment; the total monetary amount granted or ordered for the successful party cannot be determined from the decision and appears to be nil.