R v St. Michael's Hospital

R. v. St. Michael's Hospital

[1987] O.J. No. 2453
Ontario District Court — Corbett D.C.J. | November 25, 1987

Background

St. Michael's Hospital and Wellesley Hospital were both charged under section 40 of the Environmental Protection Act for using waste management facilities not in accordance with their Provisional Certificate of Approval. The specific allegation was that they transported "pathological waste" to the Brock West Landfill Site in Pickering using York Disposal Services Limited — a company whose certificate specifically prohibited transporting hazardous waste.

On September 25, 1985 (St. Michael's) and October 11, 1985 (Wellesley), Ministry of Environment inspectors found suspicious materials in hospital waste loads at the landfill. At St. Michael's load, they discovered "flesh-like material" in green garbage bags. At Wellesley's load, they found "2 pieces of fleshy, yellowy-red material, each of golf-ball size" in a red plastic bag. Both hospitals had elaborate waste management systems with different colored bags for different types of waste and staff training programs.

Issues

1. Did the Crown prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the waste found was "pathological waste" as defined in the regulations?
2. If the waste was pathological, did the hospitals establish a due diligence defence?

The Definition Problem

The case turned on the regulatory definition of "pathological waste" under Ontario Regulation 309. The regulation defined it as "any part of the human body, including tissues and bodily fluids, but excluding fluids, extracted teeth, hair, nail clippings and the like, that are not infectious." The Crown had to prove either that the material was human body tissue, or that if it was bodily fluid, it was infectious.

The trial judge found that the Crown failed to meet this burden. No samples were analyzed to determine the nature of the tissue. The Crown withdrew charges against two other hospitals mid-trial, admitting "there are going to be problems with proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically with regard to proving that it is infectious waste." The court refused to qualify proposed expert witnesses — a public health inspector and a placenta transporter — finding they lacked sufficient expertise in human tissue identification.

The Due Diligence Defence

Even though the Crown failed to prove its case, the court also found that both hospitals had established due diligence. Following R. v. Sault Ste. Marie, the hospitals showed they had established proper systems to prevent the offence and took reasonable steps to ensure effective operation. Both had comprehensive waste segregation protocols, staff training programs, ongoing committees, and regular discussions with the Ministry of Environment. The court considered factors including the gravity of potential harm, alternatives available, likelihood of harm, and the degree of knowledge expected of the institutions.

Key Takeaway

The prosecution must prove every element of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt, even in regulatory cases — assumptions and suspicions aren't enough.

This case shows that even when circumstances look bad, the Crown still bears the burden of proving each element of the offence with proper evidence. It also demonstrates that organizations with comprehensive compliance systems can successfully raise due diligence defences in regulatory prosecutions.