1. R. v. Larry Argue at of: Larry Argue was the structural engineer retained by Alan Grinham to work on behalf of a consultant for an Ontario municipality regarding the construc'don of a washroom facility and change room in a public sports eld. Several years after the design and construction of the facilities, a 14-year-old school girl hopped up on a change table, causing an unsecured privacy wall to collapse with fatal results. The Ministry of Labour prosecuted the municipality, the architect and the engineer. in a preh'lal motion, all three defendants argued that the charges had been laid in excess of 12 months beyond the design and construction of the facility. The defendants ail argued that the offences were limited to a point in time, tat the time limit for laying charges had expired before the fatal accident occurred and that they were all beyond the reach of the Ministry of Labour for prosecution under the Occupational Health and Safegrct (SHE). Justice Epstein held that the engineer and the architect indeed could rely upon a statute of limitations defence. He accepted that the role of the architect and the engineer under the SHEA was a discrete, point in time htvolvement of eititer providingI advice or appropriate certification. However, he held that the municipality was under a continuing duty to provide a safe workplace, to both workers and members of the public, such as the fatally injured school girl, and the charges were not dismissed against the municipality. This case is a dire waning for all employers who have duties not only to workers but to members of the public as well