Charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act

Charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act

List of alleged violation of OHS law yet to be proven in court.

The following cases are allegations yet to be proven in court. Please check with local courts as dates are subject to change at any time. Should charges be withdrawn or the individual, company or municipality charged be acquitted or found not guilty, the webpage will be updated to reflect that information. For more information, please contact the Communications Branch.

2018

Show Answer Charged is: O.E.M. Remanufacturing Company Inc.

Date charges laid:
April 5, 2018
Location of alleged offence:
Edmonton
Date of alleged offence:
May 11, 2016
Type:
Reportable Incident
Description:
A worker was seriously injured when hit by a tool-holder and bit that was thrown from the vertical milling machine being worked on.
Contravention:
O.E.M. Remanufacturing Company Inc., being an employer, was charged with 3 counts:
  • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of that employer.
  • Section 310(2)(e) of the OHS Code, failure to provide safeguards to protect workers from, either accidentally or through a work process, coming into contact with debris, materials or objects thrown from machinery or equipment.
  • Section 310(2)(a) of the OHS Code, failure to provide safeguards to protect workers from, either accidentally or through a work process, coming into contact with moving parts of machinery or equipment.

Show Answer Charged is: Sulzer Chemtech Canada Inc.

Date charges laid:
April 5, 2018
Location of alleged offence:
Red Water
Date of alleged offence:
April 27, 2016
Type:
Fatality
Description:
Worker was entering a fractionation vessel to prepare for close-up after an inspection of a vessel. The interior of the vessel was under a nitrogen purge, and the worker was using supplied air. Worker went into almost immediate distress and did not recover.
Contravention:
Sulzer Chemtech Canada Inc., being an employer, was charged with 11 counts:
  • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of that employer.
  • Section 48(1)(c) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a worker entering a confined or restricted space used safety and personal protective equipment (PPE), a draeger pas colt self-contained breathing apparatus (DPCSCBA)
  • Section 244(3) of the OHS Code, failure to provide appropriate respiratory protective equipment (RPE) to a worker by failing to provide appropriate emergency escape equipment for work in a confined space.
  • Section 246 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that RPE required at a work site was approved by the National Institute for OHS (NIOSH) or by another standards setting and equipment testing organization approved by a Director of Occupational Hygiene.
  • Section 246 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure RPE required at a work site was approved by NIOSH (or by others previously identified) because the equipment included an Eaton Hansen series LL2-HK female non-locking coupler attached to the air hose on the DPCSCBA.
  • Section 246 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that RPE required at a work site, a Dixon H2F2-S male coupling on a red L 3/8 inch air hose, #1151, was approved by NIOSH (or by others previously identified).
  • Section 246 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that RPE required at a work site, a DIXON H2F2-S male coupling on a red L 3/8 inch air hose, #1642, was approved by NIOSH (or by others previously identified).
  • Section 246 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that RPE required at a work site, a red L 3/8 inch air hose, #1151, was approved by NIOSH (or by others previously identified).
  • Section 246 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that RPE required at a work site, a red L 3/8 inch air hose, #1642, was approved by NIOSH (or by others previously identified).
  • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that equipment, a DPCSCBA, was operated in accordance with the specifications of a professional engineer or with the manufacturer's specifications, which require the user to position the cylinder against the left hip
  • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that equipment, a DPCSCBA, was operated in accordance with specifications of a professional engineer or with manufacturer's specifications, which stated: "do not remove equipment until in a safe area, clear of hazard".

Show Answer Charged is: Beach’s Quality Drywall Ltd.

Date charges laid:
March 22, 2018
Location of alleged offence:
High River
Date of alleged offence:
May 13, 2016
Type:
Reportable Incident
Description:
A worker was feeding insulation material into the hopper of an insulation blower. When the blower auger got jammed with a bag of insulation feed, the worker stepped into the hopper to clear the jam. The auger started rotating, seriously injuring the worker’s right leg.
Contravention:
Beach’s Quality Drywall Ltd., being an employer, was charged with 5 counts:
  • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the safety of a worker engaged in the work of that employer.
  • Section 13(1)(a) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure where work was done that may endanger a worker, the work was done by a worker competent to do that work.
  • Section 15(1) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that its workers were trained in the safe operation of the equipment they were required to operate, a Heat Seal 5500 D Insulation Blowing Machine.
  • Section 7(1) of the OHS Code, failure to assess its worksite and identify existing or potential hazards before work began at the work site.
  • Section 8(2) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that workers affected by the hazards identified in a hazard assessment report were informed of the hazards and of the methods used to control or eliminate the hazards.

Show Answer Charged is: Rapicon Inc.; Bernard Emond; Summit Crane Works Inc.; Spartan Crane Works Inc. o/a Summit Crane Works; Aaron Thomas o/a Summit Crane Works Inc.; and Aaron Thomas

Date charges laid:
March 22, 2018
Location of alleged offence:
Joffre
Date of alleged offence:
April 27, 2016
Type:
Fatality
Description:
A worker was struck and crushed by the apex portion of a tower crane structure being lifted from its mountings by a mobile crane. The worker received fatal injuries.
Contravention:
Rapicon Inc. was charged with 14 counts:
  • Section 2(1) (a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, being an employer, failed to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of that employer.
  • Section 2(5) of the OHS Act, being a contractor directing the activities of employers involved in work at a work site: Mammoet Canada Western Ltd. (Mammoet), and/or Ledcor Projects Inc. (Ledcor) and/or Summit Crane Works Inc. (Summit) and/or Aaron Thomas (A. Thomas), failed to ensure that the employer/s complied with the OHS Act, the Regulations and the Adopted Code in respect of that work site.
  • Section 2(5) of the OHS Act, being a contractor directing the activities of the employer, Mammoet, who failed to repeat a hazard assessment as required by Section 7(4)(c) of the OHS Code.
  • Section 2(5) of the OHS Act, being a contractor directing the activities of the employer, Mammoet, failed to ensure they complied with Section 68 of the OHS Code, that the employer provided all the necessary information to the operator of the lifting device, the rigger supervised by the operator and the person in charge of the lift to enable them to determine the weight of the load to be lifted.
  • Section 2(5) of the OHS Act, being a contractor directing the activities of the employer, Ledcor, failed to ensure they complied with Section 7(4)(c) of the OHS Code, where the employer must ensure the hazard assessment (H/A) is repeated when a work process or operation changes.
  • Section 2(5) of the OHS Act, being a contractor directing the activities of the employer, Summit, failed to ensure they complied with section 189 of the OHS Code, equipment that could be dislodged or moved was contained, restrained or protected to eliminate potential danger to workers.
  • Section 13(1) of Alberta Regulation, being an employer, failed to ensure that if work was to be done that might endanger workers, that the work was done by a worker or workers competent to do the work or by a worker or workers working under the direct supervision of a worker who was competent to do the work.
  • Section 7(4)(c) of the OHS Code, being an employer, failed to assess its work site and identify existing or potential hazards when a work process or operation changed at the work site.
  • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, being an employer, failed to ensure that equipment, a potain tower crane, was dismantled in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications and/or the specifications certified by a professional engineer.
  • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, being an employer, failed to ensure that equipment and/or supplies, a Liebherr mobile crane was operated and/or handled in accordance with the manufacturer' s specifications and/or the specifications certified by a professional engineer.
  • Section 68 of the OHS Code, being an employer, failed to ensure that the operator of a lifting device, a Liebherr mobile crane, was provided with all the information needed to determine the weight of the load to be lifted, a potain tower crane apex.
  • Section 70(3) of the OHS Code, being an employer, failed to ensure that tag lines were not used in situations where their use could increase the danger to workers who were in danger of the movement of a load being lifted.
  • Section 189 of the OHS Code, being an employer, failed to ensure equipment that could be dislodged or moved was contained, restrained or protected to eliminate potential danger to workers.
  • Section 258(1)(a) of the OHS Code, being an employer, permitted worker/s to remain within range of a moving load where the movement of the load created a danger to workers.

Bernard Emond (owner of Rapicon Inc.) was charged with 2 counts:

  • Section 2(2)(a) of the OHS Act, being a worker and while engaged in an occupation, failed to protect the health and safety of himself and/or other workers present while he was working.
  • Section 189 of the OHS Code, being a worker, failed to ensure equipment was contained, restrained or protected to eliminate potential danger where he may be injured if equipment was dislodged or moved.

Summit Crane Works Inc.; Spartan Crane Works Inc. operating as Summit Crane Works Inc.; and Aaron Thomas operating as Summit Crane Works Inc. were charged with 12 counts:

  • Section 2(1) (a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, being employers, failed to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of those employers.
  • Section 2(5) of the OHS Act, being contractors directing the activities of employers involved in work at a work site: Rapicon, and/or Mammoet, and/or Ledcor, failed to ensure that the employer/s complied with the OHS Act, the Regulations and the Adopted Code in respect of that work site.
  • Section 2(5) of the OHS Act, being contractors directing the activities of the employer, Mammoet, failed to ensure they complied with Section 7(4)(c) of the OHS Code, where the employer must ensure the hazard assessment (H/A) is repeated when a work process or operation changes.
  • Section 2(5) of the OHS Act, being contractors directing the activities of an employer, Mammoet, failed to ensure they complied with Section 68 of the OHS Code, that the employer provided all the necessary information to the operator of the lifting device, the rigger supervised by the operator and the person in charge of the lift to enable them to determine the weight of the load to be lifted.
  • Section 2(5) of the OHS Act, being contractors directing the activities of the employer, Rapicon, failed to ensure they complied with Section 7(4)(c) of the OHS Code, where the employer must ensure the hazard assessment (H/A) is repeated when a work process or operation changes.
  • Section 2(5) of the OHS Act, being contractors directing the activities of the employer, Ledcor, failed to ensure they complied with Section 7(4)(c) of the OHS Code, where the employer must ensure the hazard assessment (H/A) is repeated when a work process or operation changes.
  • Section 13(1) of Alberta Regulation, being employers, failed to ensure that if work was to be done that might endanger workers, that the work was done by a worker or workers competent to do the work or by a worker or workers working under the direct supervision of a worker who was competent to do the work.
  • Section 15(1) of Alberta Regulation, being employers, failed to ensure that a worker was trained in the safe operation of the equipment the worker was required to operate, a tower crane and/or its apex.
  • Section 7(4)(c) of the OHS Code, being employers, failed to assess its work site and identify existing or potential hazards when a work process or operation changed at the work site.
  • Section 68 of the OHS Code, being employers, failed to ensure that the operator of a lifting device, a Liebherr mobile crane, was provided with all the information needed to determine the weight of the load to be lifted, a potain tower crane apex.
  • Section 189 of the OHS Code, being employers, failed to ensure equipment that could be dislodged or moved was contained, restrained or protected to eliminate potential danger to workers.
  • Section 258(1)(a) of the OHS Code, being employers, permitted worker/s to remain within range of a moving load where the movement of the load created a danger to workers.

Aaron Thomas (owner of Summit Crane Works Inc.) was charged with 2 counts:

  • Section 2(2)(a) of the OHS Act, being a worker and while engaged in an occupation, failed to protect the health and safety of himself and/or other workers present while he was working.
  • Section 189 of the OHS Code, being a worker, failed to ensure equipment was contained, restrained or protected to eliminate potential danger where he may be injured if equipment was dislodged or moved.

Show Answer Charged is: Horton CBI, Limited

Date charges laid:
March 12, 2018
Location of alleged offence:
Fort McMurray
Date of alleged offence:
March 21, 2016
Type:
Fatality
Description:
A worker had been welding on a large bitumen storage tank under fabrication when the worker fell from the board and bracket scaffold about sixty feet to the ground below. The worker received fatal injuries as a result of the fall.
Contravention:
Horton CBI, Limited, being an employer, was charged with 10 counts:
  • Section 2 (1) (a) (i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of that employer.
  • Section 139 (1) (a) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that where a worker could fall a vertical distance of 3 metres (m) or more, the worker was protected from falling at a temporary or permanent work area.
  • Section 139 (1) (c) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that where a worker could fall through an opening in a work surface, the worker was protected from falling at a temporary or permanent work area.
  • Section 121 (1) (d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a walkway had the appropriate toe boards and guardrails required by Part 22 of the OHS Code.
  • Section 314 (1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that an opening through which a worker could fall was protected by a securely attached cover designed to support an anticipated load or guardrails and toe boards.
  • Section 315 (3) of the OHS Code failure to ensure that a guardrail was secured so that it could not move in any direction if it was struck or if any point on it came into contact with a worker, materials or equipment.
  • Section 332 (1) (a) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a bracket scaffold was constructed, installed and used in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications or specifications certified by a professional engineer.
  • Section 185 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a worksite was kept clean and free from materials or equipment that could cause workers to slip or trip.
  • Section 326 (1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a scaffold was colour coded using tags at each point of entry indicating its status and condition.
  • Section 323 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a scaffold erected to provide a working platform during the construction of a structure complied with CSA Standards, accessing scaffolding for construction purposes.

Show Answer Charged is: Raging River Exploration Inc.

Date charges laid:
February 23, 2018
Location of alleged offence:
Esther
Date of alleged offence:
March 3, 2016
Type:
Reportable Incident
Description:
Two workers, employed by Greschner Oilfield Services Ltd., were using a boom truck to move a beam pump (pump jack) owned by Raging River Exploration Inc. The pump jack counterweights, which were not locked out, rotated downwards and struck one of the workers, causing serious injuries.
Contravention:
Raging River Exploration Inc., being the prime contractor for the work site, was charged with 8 counts:
  • Section 3(3) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the OHS Act, the regulations and the adopted code were complied with in respect of that work site.
  • Section 12(1(d) of the Alberta Regulation, failure to ensure that equipment used at the work site was free from obvious defects.
  • Section 13(2) of the Alberta Regulation, failure to establish or maintain a system to ensure that employers and workers on the work site complied with the pump jack lock-out and pump jack operational procedures.
  • Section 3(3) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the OHS Act, the regulations, and the adopted code were complied with in respect of that work site, by failing to maintain or establish a system to ensure that an employer on the worksite complied with managing the control of hazardous energy as required by Section 212(1) of the OHS Code.
  • Section 3(3) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the OHS Act, the regulations, and the adopted code were complied with in respect of that work site by failing to maintain or establish a system to ensure that an employer on the worksite complied with safeguards as required by Section 310(2)(a) of the OHS Code.
  • Section 3(3) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the OHS Act, the regulations, and the adopted code were complied with in respect of that work site by failing to maintain or establish a system to ensure that safeguards were provided on equipment as per section 310(2)(g) of the OHS Code.
  • Section 7(5) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that an employer on the work site was made aware of any existing or potential work site hazards, specifically that energy in the counterweights which were not locked-out on the pump jack, that could affect that employer's workers.
  • Section 7(5) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that an employer on the work site was made aware of any existing or potential work site hazards, specifically the defective brake on the pump jack that could affect that employer's workers.

Show Answer Charged is: Western Roofing & Contracting Inc.

Date charges laid:
January 18, 2018
Location of alleged offence:
Calgary
Date of alleged offence:
February 18, 2016
Type:
Fatality
Description:
A worker fell from a flat roof while lowering material manually using a rope.  The worker was not using a fall protection system and sustained fatal injuries..
Contravention:
Western Roofing & Contracting Inc., being an employer, was charged with 7 counts:
  • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of that employer.
  • Section 97(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a roofer’s hoist had counterweights designed as a component part of the hoist to remain securely attached until all lifting was completed and were heavy enough to counterbalance four times the maximum weight of the load being lifted.
  • Section 139(1)(a) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a worker was protected from falling from a work area where the worker could fall a vertical distance of three metres (m) or more.
  • Section 140(1) of the OHS Code, failure to develop procedures in a fall protection plan for a work site where a worker was not protected by guardrails and could fall 3 m or more.
  • Section 140(3) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a fall protection plan that complied with Part 9 of the OHS Code was available at a work site and was reviewed with workers before work with a risk of falling began.
  • Section 141(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a worker was trained in the safe use of the fall protection system being used at the work site before allowing that worker to work in an area where a fall protection system must be used.
  • Section 208(1) of the OHS Code, failure to provide appropriate equipment for lifting, pushing, pulling, carrying, or handling heavy or awkward loads.

Show Answer Charged is: Kelly Services (Canada) Ltd., Kelly Services (Canada) Ltd. operating as (o/a) Kelly Services, Kelly Services (Canada) Ltd. o/a Kelly, MTE Logistix Management Inc., MTE Logistix Edmonton Inc., Champion Petfoods LP, Champion Petfoods (GP) Ltd., Champion Petfoods (GP) Ltd. o/a Champion Pet Foods, Champion Petfoods Inc., Champion Petfoods Holding Inc., Champion Pet Foods Ltd., Champion Freeze Dry LP, Champion Freeze Dry (GP) Ltd., 818605 Alberta Ltd.

Date charges laid:
January 17, 2018
Location of alleged offence:
Edmonton
Date of alleged offence:
January 18, 2016
Type:
Reportable Incident
Description:
A worker on foot at a public warehouse was struck from behind by a lift truck (powered mobile equipment). The worker sustained a serious lower leg injury.
Contravention:
MTE Logistix Management Inc. and MTE Logistix Edmonton Inc., being prime contractors, were charged with 1 count:
  • Section 3(3) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure compliance with the Act, the Regulations and Adopted Code in respect of the worksite.

Champion Petfoods LP, Champion Petfoods (GP) Ltd., Champion Petfoods (GP) Ltd. o/a Champion Pet Foods, Champion Petfoods Inc., Champion Petfoods Holding Inc., Champion Pet Foods Ltd., Champion Freeze Dry LP, Champion Freeze Dry (GP) Ltd., 818605 Alberta Ltd., Kelly Services (Canada) Ltd., Kelly Services (Canada) Ltd. o/a Kelly Services, and Kelly Services (Canada) Ltd. o/a Kelly, being employers, were charged with 3 counts:

  • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of those employers.
  • Section 7(1) of the OHS Code, failure to assess a work site and identify existing and potential hazards before work began at the work site or prior to the construction of a new work site.
  • Section 259 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that walkways were designated that separated pedestrian traffic for workers from areas where powered mobile equipment was operating or that safe work procedures were used to protect workers who entered areas where powered mobile equipment was operating.

2017

Show Answer Charged is: Cessco Fabrication & Engineering Limited

Date charges laid:
December 20, 2017
Location of alleged offence:
Edmonton
Date of alleged offence:
January 19, 2016
Type:
Fatality
Description:
A worker was using an aerial work platform to access the top of a round vessel to weld on a fixture.  When the worker stepped out of the aerial work platform and stood on the top of the vessel to setup, the worker fell to the concrete floor 5.7 metres below and received fatal injuries.  
Contravention:
Cessco Fabrication & Engineering Limited, being an employer, was charged with 12 counts:
  • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of that employer.
  • Section 15(1) of Alberta Regulation, failure to ensure that its worker was trained in safe operation of equipment the worker was required to operate.
  • Section 152.2(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that if a worker used a personal fall arrest system or travel restraint system, the worker ensured that it was safely secured to an anchor that met the requirements of Part 9 of the OHS Code.
  • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that equipment was operated or handled in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications or the specifications certified by a professional engineer.
  • Section 139(1) (a) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that workers used a fall protection system at a temporary work area where a worker could fall 3 metres (m) or more.
  • Section 140(1) of the OHS Code, failure to develop procedures in a fall protection plan for a work site where a worker was not protected by guardrails and could fall 3 m or more.
  • Section 140(3) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a fall protection plan that complied with Part 9 of the OHS Code was available at a work site and was reviewed with workers before work with a risk of falling began.
  • Section 140(4) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a fall protection plan was updated when conditions affecting fall protection changed.
  • Section 141(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a worker was trained in the safe use of the fall protection system before allowing the worker to work in an area where a fall protection system must be used.
  • Section 152.1(2)(a) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a temporary anchor had a minimum breaking strength at any direction in which the load may be applied of at least 16 kilonewtons or 2 times the maximum arresting force per worker attached.
  • Section 152.1(2)(b) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a temporary anchor used in a personal fall arrest system was used according to the manufacturer's specifications or specifications certified by a professional engineer.
  • Section 156(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a worker on a boom-supported elevating work platform or a boom-supported aerial device, used a fall arrest system connected to an anchor specified by the manufacturer of the work platform or aerial device.

Show Answer Charged is: Nexen Energy ULC

Date charges laid:
December 19, 2017
Location of alleged offence:
Anzac
Date of alleged offence:
January 15, 2016
Type:
Fatality
Description:
An explosion occurred in the hydrogen Compressor Building while two workers were inside the building performing maintenance duties. One worker was declared deceased at the scene and the other worker died in the hospital several days later.
Contravention:
Nexen Energy ULC, being an employer, was charged with 8 counts:
  • Section 2(1) (a) (i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, on or about January 15, 2016, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 1.
  • Section 2(1) (a) (i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, on or about January 15, 2016, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 2.
  • Section 13(2) of Alberta Regulation, on or about January 15, 2016, failure to ensure that all workers, who were affected by the employer’s developed or implemented procedure or measure at the work site, were familiar with it before the work was begun, specifically: isolating a single stage of a compressor known as Make-Up Gas Compressor A and/or 3100-C-002A rather than both stages.
  • Section 13(2) of Alberta Regulation, between the dates of January 11, 2016 and January 14, 2016, both dates inclusive, failure to ensure that all workers, who were affected by the employer’s developed or implemented procedure or measure at the work site, were familiar with it before the work was begun, specifically: isolating a single stage of a compressor known as Make-Up Gas Compressor A and/or 3100-C-002A rather than both stages.
  • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, on or about January 15, 2016, failure to ensure that equipment, specifically a compressor known as Make-Up Gas Compressor A and/or 3100-C-002A, was serviced, maintained, repaired, or dismantled in accordance with specifications certified by a professional engineer or with the manufacturer's specifications, which state: "Do not loosen or remove any cylinder parts until the compressor is shut down and the pressure has been released. Pressure in the compressor system to be dropped to atmospheric pressure level".
  • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, between the dates of January 11, 2016 and January 14, 2016, both dates inclusive, failure to ensure that equipment, specifically a compressor known as Make-Up Gas Compressor A and/or 3100-C-002A, was serviced, maintained, repaired, or dismantled in accordance with specifications certified by a professional engineer or with the manufacturer's specifications, which state: "Do not loosen or remove any cylinder parts until the compressor is shut down and the pressure has been released. Pressure in the compressor system to be dropped to atmospheric pressure level".
  • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, on or about January 15, 2016, failure to ensure that equipment, specifically a compressor known as Make-Up Gas Compressor A and/or 3100-C-002A, was serviced, maintained, repaired, or dismantled in accordance with specifications certified by a professional engineer or with the manufacturer's specifications, which state: "Before starting to work, the staff in charge of the machine must have read the operating manual, especially the chapter on safety rules. It is too late to do it during work/operation. This applies especially to staff working only occasionally, e.g. during setting up or maintenance of the machine".
  • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, between the dates of January 11, 2016, and January 14, 2016, both dates inclusive, failure to ensure that equipment, specifically a compressor known as Make-Up Gas Compressor A and/or 3100-C-002A, was serviced, maintained, repaired, or dismantled in accordance with specifications certified by a professional engineer or with the manufacturer's specifications which state: "Before starting to work, the staff in charge of the machine must have read the operating manual, especially the chapter on safety rules. It is too late to do it during work/operation. This applies especially to staff working only occasionally, e.g. during setting up or maintenance of the machine".

Show Answer Charged is: Tory Industries Ltd.

Date charges laid:
December 6, 2017
Location of alleged offence:
Lacombe
Date of alleged offence:
December 9, 2015
Type:
Reportable Incident
Description:
A worker was drilling holes into a timber that was being used to make crane mats. The worker’s hand became entangled in the drill bit and countersink.
Contravention:
Tory Industries Ltd. was charged, as an employer, with 7 counts:
  • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, on or about December 9, 2015, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of that employer.
  • Section 7(1) of the OHS Code, between December 1, 2015 and December 9, 2015, both dates inclusive, failed to assess a work site and identify existing and potential hazards before work began at the work site or prior to the construction of a new work site.
  • Section 15(1) of the OHS Regulation, between December 1, 2015 and December 9, 2015, both dates inclusive, failed to ensure that a worker was trained in the safe operation of the equipment the worker was required to operate.
  • Section 310(2)(a) of the OHS Code, on or about December 9, 2015, failure to provide safeguards if a worker could accidentally, or through the work process, come into contact with moving parts of machinery or equipment.
  • Section 310(2)(b) of the OHS Code, on or about December 9, 2015, failure to provide safeguards if a worker could accidentally, or through the work process, come into contact with points of machinery or equipment at which material is cut, shaped or bored.
  • Section 310(2)(g) of the OHS Code, on or about December 9, 2015, failure to provide safeguards if a worker could accidentally, or through the work process, come into contact with machinery or equipment which may be hazardous due to its operation.
  • Section 310(2)(h) of the OHS Code, on or about December 9, 2015, failure to provide safeguards if a worker could accidentally, or through the work process, come into contact with any other hazard.

Show Answer Charged is: Aluma Systems Inc.

Date charges laid:
November 30, 2017
Location of alleged offence:
Medicine Hat
Date of alleged offence:
December 7, 2015
Type:
Fatality
Description:
Personnel were undertaking weatherproofing activities on an anhydrous ammonia tank at a fertilizer facility when two workers were exposed to anhydrous ammonia vapours from a broken line.  One worker sustained fatal injuries as a result of the incident.
Contravention:
Aluma Systems Inc., being an employer, was charged with 5 counts:
  • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 1 who was engaged in the work of that employer.
  • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 2 who was engaged in the work of that employer.
  • Section 9(1) of the OHS Code, failure to take measures to eliminate or control a hazard, having identified an existing or potential hazard to workers from an anhydrous ammonia piping system.
  • Section 7(4)(c) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure a hazard assessment was repeated when a work process or operation changed.
  • Section 310(2)(h) of the OHS Code, failure to provide safeguards where a worker could accidentally, or through the work process, come into contact with a hazard.

Show Answer Charged is: Winfield Industrial Sales Ltd. and West Fraser Mills Ltd.

Date charges laid:
November 16, 2017
Location of alleged offence:
Hinton
Date of alleged offence:
November 23, 2015
Type:
Fatality
Description:
A worker was installing guard rails on top of a bleaching tower and became entangled with the coupling on the gear drive. The worker was pulled into the machine and subsequently died due to injuries.
Contravention:
Winfield Industrial Sales Ltd., the employer, was charged with 19 counts:
  • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker.
  • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of another worker.
  • Section 13(3) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that workers who may be required to use safety equipment or personal protective equipment (PPE) were competent in the application, care, use, maintenance and limitations of that equipment
  • Section 7(4) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a hazard assessment was repeated at intervals to prevent the development of unsafe and unhealthy working conditions.
  • Section 8(2) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that workers affected by the hazards identified in a hazard assessment report were informed of the hazards and of the methods used to control or eliminate the hazards.
  • Section 9(1) of the OHS Code, where an existing or potential hazard to workers was identified during a hazard assessment, failed to take measures to eliminate or control the hazard.
  • Section 9(2) of the OHS Code, failure to control or eliminate a hazard through the use of engineering controls.
  • Section 9(4) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that the appropriate PPE was used by workers affected by a hazard if the hazard couldn’t be eliminated or controlled through engineering controls.
  • Section 139(1)(a) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure workers used a fall protection system at a temporary work area where a worker could fall a vertical distance of 3 metres (m) or more.
  • Section 139(1)(b) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure workers used a fall protection system at a temporary work area where a worker could fall a vertical distance of less than 3 m if there was an unusual possibility of injury.
  • Section 139(1)(c) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that workers used a fall protection system at a work area where a worker could fall into a hazardous substance or through an opening in the work surface.
  • Section 140(3) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a fall protection plan was available at a work site and was reviewed with workers before work with a risk of falling began.
  • Section 141(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure a worker was trained in the safe use of the fall protection system before allowing the worker to work in an area where fall protection system must be used.
  • Section 141(3) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure a worker was made aware of the fall hazards particular to that work site and how to eliminate or control those hazards.
  • Section 151(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure a personal fall arrest system was arranged so a worker could not hit the ground or hit a hazardous object.
  • Section 228(1)(b) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure workers properly use and wear PPE, where the hazard assessment indicates the need for PPE.
  • Section 228(3) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure the use of the PPE does not itself endanger the worker.
  • Section 310(2)(a) of the OHS Code, failure to provide safeguards if a worker may accidentally, or through the work process, come into contact with moving parts of machinery.
  • Section 314(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure an opening or hole a worker could fall through was protected by a securely attached cover or by guardrails and toe boards.

West Fraser Mills Ltd., the prime contractor, was charged with 2 counts:
  • Section 3(3) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the OHS Act, the Regulation and Code were complied with in respect of the work site.
  • Section 7(5) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that any employer on the work site was made aware of any existing or potential work site hazards that could have affected that employer’s workers.

Show Answer Charged is: Orion Rentals Ltd.; White Water Management Ltd.; White Water Management Ltd., formerly known as Orion Rentals Ltd.

Date charges laid:
November 8, 2017
Location of alleged offence:
Lacombe
Date of alleged offence:
November 16, 2015
Type:
Reportable Incident
Description:
A worker was tasked with operating power mobile equipment which the employer had modified for the purpose of spooling lay-flat irrigation piping. During the process, the spooling mechanism accelerated. This released the hose and steel coupler which smashed through the operator windshield and caused serious injuries to the worker.
Contravention:
Orion Rentals Ltd., White Water Management Ltd., and White Water Management Ltd. (formerly known as Orion Rentals Limited), being employers, were charged with 5 counts:
  • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of that employer.
  • Section 12(1)(b) of OHS Regulation, failure to ensure equipment used at a work site would safely perform the function for which it was intended or designed.
  • Section 9(1) of the OHS Code, failure to take measures to eliminate or control a hazard where an existing or potential hazard to workers was identified during a hazard assessment (HA).
  • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code failure to ensure equipment and supplies were assembled, started, operated, handled, stored, serviced, maintained, repaired and dismantled in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications or the specifications certified by a professional engineer.
  • Section 269 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that powered mobile equipment had adequate protection for the operator where an HA indicated a significant possibility that the operator may be injured by flying or projecting objects.

Show Answer Charged is: Eagle Builders LP, Eagle Builders Inc. and Bart Van Haaren

Date charges laid:
October 30, 2017
Location of alleged offence:
Blackfalds
Date of alleged offence:
November 9, 2015
Type:
Reportable Incident
Description:
While installing a line to be tied into the existing storm line, a worker was taking a measurement in the excavation when a concrete retaining wall collapsed on the worker causing serious injuries. 
Contravention:
Eagle Builders LP and Eagle Builders Inc., were charged with 11 counts.
  • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, being an employer, failed to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of that employer.
  • Section 2(1)(a)(ii) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failed to ensure the health and safety of a worker when the worker was not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site.
  • Section 3(3) of the OHS Act, being a prime contractor at a work site, failed to establish or maintain a system or process to ensure that a concrete wall panel was properly braced and/or that trench gravel backfilling was done safely.
  • Section 3(3) of the OHS Act, being a prime contractor at a work site, failed to ensure that an employer at the work site was made aware of the existing hazard of an unsecured concrete wall panel while trench gravel backfilling was being done.
  • Section 12(1)(b) of the OHS Regulation, being an employer, failed to ensure that equipment used at a work site would safely perform the function for which it is intended or was designed.
  • Section 13(1) of the OHS Regulation, being an employer, failed to ensure that work to be done that may endanger a worker, was done by a worker competent to do the work or by a worker who is working under the direct supervision of a worker who is competent to do the work.
  • Section 13(2) of the OHS Regulation, being an employer who developed or implemented a procedure or other measure respecting the work at a work site, failed to ensure that all workers affected by the procedure or measure were familiar with it before the work began.
  • Section 15(1) of the OHS Regulation, being an employer, failed to ensure that a worker or members of the work crew were trained in the safe operation of the equipment that he was required to operate, including a concrete wall panel, brace/s, stake pin/s, gravel run and/or other ancillary equipment used at the work site.
  • Section 7(5) of the OHS Code, being a prime contractor at a work site, failed to ensure that an employer on the work site was made aware of any existing or potential work site hazards that may affect that employer's workers.
  • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, being an employer, failed to ensure that equipment was operated in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications.
  • Section 189 of the OHS Code, being an employer, failed to ensure that equipment was contained, restrained or protected to eliminate the potential danger to workers.

Bart VanHaaren was charged with 3 counts.
  • Section 2(2)(b) (ii) of the OHS Act, being a worker engaged in an occupation, failed to co-operate with his employer for the purposes of protecting the health and safety of other workers engaged in the work of his employer.
  • Section 2(2)(b)(iii) OHS Act, being a worker engaged in an occupation, failed to co-operate with his employer for the purposes of protecting the health and safety of other workers not engaged in the work of his employer but present at the work site.
  • Section 189 of the OHS Code, being a worker, failed to ensure where a worker may be injured if equipment or material was dislodged or moved, that the equipment or material was restrained or protected to eliminate the potential danger.

Show Answer Charged is: Bluebird Contracting Services Ltd.

Date charges laid:
October 10, 2017
Location of alleged offence:
Calgary
Date of alleged offence:
October 23, 2015
Type:
Fatality
Description:
Two workers were preparing a concrete manhole cylinder for installation.  While operating an excavator, the operator struck one of the workers who was nearby. The worker was pinned between the counterweight of the excavator and the manhole cylinder and was fatally injured.
Contravention:
Bluebird Contracting Services Ltd. was charged with 6 counts:
  • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of that employer.
  • Section 13(1) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that work that may endanger a worker was done by a worker who was competent to do the work or was working under the direct supervision of a worker who was competent to do the work.
  • Section 13(2) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that a worker affected by the employer’s measures respecting the safe operation of powered mobile equipment, was familiar with the measures before the work began.
  • Section 15(1) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that a worker, engaged in the work of that employer, was trained in the safe operation of equipment the worker was required to operate.
  • Section 258(1)(a) of the OHS Code, permitting a worker to remain within range of a moving part of powered mobile equipment that created a danger to workers.
  • Section 258(3) of the OHS Code, failure to restrict entry by workers to an area where a worker could be caught between a moving part of a unit of powered mobile equipment and another object or requiring workers to maintain a clearance distance of at least 600 millimetres between the powered mobile equipment and the object.

Mark Dumont was charged with 5 counts:
  • Section 2(2)(a) of the OHS Act, being a worker engaged in an occupation, failed to protect the health and safety of another worker present while the worker was working.
  • Section 256(1)(b) of the OHS Code, operating equipment, without having demonstrated competency in operating the equipment to a competent worker designated by the employer.
  • Section 256(3)(b) of the OHS Code, failure to operate powered mobile equipment safely.
  • Section 257(4) of the OHS Code, failure, before operating powered mobile equipment, to complete a visual inspection of the equipment and surrounding area to ensure that the equipment was in safe operating condition and that no worker was endangered when the equipment was started up.
  • Section 258(1)(b) of the OHS Code, while operating powered mobile equipment, moved the equipment when that movement created a danger to another worker.

Show Answer Charged is: 1067055 Alberta Ltd., Jason Scott Wright, Jason Wright o/a Gage Energy Services, 1067055 Alberta Ltd. o/a Gage Energy Services, Trent Engen, Trent Engen Contracting Ltd.

Date charges laid:
September 7, 2017
Location of alleged offence:
Sunnynook
Date of alleged offence:
September 12, 2015
Type:
Reportable Incident
Description:
A worker sustained serious injuries when struck by the bucket of an excavator during the installation of piling structures.
Contravention:
1067055 Alberta Ltd., Jason Scott Wright, Jason Wright operating as Gage Energy, 1067055 Alberta Ltd. o/a Gage Energy Services, and Trent Engen Contracting Ltd. were charged with 4 counts:
  • Section 2(1) (a) (i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of that employer.
  • Section 9(1) of the OHS Code, failure to take measures to eliminate or control a hazard where an existing or potential hazard to workers was identified during a hazard assessment.
  • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that equipment was handled in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications or the specifications certified by a professional engineer.
  • Section 258(1)(a) of the OHS Code, permitted a worker to remain within range of the moving load or part where the movement of a load or the cab, counterweight or any other part of powered mobile equipment created a danger to workers

Trent Evrett Engen was charged with 4 counts:
  • Section 256(1)(c) of the OHS Code, being a worker who operated powered mobile equipment without being familiar with the equipment's operating instructions.
  • Section 256(3)(b) Of The OHS Code, being the operator of powered mobile equipment, did fail to operate the equipment safely.
  • Section 258(1)(b) of the OHS Code, being the operator of powered mobile equipment, did move the equipment where the movement of any part of powered mobile equipment created a danger to workers while a worker was exposed to the danger.
  • Section 2(2)(a) of the OHS Act, being a worker engaged in an occupation, did fail to take reasonable care to protect the health and safety of another worker present while he was working.

1067055 Alberta Ltd., Jason Scott Wright, Jason Wright operating as Gage Energy Services, and 1067055 Alberta Ltd. o/a Gage Energy Services were charged with 1 count:
  • Section 2(5) of the OHS Act, being a contractor directing the activities of an employer involved in work at a work site where a worker was injured, failed to ensure that the employer complied with the OHS Act, OHS Regulations and the adopted code.

Show Answer Charged is: 1132734 Alberta Ltd. operating as Alta Injections Molding, Alta Machining & Mold Design, L & L Tool and Injection

Date charges laid:
August 29, 2017
Location of alleged offence:
Airdrie
Date of alleged offence:
September 14, 2015
Type:
Reportable Incident
Description:
A worker was attempting to unblock hardening plastic from a processing machine when built up pressure resulted in an explosion of molten plastic covering the workers face, hands and forearms. Worker was transported to hospital with serious injuries.
Contravention:
1132734 Alberta Ltd. operating as Alta Injections Molding, Alta Machining & Mold Design, and as L & L Tool and Injection were charged with 5 counts:
  • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act , failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of that employer.
  • Section 212(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that workers did not perform repair work on machinery until the machinery had come to a complete stop and was isolated by activating an energy-isolating device and the energy-isolating device was secured in accordance with section 214, 215, or 215.1 as designated by the employer.
  • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure equipment and supplies were installed, assembled, operated, adjusted, repaired, etc. in accordance with the manufacturer`s specification or specifications certified by a professional engineer.
  • Section 7(4)(a) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a hazard assessment was repeated at intervals to prevent the development of unsafe and unhealthy working conditions.
  • Section 7(1) of the OHS Regulations, failure to ensure that workers responsible for work were familiar with manufacturer`s specifications or specifications certified by a professional engineer and that the specifications were readily available to the workers.

Show Answer Charged is: D & J Isley & Sons Contracting Ltd.

Date charges laid:
July 14, 2017
Location of alleged offence:
Grande Prairie
Date of alleged offence:
August 7, 2015
Type:
Reportable Incident
Description:
An equipment operator and a second worker were travelling to their work site in an all-terrain vehicle when it stalled on a sloped road. The vehicle began to roll downhill and the brakes did not work so the equipment operator steered the vehicle into a washout ditch. The two workers were injured in the accident.
Contravention:
D & J Isley & Sons Contracting Ltd. was charged with 12 counts:
  • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 1.
  • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 2.
  • Section 12(1)(a) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure equipment used at a work site was maintained in a condition that would not compromise the safety of workers using or transporting it.
  • Section 12(1)(b) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure equipment used at a work site would safely perform the function for which it was intended or designed.
  • Section 12(1)(d) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure equipment used at a work site was free from obvious defects.
  • Section 15(1) of OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that worker 1 was trained in the safe operation of the equipment worker 1 was required to operate.
  • Section 7(4)(a) of the OHS Code, being an employer, failed to repeat its assessment of its work site to identify hazards at intervals to prevent the development of unsafe working conditions.
  • Section 9(1) of the OHS Code, being an employer where an existing or potential hazard to workers was identified during a hazard assessment, failed to take measures to eliminate or control the hazard.
  • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure equipment was operated, handled or serviced in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications.
  • Section 260(3)(a) of the OHS Code, being an employer where an inspection (under Section 260(1) of the OHS Code) of powered mobile equipment had indicated that the equipment was hazardous or potentially hazardous, failed to ensure the health and safety of workers who may be exposed to the danger were protected immediately.
  • Section 260(3)(b) of the OHS Code, being an employer where an inspection (under Section 260(1) of the OHS Code) of powered mobile equipment had indicated the equipment was hazardous or potentially hazardous, failed to ensure that the equipment was not operated until the defect was repaired.
  • Section 260(3)(c) of the OHS Code, being an employer where an inspection (under Section 260(1) of the OHS Code) of powered mobile equipment, had indicated that it was hazardous or potentially hazardous, failed to ensure the defect was repaired.

Show Answer Charged is: Goldec  Hamms Manufacturing Ltd., Roy Schmidt

Date charges laid:
July 4, 2017
Location of alleged offence:
Red Deer
Date of alleged offence:
August 11, 2015
Type:
Reportable Incident
Description:
A worker was welding a stud onto a hydraulic tank; the tank had been cleaned with a solvent.  A flash fire occurred causing serious injuries to the worker.
Contravention:
Goldec Hamm’s Manufacturing Ltd. was charged with 6 counts:
  • Section 2(1)(a)(i)of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker.
  • Section 7(4) of the OHS Code, failure to assess its work site and identify existing or potential hazards when a new work process was introduced or a work process was changed.
  • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure welding equipment and/or a brake parts cleaner was operated or handled in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications.
  • Section 169(1) of the OHS code, being an employer, where the work area was not normally a hazardous location but an explosive atmosphere may have existed for a limited time as set out in section 169(1)(b) of the OHS Code, failed to ensure hot work, welding and /or grinding, was done in accordance with sections 169(2) and 169(3) of the OHS Code, contrary to Section 169(1) of the OHS code.
  • Section 171.1(1) of the OHS Code, failure to comply with requirements of CSA standard W117.2-06, safety in welding, cutting and allied processes.
  • Section 171.1(3) of the OHS Code, failure to inspect the surrounding area before welding began to ensure all flammable material, gas or vapor was removed or alternative methods of rendering the area safe were implemented.

Roy Schmidt was charged with 1 count:
  • Section 2(2)(a) of the OHS Act, being a worker engaged in an occupation, failed to protect the health and safety of another worker.

Show Answer Charged is: CMR Fabricators Ltd.

Date charges laid:
June 27, 2017
Location of alleged offence:
Penhold
Date of alleged offence:
June 30, 2015
Type:
Reportable Incident
Description:
A worker suffered serious injuries while attempting to manually roll a pipe being supported by 2 pipe stands. The pipe fell from one of the stands and landed on the worker’s leg.
Contravention:
CMR Fabricators Ltd. was charged with 12 counts:
  • Section 2(1) (a) (i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker.
  • Section 15(1) of Alberta Regulation, failure to ensure that its workers were trained in the safe operation of the equipment they were required to operate, to wit: pipe stands.
  • Section 12(1) (b) of Alberta Regulation, failure to ensure that all equipment used at a work site would safely perform the function for which it was intended.
  • Section 12(1) (c) of Alberta Regulation, failure to ensure that all equipment used at a work site was of adequate strength for its purpose.
  • Section 12(a) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that the equipment was sufficient to withstand the stresses imposed on it during its operation and to perform the function for which it was designed.
  • Section 12(b) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that the rated capacity or other limitations on the operation of the equipment were not exceeded.
  • Section 13(1) (a) of Alberta Regulation, failure to ensure that a worker was competent to do work that may endanger worker’s safety.
  • Section 7(1) (a) of Alberta Regulation, failure to ensure that workers responsible for work were familiar with the specifications to be done in accordance with manufacturer's specifications or specifications certified by a professional engineer.
  • Section 7(1) (b) of Alberta Regulation, failure to ensure manufacturer's specifications or specifications certified by a professional engineer were readily available to the workers responsible for the work.
  • Section 189 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that equipment or material to be moved, was contained, restrained or protected to eliminate potential danger to workers.
  • Section 208(1) of the OHS Code failure to provide appropriate equipment for lifting, lowering, pushing, pulling, carrying, handling or transporting of heavy or awkward loads.
  • Section 210(1) of the OHS Code, failure to perform a hazard assessment before a worker manually handles or transports a load that could injure the worker considering: (a) weight of the load; (b) size of the load; (c) shape of the load; (d) number of times the load would be moved; and (e) manner in which the load would be moved.

Show Answer Charged is: Goodmen Roofing Ltd.

Date charges laid:
June 19, 2017
Location of alleged offence:
Red Deer
Date of alleged offence:
July 9, 2015
Type:
Reportable Incident
Description:
Three workers were throwing roofing material from the top of a commercial roofing project (school) when a worker was struck in the leg with the material.  This caused the worker to lose balance and fall to the ground sustaining multiple injuries.
Contravention:
Goodmen Roofing Ltd. was charged with 4 counts:
  • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker.
  • Section 139 (1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure workers used a fall protection system at a temporary work area where a worker could fall 3 metres or more.
  • Section 140(1) of the OHS Code, failure to develop procedures in a fall protection plan where a worker at a work site could fall 3 metres or more and was not protected by guardrails.
  • Section 314(2) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure a temporary cover or other means of protection replaced a removed cover, guardrail or toe board.

Show Answer Charged is: APM Construction Services Inc., Ground Zero Grading Inc., Jerry Arbeau, Andrew Pacaud

Date charges laid:
June 19, 2017
Location of alleged offence:
Canmore
Date of alleged offence:
June 26, 2015
Type:
Reportable Incident
Description:
A contractor was excavating for footings and foundations at a new development site and struck a gas main.  This resulted in an explosion which destroyed one home and damaged several others.  No workers were injured. One worker was taken to the hospital as a precautionary measure.
Contravention:
APM Construction Service Inc. was charged with 7 counts:
  • Section 2(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker.
  • Section 2(5) of the OHS Act, being a contractor who directed the activities of an employer at a worksite, failed to ensure the employer complied with this Act, the regulations and the adopted code.
  • Section 7(5) of the OHS Code, being a prime contractor, failed to ensure an employer on a work site was made aware of any existing or potential work site hazards.
  • Section 9(1) of the OHS Code, being an employer, failed to eliminate or control a hazard.
  • Section 10(1)(a) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that where emergency action was required to control or eliminate a hazard that was dangerous to the health or safety of workers, only those workers competent in correcting the condition, and the minimum number necessary to correct the condition, could be exposed to the hazard.
  • Section 447(3) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure locate marks for buried or concrete-embedded facilities were re-established if activities at the work site moved or destroyed the locate marks.
  • Section 448(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that work with mechanical excavation equipment was not permitted within the hand expose zone of a buried facility until the buried facility had been exposed to sight by hand-digging or a non-destructive technique acceptable to the owner of the buried facility.

Ground Zero Grading Inc. was charged with 6 counts:
  • Section 2(1) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failed to ensure the health and safety of a worker.
  • Section 9(1) of the OHS Code, being an employer, failed to eliminate or control a hazard.
  • Section 10(1)(a) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that where emergency action was required to control or eliminate a hazard that was dangerous to the health or safety of workers, only those workers competent in correcting the condition, and the minimum number necessary to correct the condition, could be exposed to the hazard.
  • Section 447(2) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that workers were aware of locate marks for buried or concrete-embedded facilities.
  • Section 447(3) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure locate marks for buried or concrete-embedded facilities were re-established if activities at the work site moved or destroyed the locate marks.
  • Section 448(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that work with mechanical excavation equipment was not permitted within the hand expose zone of a buried facility until the buried facility had been exposed to sight by hand-digging or a non-destructive technique acceptable to the owner of the buried facility.

Jerry Arbeau was charged with 1 count:
  • Section 2(2)(a) of the OHS Act, while engaged in an occupation, failed to protect the health and safety of other workers present while the worker was working.

Andrew Pacaud was charged with 1 count:
  • Section 2(2)(a) of the OHS Act, while engaged in an occupation, failed to protect the health and safety of other workers present while the worker was working.

Show Answer Charged is: Tri-Line Contracting Services Ltd. and Dale Gour

Date charges laid:
April 24, 2017
Location of alleged offence:
Wanham
Date of alleged offence:
April 28, 2015
Type:
Serious Incident
Description:
Two workers, with a construction crew, were standing at the bottom of an excavation replacing a cement man hole base. One worker was crushed by the base when it inadvertently released from the lift assembly it was attached to as it was being lifted out of the excavation. The worker received multiple serious injuries as a result of the incident.
Contravention:
TRI-LINE CONTRACTING SERVICES LTD. was charged with 7 counts:
  • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker.
  • Section 450(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Code, failure to ensure that the workers were protected from cave-ins or sliding, or rolling materials.
  • Section 294 of the Occupational Health and Safety Code, failure to inspect rigging prior to use to ensure it was functional and safe.
  • Section 293(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Code, failure to ensure the maximum load rating of the rigging was legibly and conspicuously marked on the rigging.
  • Section 292(1)(b) of the Occupational Health and Safety Code, failure to ensure that the rigging was not subjected to more than specified load.
  • Section 69(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Code, failure to ensure that the work was arranged so that a load did not pass over workers.
  • Section 189 of the Occupational Health and Safety Code, failure to ensure that equipment or material to be moved was contained, restrained or protected to eliminate potential danger to workers.

DALE GOUR had 3 charges recommended against him:
  • Section 2(2)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, being a worker with Tri-Line Contracting Services Ltd., did fail to protect the health and safety of other workers present while the workers were working.
  • Section 295 of the Occupational Health and Safety Code, being an employer, used rigging that failed to comply with Part 21 (Section 295) of the Occupational Health and Safety Code
  • Section 189 of the Occupational Health and Safety Code, being a worker, did fail to ensure equipment or material to be moved was contained, restrained or protected to eliminate potential danger to workers.

Show Answer Charged is: McNabb Construction Ltd.

Date charges laid:
April 12, 2017
Location of alleged offence:
Forestburg
Date of alleged offence:
May 1, 2015
Type:
Fatality
Description:
A worker was positioned under a gravel crushing cone liner that was suspended by an overhead crane when an attachment point gave away, fatally crushing the worker.  This was the worker’s third day with this employer.
Contravention:
McNabb Construction Ltd. was charged with 13 counts:
  • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker.
  • Section 12(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation, failure to ensure that equipment used at a work site would safely perform the function for which it was intended.
  • Section 13(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation, failure to ensure that work would be done by a competent worker or a worker working under the direct supervision of a competent worker.
  • Section 13(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation, failure to ensure that a worker was familiar with a work procedure before the work began.
  • Section 15(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation, failure to ensure a worker was trained in the safe operation of the equipment the worker was required to operate.
  • Section 7(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Code, failure to assess the work site to identify hazards before work began at the work site.
  • Section 7(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Code, failure to prepare a report of the results of a hazard assessment and the methods used to control or eliminate the hazards identified.
  • Section 7(4) of the Occupational Health and Safety Code, failure to assess the work site and identify existing or potential hazards when a new work process was introduced or changed at the work site.
  • Section 8(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Code, failure to ensure that a worker was informed of the hazards and methods used to control or eliminate the hazards.
  • Section 12(d) of the Occupational Health and Safety Code, failure to ensure that equipment was installed, operated, handled or serviced in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications.
  • Section 171.1(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Code, failure to comply with the requirements of CSA Standard W117.2 - 06, Safety in welding, cutting and allied processes.
  • Section 189 of the Occupational Health and Safety Code, failure to ensure equipment that could be dislodged or moved was contained, restrained or protected to eliminate the potential danger.
  • Section 12(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety Code, failure to ensure that equipment was of sufficient strength and design to perform the function for which it was intended or was designed.

Show Answer Charged is: Technoworx Inc.; Darko Smolcic

Date charges laid:
March 21, 2017
Location of alleged offence:
Calgary
Date of alleged offence:
March 30, 2015
Type:
Reportable Incident
Description:
A worker was using equipment that had the safety interlock system disabled.  This allowed the worker to access the lathe and material while the equipment remained in operation.  The worker was pulled into the machine, when attempting to sand material, and was seriously injured.
Contravention:
Technoworx Inc. was charged with 4 counts:
  • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker
  • Section 12(d) of the Occupational Health and Safety Code, failure to ensure equipment and supplies were assembled, erected, operated, etc. in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications 
  • Section 310(2)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety Code, failure to provide safeguards for moving parts of machinery that a worker might accidentally come into contact with
  • Section 7(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Code, failure to prepare a report of the results of a hazard assessment and the methods used to control or eliminate the
    hazards identified

Darko SMOLCIC was charged with 1 count:

  • Section 311(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Code for removing a safeguard or rendering it ineffective when it was not necessary to perform maintenance, etc

2016

Show Answer Charged is: The Driving Force Inc

Date charges laid:
July 5, 2016
Location of alleged offence:
Calgary
Date of alleged offence:
July 11, 2014
Type:
Fatality
Description:
A mechanic was underneath a vehicle removing a faulty transmission switch; the vehicle rolled causing fatal injuries to the mechanic.
Contravention:
The Driving Force Inc. was charged with 2 counts:
  • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act,
  • Section 189 of the Occupational Health and Safety Code

Show Answer Charged is: Alpine Paving and Contracting Ltd.

Date charges laid:
May 25, 2016
Location of alleged offence:
Calgary
Date of alleged offence:
July 4, 2014
Type:
Fatality
Description:
Two workers were working on a pick-up truck when it fell off of the jacks and fatally injured one of the workers.
Contravention:
Alpine Paving and Contracting Ltd. was charged with 7 counts:
  • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act
  • Section 13(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation
  • Section 15(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation
  • Section 7(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Code
  • Section 12(d) of the Occupational Health and Safety Code
  • Section 189 of the Occupational Health and Safety Code
  • Section 261 of the Occupational Health and Safety Code
 
Chad England was charged with 3 counts:
  • Section 2(2)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act
  • Section 189 of the Occupational Health and Safety Code
  • Section 369 of the Occupational Health and Safety Code

Show Answer Charged is: Kal Tire et al: Kal Tire (A partnership); R.B. Wallis Investments Ltd., Kl Uptown Enterprises Ltd.; RIF Enterprises Ltd.; RWK Enterprises Ltd.; J.M. Mullin Enterprises Ltd.; Instow Enterprises Ltd.; LEM Enterprises Ltd.; Kal Tire Ltd.; Kal Tire (Alberta) Ltd.

Date charges laid:
January 18, 2016
Location of alleged offence:
Acheson
Date of alleged offence:
October 14, 2014
Type:
Reportable Incident
Description:
Workers were attempting to replace/repair a tire on a semi-truck. A worker went under the trailer to begin work. A second worker instructed the driver to move forward without verifying the first worker’s location. The first worker was consequently run over by the semi-trailer. The worker was transported by EMS to the University of Alberta Hospital for serious injuries. The injuries required surgery which resulted in hospitalization for greater than two days.
Contravention:
Kal Tire et al have been charged with 5 counts.
  • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health And Safety Act
  • Section 189 of the Occupational Health and Safety Code
  • Section 194(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Code
  • Section 212 of the Occupational Health and Safety Code
  • Section 259(1)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety Code

2015

Show Answer Charged is: Midwest Pipelines Inc.

Date charges laid:
December 9, 2015
Location of alleged offence:
Mannville
Date of alleged offence:
December 12, 2013
Type:
Other Incident
Description:
Workers were attaching a stick (boom) to a side boom (mobile equipment used to lower pipe into an excavation). The workers were using a second side boom to hoist and place the stick into the first side boom. During the hoist, the stick fell and contacted a worker causing serious injuries to his foot.
Contravention:
Midwest Pipelines Inc. has been charged with 8 counts:
  • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act
  • Section 12(1)(b) of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation
  • Section 9(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Code
  • Section 70(1)(c) of the Occupational Health And Safety Code
  • Section 293(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Code
  • Section 298(1)(b) of the Occupational Health and Safety Code
  • Section 298(1)(c) of the Occupational Health and Safety Code
  • Section 303(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Code.
Created:
Modified: 2018-05-07
PID: 6751