Editorial Belmoral victim of legal process

Canadian courts move in mysterious ways their wonders to perform.

In general, the court decisions we’re familiar with seem to display a good deal of common sense. Given the facts as we know them and the circumstances, we have, for the most part, agreed with their decisions.

Because, when you take away all the legalese, the highfalutin disp lay of lawyers’ black gowns, judges’ wigs, imposing courtrooms and voluminous paperwork, the decisions are no different to what an honest and considerate man would decide.

The ploddingly slow process, however, is sometimes less than ideal. The process can sometimes be more cruel than the court’s worst possible finding. And, in rare cases, the process can actually work against any just and equitable solution.

In the case of Belmoral Mines, that is exactly what has happened.

In May, 1980, a tragic accident took the life of eight miners at the Belmoral mine in Quebec and the company was subsequently charged with criminal negligence. Today, seven years later, the company and the Crown are not sure if the case will go to trial or not.

In this case, the process has clearly bogged down. It has taken on a life of its own, a life that no longer bears any relation to the notion of justice.

In truth the Belmoral case has already been to court. Belmoral was acquitted of all eight charges of criminal negligence. But the Crown appealed that decision on the basis that the trial judge had not properly charged the jury. The Crown won that appeal, but an appeal court cannot overturn a trial court’s decision, it can only order a new trial. And that’s what it has done.

But before that, Belmoral may try to appeal the appeal — in other w ords to have the original acquittal upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada.

And to further complicate matters, the Crown has not stated whether, in fact, it even wants to take the case to another trial.

Behind all this are the results of the Beaudry commission, a Royal enquiry conducted after the disaster but before the original trial. That enquiry said the accident occurred because the company had put profits before safety in its rush to start production.

Meanwhile, Belmoral has settled all civil suits regarding the accide nt. In fact, it has gone on to win several safety awards at the very mining operations where the tragedy occurred — an indication that it’s not some stubborn corporation which needs to be taught a lesson. While much of the company’s middle-management is unchanged since the time of the accident, the company has been financially reorganized and senior management totally overhauled.

So, if this case drags on for another year or two, what purpose is s erved?

No doubt the company would like to see the acquittal reconfirmed in order to clear its name once and for all. And, no doubt, after seven years the Crown would also like to win.

But should the decision in a new trial go against the company, the f ine would probably not recompense the province for the 8-year process. And the senior management at Belmoral today are not the individuals in a position of responsibility back in 1980.

Regardless of the outcome of a retrial, will the miners be safer? Wi ll fair punishment be rendered? Will an example be set? In short, will justice be served?

We think not.

It seems that this is an instance where the labyrinthine legal proce ss his undermined the objective. The sometimes frustrating process is often necessary to distance the courts from the emotions of an individual case, but in this case the process has rendered any decision virtually meaningless.

Both sides may wish for a clearcut decision to vindicate their actio ns, but we think that is no longer possible. We believe this case is best left where it lies.

Let the courts — and the companies — get on to more meaningful pursuits. Let the charges against Belmoral be dropped.