Ruling says business subject to search and seizure has reasonable expectation of privacy
The Ontario Court of Justice has ruled that a regulatory inspection related to a workplace injury did not violate a corporation’s right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, even though the company had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
In Ontario (Ministry of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development) v. The Econo-Rack Group Inc., 2025 ONCJ 190, the applicant corporation owned and operated an industrial facility in Brantford, Ontario, which manufactured steel pallet racking components.
In May 2023, a heavy material fell and seriously injured the right foot of one of the applicant’s employees. Two of his toes had to be amputated.
An inspector from the Ministry of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development – the respondent in this case – inspected the premises and gathered information about the applicant’s business operations, human resource practices, and employees. Specifically, the inspector collected the following:
The employer faced charges for two offences under Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act, 1990 (OHSA): failure to ensure the workplace conducted the measures and procedures under s. 45(b) of Ontario Regulation 851 and failure to provide information, instruction, and supervision to protect health and safety in the workplace under s. 25(2)(a) of the OHSA.
The applicant pleaded not guilty to the charges. It served a notice of constitutional application alleging a breach of its right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure under s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The applicant requested orders for costs and the exclusion of evidence under s. 24 of the Charter.
The ministry wanted to dismiss the corporation’s application on the ground that there was no breach under s. 8 of the Charter. The Ontario Court of Justice agreed and dismissed the application.
The court addressed the four questions included in the “totality of circumstances” test and ultimately accepted that the applicant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances.
First, the court found that the subject matter contained in the gathered materials could potentially amount to a breach of territorial and informational privacy. Second, the court determined that the applicant clearly had a direct interest in the subject matter collected by the ministry.
Third, the court said that the applicant failed to make a strong case that it had a subjective expectation of privacy in the subject matter. The court noted that the applicant’s senior manufacturing director testified that he felt compelled to give the ministry the requested information, but did not mention any expectation of privacy or perceived link to privacy.
Fourth, the court concluded that the applicant established on a balance of probabilities that it had a reasonable expectation of privacy, given the totality of the circumstances. In reaching this conclusion, the court noted the following:
While the applicant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances, the court held that the ministry acted reasonably in searching the applicant’s premises and collecting materials and committed no violation of s. 8 of the Charter.
The court found that s. 54 of the OHSA gave the ministry’s inspectors broad inspection powers and authorized the ministry’s search and seizure of evidence. The court determined that the inspector’s predominant purpose for gathering evidence in this case was as part of a regulatory inspection, not the investigation of penal liability.
The court noted that the applicant provided the inspector with all the materials except the photographs he took. Lastly, the court saw no need to make a finding about excluding evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.
