Boucherie Huot The owners appeal the verdict

Boucherie Huot The owners appeal the verdict

The owners of Boucherie Huot who were convicted of criminal negligence causing injury to an employee have decided to appeal the case.

• Read also: Boucherie Huot: the CNESST unveils its investigation findings

• Read also: Boucherie Huot: security was not respected at all

• Read also: No request to bypass security system, says former owner

• Read also: The well-maintained machinery, assures the son of the owner of Boucherie Huot

Jointly convicted, Bernard and Carl Huot were lax in neglecting to have the industrial chopper repaired, judged Annie Trudel in her judgment rendered on January 11.

In November 2016, employee Olivier Bouchard suffered serious head and arm injuries when he fell into the aircraft.

The chopper was supposed to stop when the lid was opened, but at the time of the tragedy, the device had been defective for two years and had been bypassed to prevent production from being halted following a breakage.

In her ruling, the judge called the accused’s testimony “implausible”.

Business culture

According to the petition filed with the registry, the “judgment of first instance is unreasonable” while the judge erred in law, in particular on the question of admissibility of evidence of previous unworthy conduct.

Note that Judge Trudel spoke of “laxity” and “contempt” of the owners of the butchery with regard to health and safety at work.

In short, the judge took into account the culture of the company in her decision.

According to the motion for leave to appeal, the judge “erred in fact and in law in drawing inferences and factual conclusions not supported by the evidence”, wrote counsel for the appellants, Mr.e Charles Levasseur.

The latter therefore asks to quash the conviction pronounced on January 11 and to order a new trial.

“Not satisfied with the verdict”

One of the two defendants, Bernard Huot, briefly commented on the new procedure, he who obviously said “not satisfied with the verdict”.

He says that the judge “was very hard on us” and deplores that her testimony was qualified “implausible”.

This is an appeal as of right that will first be debated before the Court of Appeal at the end of the month.


Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *