The offence of discrimination under s 76(2)(d) of the OHSA does not require the prosecution to prove the employee's subjective belief in the safety concern, that the concern was raised on reasonable grounds, or that the concern was objectively well-founded — whether the employee 'raised an issue or concern about health or safety' is a question of fact for the jury. The element of 'threat' requires only proof that the accused intentionally made a declaration of intention to inflict punishment, pain or loss; it does not require proof of intended effect on the victim or that the threat was communicated to the subject. 'Detriment' is an ordinary English word for the jury to apply, not a legal term of art requiring 'real and substantial' detriment.
The full text is available to signed-in members.