Graeme's experience in regulatory matters stems from having worked within government both before and after becoming a lawyer. He now advises clients on all matters of regulatory compliance, particularly regarding Occupational Health and Safety compliance, appeals, and regulatory investigations. He has represented clients in oral hearings before administrative tribunals, criminal proceedings in the courts, and regulatory investigations. Graeme also acts in cases of workplace fatalities, assisting employers and other affected parties navigate WorkSafeBC investigations.
If you or your business are facing questions from regulators, Graeme can help. For more information, contact us.
Graeme obtained an order cancelling a general duty violation order along with an associated $150,000 penalty related to an alleged excavation violation. The WCAT Vice Chair agreed with Graeme's submission, supported by expert opinion evidence, that the firm had not in fact been involved in the alleged violation. The Vice Chair noted:
I wish to acknowledge the contributions of the firm’s legal counsel and the ILO to this appeal. Their conduct at the hearing reflected the highest level of discipline and collegiality associated with senior legal counsel, and their determination to focus only on the relevant legal issues and evidence has left me with a clear pathway to understand what I must decide, and how I must decide it. ... I vary the review officer’s decision and cancel the penalty in its entirety.
Graeme obtained an order cancelling a $153,000 penalty as well as a general duty violation under section 21(2)(e) of the Act and a violation order under the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation. The appeal related to an incident where an excavator boom had entered into the limits of approach causing an arc from a high voltage line. The WCAT Vice Chair accepted Graeme's submissions that the employer had exercised due diligence to prevent the incident, and that the penalty was therefore inappropriate.
Graeme obtained an order cancelling a $20,000 penalty issued to a roofing company for a fall protection violation. Graeme successfully argued that the penalty was inappropriate to motivate the employer.
Acting alongside an experienced OHS Consultant, we successfully overturned an order under section 20.112(2) of the Regulation related to the quality of a hazardous material inspection report. The Review Officer agreed with out position that our client's obligation was limited to hiring the qualified person to conduct the inspection, and that any concerns about the quality of the inspection or report fell on the qualified person alone.
Graeme worked with the employer's other counsel to prepare written submissions on the review of an $11,000 administrative penalty for a underground gas line strike. The Review Officer accepted our submission that the employer had exercised due diligence and cancelled the penalty.
Graeme obtained an order that a $66,000 administrative penalty issued to a farming operation be cancelled. Graeme successfully argued that there was no evidence that the violation in issue, related to an exposure control program, was “high risk”. The Tribunal noted in its reasons that the employer had “the advantage of experienced counsel who ably presented the employer’s perspective.”
Graeme obtained a $300,000 refund for an employer related to past assessment amounts. Graeme successfully argued on appeal that the employer should be able to pay two different assessment rates, and subsequently demonstrated how more than $3 million in payroll should be allocated between those two rates.
Acting alongside an experienced OHS Consultant, Graeme obtained a cancellation of a $97,900 administrative penalty issued to a commercial restoration company for an alleged asbestos violation. We successfully argued that the violation was a “location violation”, which meant it was not a repeat violation, and that it did not warrant an administrative penalty.
Graeme obtained a cancellation of a $29,000 administrative penalty issued to a roofing company for a fall protection violation. Graeme successfully argued that the employer did not require the additional motivation of this administrative penalty.
Graeme obtained a reduction from a $40,742 administrative penalty issued to a homeowner alleged to have breached asbestos requirements down to $2,500. Graeme successfully argued that the $2,500 was sufficient motivation and that the additional amount of the penalty was unnecessary.
Graeme obtained a reduction from a $98,000 administrative penalty issued to an asbestos abatement contractor to $64,000. Graeme successfully argued that the penalty had been miscalculated for prior penalties.
