R. v. 1222149 Ontario Ltd. (Dairy Queen and/or Embrun DQ Grill & Chill), July 8, 2024, at paragraphs 16 to 18:
[I]n determining what quantum of fine is appropriate for a corporate defendant for an OHSA offence, a sentencing judge must consider the size of the company and the scope of its economic activity with a view to assessing what level of fine will achieve specific and general deterrence, given the financial means of the company. This court has recognized that in order to achieve specific and general deterrence, the amount of a fine imposed on a corporate defendant must be sufficient that the fine will be “felt” by the corporation and not merely a “slap on the wrist”: R. v. Cotton Felts Ltd. (1982), 2 C.C.C. (3d) 287, at pp. 294-95. In other words, a fine imposed on a corporation must take into consideration the economic means of the corporation in order to achieve both specific and general deterrence: New Mex, at paras. 97, 98 and 111.
To make this assessment, a sentencing judge must consider the size of the corporation and the scope of its economic activity. Where a corporate defendant’s operations involve more than one location, in most cases, consideration of the size and economic means of the corporation will require consideration of the corporation as a whole, not just the location where the offence occurred.
A focus only on the size of the location where the offence occurred, rather than the corporation as a whole, fails to recognize the responsibility of the corporation for the conduct of its local operations.