View cases - Stewart McKelvey

9acted as a resource for them. He also met with Ms. McKeough regularly. If there was arelatively serious incident at a worksite – damage, an injury or “near-miss”, a tenant’saccident – the supervisor’s report of such would come to him for review. He in turnwould review these with Ms. McKeough who would, in his words, “sign-off” on such. Hesays he would have little to do with the implementation of follow-up measures; rather,these were undertaken by the people directly involved in maintenance.[22] The morning after Mr. Della Valle received the Muggah report (par.3 and 4. of theAgreed Statement) he made a copy and went to see Mr. MacNeil to discuss it. He toldMacNeil what Muggah had told him, and at MacNeil’s suggestion went to Routledge anddid the same. He says he was aware that MacNeil sought advice from Mr. Leudey onOctober 27 th . With this he “took for granted” that action would ensue. He did notconsider himself a manager within the organization. He believed from past practice thathe would not be involved in any decision-making on what action would be undertaken.While it appears that Mr. Della Valle felt somewhat marginalized, there is no evidencethat he was ever ignored, pushed aside, or intimidated. He kept the original of Mr.Muggah’s letter in his own files.[23] Joan McKeough confirmed that she was the defendant’s direct supervisor. Theyworked in the same building and had frequent conversations and meetings. It was herexpectation that he would have reported this matter to her “if he understood thesignificance of it.” It is difficult to see how he could not have understood the significanceof the Muggah report. Ms. McKeough also confirmed that according to policy staff wererequired to report all incidents, accidents, etc. and that the defendant would, as part ofhis job, review all such reports. While Mr. Muggah’s letter did not come forward in theusual way - it was, in other words, not a typical incident report filed in the usual form -the letter surely was tantamount to a report on an incident of extreme importance tomany people. Given the practice under which the defendant reviewed incident reportswith Ms. McKeough, it is difficult to understand why he would make an exception in thisinstance.[24] Ms. McKeough also understood that the OHS Coordinator should report knownhazards to the JOHS Committee. While the defendant did report the matter to Mr.Routledge, who happened to be management’s representative on this committee, hedid not report it at or in the context of a JOHS committee meeting.[25] Mr. MacNeil pled guilty to this same offence on May 13 th , 2011. This does notexonerate the defendant, needless to say, given the principle of shared responsibility inthe OHS Act. Nevertheless Mr. MacNeil appears willing to shoulder the blame, saying