An Ontario court has rejected a Charter challenge brought by The Econo-Rack Group Inc., operating as Konstant Manufacturing, ruling that a Ministry of Labour inspector did not violate the company’s right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure under section 8 of the Charter during a post-incident workplace safety inspection.
The case stems from a May 1, 2023, incident in which a steel racking frame weighing nearly 500 pounds fell and seriously injured a forklift operator during the night shift at Konstant’s Brantford, Ont., facility. The worker, R.M., later required partial amputation of two toes.
Following the incident, Ministry inspector M.K. conducted several visits to the facility and issued compliance orders related to employee training and equipment safety. Konstant argued that the inspector’s actions amounted to a warrantless search for evidence of penal liability, and that any materials collected after his initial visit on May 3, 2023, should be excluded from the prosecution under section 24(2) of the Charter.
The company contended that once the first compliance order was issued, the Ministry had effectively “crossed the Rubicon” from a regulatory inspection to a criminal investigation. It maintained that any further information-gathering required judicial authorization.
However, the court disagreed, finding that the inspector’s predominant purpose remained regulatory in nature throughout his investigation and that the search was authorized under s. 54 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA).
Ministry’s role deemed regulatory, not adversarial
The court acknowledged Konstant’s reasonable expectation of privacy regarding business operations, employee information, and workplace procedures. Nonetheless, it concluded that the inspector acted within the scope of his statutory powers.
“Employers do – and should – expect some degree of privacy in their workplaces,” the court said, noting that even where this expectation exists, it can be reasonably limited in highly regulated industries such as manufacturing.
The court noted that the inspector’s focus remained on immediate safety risks and compliance. Although the inspector issued orders related to employee training and equipment inspection, the court found no indication that his conduct was consistent with an adversarial or prosecutorial role.
“In my view, having acted on this specific risk, [the inspector] would likely have crossed the Rubicon and been engaged in an investigation of penal liability had he continued to gather information regarding employee training on the crane,” the court said. “He did not do this.”
Inspector’s evidence gathering upheld
Evidence collected included employment records, health and safety training documentation, engineering drawings, video footage, and WSIB forms. The inspector also conducted interviews and photographed the worksite.
The court accepted that the materials had the potential to engage both territorial and informational privacy rights, but ruled that the search was reasonable given the regulatory context.
“The respondent has demonstrated that the Ministry’s search in this case was reasonable,” the court said. “All materials were provided to him by Konstant, other than the photographs he took.”
Concern raised over lack of documentation by inspectors
While dismissing the Charter application, the court criticized the Ministry’s lack of procedural safeguards. The inspector testified that he had never applied for a warrant in nearly 6,000 inspections and did not document when he believed he had formed grounds to lay charges.
“This is alarming,” the court said, warning that such practices “effectively create a degree of immunity from the judicial oversight of Ministry decision making and its impacts on employers.”
Despite these concerns, the court found no breach in this particular case, emphasizing that the materials were gathered in the course of a regulatory inspection rather than a criminal investigation.
No order for costs
Konstant’s request for costs under section 24(1) of the Charter was also denied. The court held that the Ministry’s conduct did not amount to a marked and unacceptable departure from expected standards.
“The application is dismissed,” the ruling concluded.
For more information, see Ontario (Ministry of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development) v. The Econo-Rack Group Inc., 2025 ONCJ 190 (CanLII).
