Charges under the OHS Legislation

Charged is: Gregson Construction Ltd. operating as Resolution Concrete; Excel G.P. Ltd.; Excel Homes Limited Partnership; Excel Management Limited Partnership; and Benchmark Cribbing Inc.

Date charges laid: November 4, 2025

Location of alleged offence: Calgary

Date of alleged offence: December 16, 2023

Type: Serious Incident

Description: Workers were installing formwork for a foundation on a new residential development when a cage holding form panels fell. One worker was struck and pinned underneath the cage. The worker was seriously injured.

Contravention: Excel G.P. Ltd., Excel Homes Limited Partnership and Excel Management Limited Partnership, being a prime contractor, were charged with 4 counts:

• Section 10(7)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to establish a system or process to ensure compliance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the Regulations and the OHS Code, in respect of the work site, including a system or process to ensure cooperation between the employer and workers in respect to health and safety, contrary.
• Section 10(7)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to establish a system or process to ensure compliance with the OHS Act, the Regulations and the OHS Code, in respect of the work site, including a system or process to ensure cooperation between the employer and workers in respect to health and safety by failing to ensure its pre-qualification process for contractors was implemented.
• Section 10(7)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to establish a system or process to ensure compliance with the OHS Act, the Regulations and the OHS Code, in respect of the work site, including a system or process to ensure cooperation between the employer and workers in respect to health and safety, by failing to ensure contractors implemented safe work procedures for handling formwork panels and cages.
• Section 10(7)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to establish a system or process to ensure compliance with the OHS Act, the Regulations and the OHS Code, in respect of the work site, including a system or process to ensure cooperation between the employer and workers in respect to health and safety, by failing to implement a process to ensure that worker(s) at the work site were competent to safely carry out their assigned work.

Benchmark Cribbing Inc. and Gregson Construction Ltd. operating as Resolution Concrete, being an employer, were charged with 3 counts:

• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure (a) the health and safety of (i) workers engaged in the work of that employer, (ii) those workers not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site at which that work was being carried out, and (iii) other persons at or in the vicinity of the work site whose health and safety may be materially affected by identifiable and controllable hazards originating from the work site, failed to ensure the health and safety of a worker by failing to ensure cages holding formwork panels placed at the work site were secured or otherwise stabilized against tipping.
• Section 187(2)(b) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that racks used to store materials or equipment, cages used to hold formwork panels, were placed on firm foundations that could support the load.
• Section 189 of the OHS Code, where a worker may be injured if equipment or material was dislodged, moved, spilled or damaged, a cage holding formwork panels, failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure that it was contained, restrained or protected to eliminate the potential danger.

Benchmark Cribbing Inc. was charged with 2 counts:

• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failed to ensure (a) the health and safety of (i) workers engaged in the work of that employer, (ii) those workers not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site at which that work was being carried out, and (iii) other persons at or in the vicinity of the work site whose health and safety may be materially affected by identifiable and controllable hazards originating from the work site, failed to ensure the health and safety of a worker by failing to designate safe landing spots for cages holding formwork panels.
• Section 8(1) of the OHS Act, being a contracting employer who directed the activities of an employer involved in work at a work site, Gregson Construction Ltd., failed to ensure the employer complied with the OHS Act, the Regulations and the OHS Code in respect of that work site.

Gregson Construction Ltd. operating as Resolution Concrete, being an employer, was charged with 1 count:

• Section 3(2) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure that worker(s) engaged in the work of that employer were adequately trained in all matters necessary to perform their work in a healthy and safe manner.

Charged is: Jatinderpal Brar, Jasmeen Framing Ltd.; Chhinder Brar and Roop Drywall Ltd.

Date charges laid: October 21, 2025

Location of alleged offence: Edmonton

Date of alleged offence: January 11, 2024

Type: Serious Incident

Description: A worker fell off a baker-style rolling scaffold and sustained serious injuries.

Contravention: Jatinderpal Brar and Jasmeen Framing Ltd. were charged with 7 counts:

• Section 10(6) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act,  January 11 - April 18, 2024, being a prime contractor, failure to ensure that the name of the prime contractor was posted in a conspicuous place at the work site.  
• Section 10(7)(a) of the OHS Act, January 11 - April 18, 2024, being a prime contractor, failure to establish a system or process that would ensure compliance with this Act, regulations and OHS Code in respect of the work site, including a system or process to ensure cooperation between the employer and workers in respect to health and safety.
• Section 10(7)(b) of the OHS Act, January 11 - April 18, 2024, being a prime contractor, failure to designate a person in writing for the purposes of ensuring cooperation between the employer and workers in respect to health and safety and implementing a system to address the matters set out in section 13(6).
• Section 10(7)(c) of the OHS Act, January 11 - April 18, 2024, being a prime contractor, failure to conduct the prime contractor’s own activities in such a way as to ensure no person was exposed to hazards arising out of, or in connection with, activities at the work site.
• Section 33(1) of the OHS Act, January 11 - 23, 2024, being a prime contractor or if there was no prime contractor being the employer, failure to report the time, place and nature of the injury, illness or incident to a Director as soon as possible.
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, January 11 - 23, 2024, being an employer, failure to ensure the safety of workers engaged in the work of that employer or workers not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site at which that work was being carried out, by failing to establish an emergency response plan.
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, January 11 - 23, 2024, being an employer, failure to ensure the safety of their workers or other workers present at the work site at which work was being carried out, by ensuring a work platform was erected under the supervision of and inspected at adequate intervals by a competent person.

Jatinderpal Brar, Jasmeen Framing Ltd., Chhinder Brar, and Roop Drywall Ltd. were charged with 4 counts:

• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, January 11 - 23, 2024, being an employer, failure to ensure the safety of their workers or workers not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site at which that work was being carried out, by failing to ensure a hazard assessment was carried out by a worker and hazards were eliminated or controlled.
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, January 11 - January 23, 2024, being an employer, failure to ensure the safety of their workers or other workers present at the work site at which work was being carried out, by developing and enforcing a fall protection plan.
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, January 11 - January 23, 2024, being an employer, failure to ensure the safety of their workers or other workers present at the work site at which that work was being carried out, by ensuring a scaffold, that scaffold’s decking, and associated equipment, was erected, installed, assembled, handled, and used in a safe manner.
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, January 11 - January 23, 2024, at or near the City of Edmonton in the Province of Alberta, being an employer, failure to ensure the safety of their workers or other workers present at the work site at which that work was being carried out, by ensuring that all workers on a scaffold were informed of the maximum load that the scaffold was permitted to carry.

Chhinder Brar and Roop Drywall Ltd. were charged with 5 counts:

• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, January 11 - January 23, 2024, being an employer, failure to ensure the safety of their workers or other workers at the work site at which that work was being carried out, by failing to ensure to install a guardrail, toe boards, travel restraint system or personal fall arrest system.
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, January 11 - January 23, 2024, being an employer, failure to ensure the safety of their workers or other workers at the work site at which that work was being carried out, by failing to ensure a walkway was strong enough and sufficiently supported all workers and their equipment who may use it and had appropriate toe boards and guardrails.
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, January 11 - January 23, 2024, being an employer, failure to ensure the safety of their workers or other workers at the work site at which that work was being carried out, by failing to ensure a scaffolding plank, deck, or like item was visually inspected by a competent worker prior to being used.
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, January 11 - January 23, 2024, being an employer, failure to ensure the safety of their workers or other workers at the work site at which that work was being carried out, by failing to ensure a scaffold plank, deck, or like item was secured to prevent movement in any direction.
• Section 6(2) of the OHS Act, January 11 - January 23, 2024, being a supplier, failure to ensure that subject to subsections 1(d) and (e) any equipment, a scaffold and associated items, that the supplier supplies complied with this Act, regulations and OHS Code.

Jatinderpal Brar, Jasmeen Framing Ltd., Chhinder Brar and Roop Drywall Ltd. were charged with 6 counts:

• Section 47(a) of the OHS Act, January 24 - April 18, 2024, failure to comply with an order or decision pursuant to this Act, regulations, and OHS Code.
• Section 8(1) of the OHS Code, January 11 - January 23, 2024, at or near the City of Edmonton in the Province of Alberta, being an employer, failure to involve affected workers in the hazard assessment and in the control or elimination of the hazards identified.
• Section 33(9) of the OHS Code, January 11 - January 23, 2024,  disturbed or conducted work at the scene of an injury, illness or incident reportable under subsection (1), including the immediate area where the injury, illness or incident occurred, or altered, moved or removed equipment, documents or other information that may be related to the injury, illness or incident.
• Section 115(2) of the OHS Code, January 11 - January 23, 2024, being an employer, failure to involve affected workers in establishing the emergency response plan.
• Section 139(1)(a) of the OHS Code, January 11 - January 23, 2024, being an employer or a supervisor, failure to ensure a worker was protected from falling if a worker may fall a vertical distance of 3 metres or more at a temporary or permanent work area.
• Section 140(1) of the OHS Code, January 11 - January 23, 2024, being an employer, failure to develop procedures that complied with Part 9 in a fall protection plan for a work site if a worker at the work site may fall 3 metres or more and the worker was not protected by guardrails.

Chhinder Brar and Roop Drywall Ltd. were charged with 3 counts:

• Section 121(1)(d) of the OHS Code, January 11 - January 23, 2024, being an employer, failure to ensure a walkway had the appropriate toe boards and guardrails required by Part 22.
• Section 323 of the OHS Code, January 11 - January 23, 2024, being an employer, failure to ensure scaffolds erected to provide work platforms during the construction, alteration, repair or demolition of buildings and other structures complied with CSA Standard CAN/CSA S269.2-M87 (R2003) Access Scaffolding for Construction Purposes.
• Section 326(1) of the OHS Code, January 11 - January 23, 2024, being an employer, failure to ensure that a scaffold was colour coded using tags at each point of entry and indicating its status and condition. 

Charged is: Albatross Roofing Ltd.; Arbutus Landscaping Inc.

Date charges laid: October 7, 2025

Location of alleged offence: Edmonton

Date of alleged offence: December 11, 2023

Type: Fatality

Description: A worker was working on a roof replacement project when they fell through the roof to the floor below and were fatally injured.

Contravention: Albatross Roofing Ltd., between December 1 and 11, 2023, both dates inclusive, being an employer, was charged with 24 counts:

• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of workers engaged in the work of that employer by failing to ensure they were protected from falling while working at height.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their workers by failing to use or implement appropriate or adequate engineering or administrative hazard controls, personal protective equipment (PPE), or a safe work plan at a work site.
• Section 3(2) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure their workers were adequately trained in all matters necessary to perform their work in a healthy and safe manner.
• Section 9(1) of the OHS Code, failure to take measures to eliminate or control existing or potential hazards it identified during a hazard assessment while engaged in the task of replacing a roof.
• Section 12(e) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure equipment, roof anchors, were used, erected, installed or handled and subjected to any other work in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications or specifications certified by a professional engineer.
• Section 12(e) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure equipment, a rope grab, was used, erected, installed or handled and subjected to any other work in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications or specifications certified by a professional engineer.
• Section 12(e) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure equipment, a lifeline, was used, erected, installed or handled and subjected to any other work in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications or specifications certified by a professional engineer.
• Section 115(1) of the OHS Code, failure to establish an emergency response plan.
• Section 116 of the OHS Code, failure to establish an emergency response plan that included all elements required by Section 116 of the OHS Code.
• Section 121(1)(a) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure a walkway was strong enough to support the equipment and workers who may use it.
• Section 121(1)(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure a walkway had the appropriate toe boards and guardrails required by OHS Code Part 22.
• Section 139(1)(a) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure workers were protected from falling if they may fall at a temporary work area a vertical distance of 3 metres or more.
• Section 139(1)(c) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure workers were protected from falling if they may fall at a temporary work area through an opening in a work surface.
• Section 139(3) of the OHS Code, failure to install a guardrail where workers may fall a vertical distance of 3 metres or more from a temporary work area.
• Section 139(5) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure workers used a travel restraint system where they may fall a vertical distance of 3 metres or more from a temporary work area.
• Section 139(6) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure workers used a personal fall arrest system that met the requirements of OHS Code Part 9 where they may fall a vertical distance of 3 metres or more from a temporary work area.
• Section 140(1) of the OHS Code, failure to develop procedures that complied with OHS Code in a fall protection plan for a work site where workers may fall 3 metres or more and the workers were not protected by guardrails.
• Section 140(2) of the OHS Code, failure to develop a fall protection plan that specified all matters required by section 140(2) of the OHS Code.
• Section 140(3) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure the fall protection plan was available at the 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 workers were trained in the safe use of the fall protection system before allowing workers to work in an area where a fall protection system must be used.
• Section 141(2) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure the training of workers in the safe use of the fall protection system before allowing them to work in an area where a fall protection system must be used, included all elements required by OHS Code section 141(2).
• Section 150.2(1)(a) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure equipment used as part of a fall protection system, defective anchors, were removed from service and either returned to the manufacturer or destroyed.
• Section 152.1(2)(b) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure temporary anchors used in a personal fall arrest system were installed, used and removed according to the manufacturer’s specifications or specifications certified by a professional engineer.
• Section 314(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure openings or holes through which workers could fall were protected by a securely attached cover designed to support an anticipated load or guardrails and toe boards.

Arbutus Landscaping Inc., between December 1 and 11, 2023, both dates inclusive, was charged with 4 counts:

• Section 8(1) of the OHS Act, being a contracting employer, failure to ensure the employer, Albatross Roofing Ltd., complied with the OHS Act, regulations and OHS Code in respect of ensuring the safety of workers working at height.
• Section 10(6) of the OHS Act, being a prime contractor, failure to ensure its name was posted in a conspicuous place at the work site.
• Section 10(7)(a) of the OHS Act, being a prime contractor, failure to establish a system or process that would ensure compliance with the OHS Act, regulations and OHS Code in respect of the work site where workers were working at height, including a system to ensure cooperation between the employer and workers in respect to health and safety.
• Section 10(7)(c) of the OHS Act, being a prime contractor, failure to conduct its own activities in such a way as to ensure no person working at height was exposed to hazards arising out of, or in connection with, activities at the work site.

Charged is: Prairie Mines & Royalty ULC

Date charges laid: September 18, 2025

Location of alleged offence: Warburg

Date of alleged offence: November 25, 2023

Type: Fatality

Description: A worker was dewatering and clearing ice from the interior of a sclair line when an ice plug dislodged from the pipe, striking the worker and causing fatal injury.

Contravention: Prairie Mines & Royalty ULC, being an employer, was charged with 12 counts:

• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, on or about November 25 , 2023, failed to ensure the health and safety of workers engaged in the work of that employer, by failing to ensure they were protected from being injured while performing the task of clearing ice from a pipeline.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, on or about November 25, 2023, failure to ensure the health and safety of their workers by failing to establish, implement or enforce a system, process or procedure to ensure that clearing ice from a pipeline was done safely.
• Section 3(2) of the OHS Act, on or about November 25, 2023, failure to ensure their workers were adequately trained in all matters necessary to perform their work in a healthy and safe manner.
• Section 7(1) of the OHS Code, between September 25 and November 25, 2023, both dates inclusive, failure to assess its work site and identify potential or existing hazards before work began at the work site.
• Section 7(2) of the OHS Code, between September 25 and November 25, 2023, both dates inclusive, 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)(c) of the OHS Code, between September 25 and November 25, 2023, both dates inclusive, failure to ensure a hazard assessment was repeated when a work process or operation changed.
• Section 9(1) of the OHS Code, between September 25 and November 25, 2023, both dates inclusive, failure to take measures to eliminate or control existing or potential hazards it identified during a hazard assessment while engaged in the tasks of dewatering mine pits or clearing ice from pipelines.
• Section 188(1) of the OHS Code, on or about November 25, 2023, failure to ensure piping and its connections operating under pressure were restrained where workers could be injured by its movement if it failed or if it was disconnected.
• Section 189 of the OHS Code, on or about November 25, 2023, where a worker might be injured if equipment or material, a section of pipe, was dislodged, moved or damaged, failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure the equipment or material was contained, restrained or protected to eliminate the potential danger.
• Section 215.4 of the OHS Code, on or about November 25, 2023, where piping or a pipeline containing a substance under pressure was to be tested, adjusted or inspected, or where any other work was to be performed on it that required the control of hazardous energy, failed to ensure that no worker performed such work on the piping or pipeline until flow in the piping or pipeline had been stopped or regulated to a safe level and the location at which the work was to be carried out was isolated and secured in accordance with section 215.5.
• Section 310(2)(e) of the OHS Code, on or about November 25, 2023, where workers may accidentally or through the work process come into contact with debris, material or objects thrown from equipment, a pipe section, failed to provide safeguards.
• Section 310(2)(h) of the OHS Code, on or about November 25, 2023, where workers may accidentally or through the work process come into contact with any other hazard, a recoiling pipe section, failed to provide safeguards.

Charged is: Birchcliff Energy Ltd.

Date charges laid: August 22, 2025

Location of alleged offence: Bay Tree

Date of alleged offence: October 10, 2023

Type: Fatality

Description: A worker was obtaining a water sample from an open water reservoir, used for hydraulic fracturing (fracking), when they fell into the reservoir and were fatally injured.

Contravention: Birchcliff Energy Ltd. was charged with 18 counts:

• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, being an employer, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of that employer, by failing to ensure they were protected from drowning while collecting water samples at an open water reservoir.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker, by failing to provide appropriate equipment to ensure water samples at open reservoirs were collected safely.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker, by failing to create or implement a system, process or procedures to ensure water samples at open water reservoirs were collected safely.
• Section 3(2) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failure to ensure their worker was adequately trained in all matters necessary to perform their work in a healthy and safe manner.
• Section 10(7)(a) of the OHS Act, being a prime contractor, failure to establish a system or process that would ensure compliance with the OHS Act, the regulations and the OHS Code in respect of the work site, including a system to ensure cooperation between the employer and workers in respect to health and safety, by failing to establish or implement a system or process for the safe collection of water samples at open water sources.
• Section 10(7)(c) of the OHS Act, being a prime contractor, failure to conduct its own activities in such a way as to ensure that no person was exposed to hazards arising out of, or in connection with, activities at the work site,  by failing to establish or implement a system, process or procedure to ensure that water samples at open water sources were collected safely.
• Section 10(10) of the OHS Act, being a prime contractor, failure to ensure any employer, supplier or service provider on a work site was informed of any existing or potential work site hazards that could affect workers or other persons at the work site, the hazard of drowning, having regard to the site conditions.
• Section 10(10) of the OHS Act, being a prime contractor,  failure to ensure that any employer, supplier or service provider on a work site was informed of any existing or potential work site hazards that could affect workers or other persons at the work site, the hazard of failing to comply with the manufacturer’s specifications regarding the use of a stick transfer pump.
• Section 7(1) of the OHS Code, being an employer, failure to assess its work site and identify potential or existing hazards before work began at the work site.
• Section 7(2) of the OHS Code, being an employer, failure to prepare a report of the results of a hazard assessment and the methods used to control or eliminate the hazards identified.
• Section 9(1) of the OHS Code, being an employer, failure to take measures to eliminate or control existing or potential hazards it identified during a hazard assessment while engaged in the task of collecting water samples.
• Section 12(e) of the OHS Code, being an employer, failure to ensure that equipment, a stick transfer pump, was used or handled and subjected to any other work in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications or the specifications certified by a professional engineer.
• Section 116 of the OHS Code, being an employer, failure to establish an emergency response plan that included all elements required by section 116 of the OHS Code.
• Section 139(1)(c)  of the OHS Code, being an employer, failure  to ensure a worker was protected from falling, where they could fall at a temporary or permanent work area into or onto a hazardous substance or object.
• Section 157 of the OHS Code, being an employer, failure to ensure a worker used an appropriate fall protection system in combination with a life jacket or personal flotation device where the worker could fall into water that exposed them to the hazard of drowning or if they could drown from falling into the water from other than a boat.
• Section 241(1) of the OHS Code, being an employer, failure to ensure a worker wore a life jacket where there was a foreseeable danger they could be exposed to the danger of drowning.
• Section 394(1) of the OHS Code, being an employer, failure to provide, for a worker working alone, an effective communication system consisting of radio communication or landline or cellular telephone communication or some other effective means of electronic communication.
• Section 394(1.1) of the OHS Code, being an employer, where effective electronic communication was not practicable at the work site, failure to ensure the employer or a designate visited the worker or they contacted the employer or a designate at intervals appropriate to the nature of the hazard associated with their work.

Charged is: LX Hausys Canada Inc.

Date charges laid: August 18, 2025

Location of alleged offence: Calgary

Date of alleged offence: September 19, 2023

Type: Fatality

Description: A worker was fatally injured while moving slabs of marble with a forklift. The materials dislodged and crushed the worker. 

Contravention: LX Hausys Canada Inc., being an employer, was charged with 15 counts:

• Section 3(1)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure safety of workers engaged in the work of that employer by preventing the unsafe movement of a load on a forklift or like device, including by requiring or enforcing safe procedures in moving a load.
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the safety of their workers by requiring a worker to remain within a forklift, including by requiring the use of a seatbelt.
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the safety of their workers, by properly training or evaluating a worker in the operation of a forklift or like device.
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the safety of their workers, by requiring the use of a spotter or assistant.
• Section 3(1)(d) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by employing a competent and properly trained supervisor, that the employer’s workers were supervised by a person who was competent and was familiar with this Act, the regulations and the OHS Code that apply to the work performed at the work site.
• Section 3(2) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure their workers were adequately trained in all matters necessary to perform their work.
• Section 3(3) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure that if work was to be done that may endanger a worker, the work was done by a worker who was competent to do the work or by a worker who was working under the direct supervision of a worker who was competent to do the work.  
• Section 3(3) of the OHS Act, failure to keep readily available information related to work site hazards, controls, work practices and procedures and provide that information to the workers.
• Section 8(1) of the OHS Act, failure to involve affected workers in the hazard assessment and in the control or elimination of the hazards identified.
• Section 12(e) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure equipment, personal protective equipment and explosives were used, erected, installed, assembled, started, operated, handled, stored, serviced, tested, adjusted, calibrated, maintained, repaired, destroyed, dismantled and subjected to any other work in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications or the specifications certified by a professional engineer.
• Section 15.1 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that where the Act, the regulations or this Code required work to be done in accordance with a manufacturer’s specifications or specifications certified by a professional engineer, the specifications were readily available to the workers, supervisors and other persons at the work site.
• Section 187(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure pallets used to transport or store materials or containers were loaded, moved, stacked, arranged and stored in a manner that did not create a danger to workers.
• Section 189 of the OHS Code, where a worker may be injured if equipment or material was dislodged, moved, spilled or damaged, did fail to take all reasonable steps to ensure the equipment or material was contained, restrained or protected to eliminate the potential.
• Section 3.3 of the OHS Code, being the employer of a worker who operated powered mobile equipment and who failed to use the seatbelt of the powered mobile equipment contrary to section 256(3)(d) of the OHS Code, failed to ensure the worker complied with that duty.
• Section 258.1 of the OHS Code, where the movement of a load or the cab, counterweight or any other part of powered mobile equipment created a danger to workers, did permit a worker to remain within range of the moving load or part.

Charged is: Brock Canada Field Services Ltd.; Nutrien (Canada) Holdings ULC

Date charges laid: July 17, 2025

Location of alleged offence: Redwater

Date of alleged offence: August 10, 2023

Type: Serious Incident

Description: A worker entered a scaffold to remove hoarding. The worker slipped and fell into an open utility corridor in the ground containing hot water. The worker was seriously injured.

Contraventions: Nutrien (Canada) Holdings ULC, being a prime contractor, was charged with 2 counts:

• Section 10(7)(c ) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to conduct the Prime Contractor’s own activities in such a way as to ensure that no person was exposed to hazards arising out of, or in connection with, activities at the work site
• Section 10(10) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure that any employer, supplier or service provider on a work site was informed of any existing or potential work site hazards that could affect workers or other persons at the work site.

Brock Canada Field Services Ltd., being an employer, was charged with 5 counts:

• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health, safety and welfare of a worker engaged in the work of that employer.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health, safety and welfare of their worker by failing to adequately communicate to the worker the hazard of an open blow down pit or open utility corridor.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health, safety and welfare of their worker by failing to adequately supervise the worker.
• Section 3(2) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure their worker was adequately trained in all matters necessary to perform their work in a healthy and safe manner.
• Section 7(2) of the OHS Code, failure to prepare a report of the results of the hazard assessment and the methods used to control and eliminate the hazards identified.

Charged is: Evraz Inc. NA Canada

Date charges laid: July 11, 2025

Location of alleged offence: Calgary

Date of alleged offence: September 11, 2023

Type: Serious Incident

Description: A worker was greasing a rotating screen (trommel) when they were caught between the idler wheel and the trommel. The worker was seriously injured.

Contraventions: Evraz Inc. NA Canada, being an employer, was charged with 13 counts:

• Section 3(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, by failing to ensure  they were protected from being injured while performing the task of greasing guide roll bearings on a trommel.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by failing to ensure they were protected by a safeguard and/or grease lines from being injured while performing the task of greasing guide roll bearings on a trommel.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by failing to ensure that all hazardous energy posing a hazard to them was isolated before work commenced.
• Section 3(2) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by failing to ensure they were adequately trained in all matters necessary to perform their work in a healthy and safe manner.
• Section 9(1) of the OHS Code, failure to take measures to eliminate or control existing or potential hazards it identified during a hazard assessment: “hazardous energy”, “pinch points”, ”crush injuries” and “unguarded equipment” while engaged in the task of “maintenance”.
• Section 12(b)(i) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure equipment used at a work site, a trommel, was maintained in a condition that would not compromise the health and safety of workers using it.
• Section 12(b)(ii) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure equipment used at a work site, a trommel, would safely perform the function for which it was intended or was designed.
• Section 12(b)(ii) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure personal protective equipment worn at a work site, coveralls, would safely perform the function for which it was intended or was designed.
• Section 212(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure, if machinery or equipment was to be serviced or inspected, that no worker performed such work until it had come to a complete stop and all hazardous energy that could pose a hazard to a worker was isolated by activation of an energy-isolating device and the energy-isolating device was secured, or was otherwise rendered inoperative in a manner that prevented its accidental activation and provided equal or greater protection than the protection afforded under section 212(1)(a) of the  Occupational Health and Safety Code.
• Section 242 of the OHS Code, where there was a danger that a worker’s hand or arm, leg or torso could be injured, failed to ensure the worker wore properly fitting arm or body personal protective equipment that was appropriate to the work, the work site and the hazards identified.
• Section 310(2)(a)  of the OHS Code, failure to provide safeguard/s if a worker could accidentally, or through the work process, come into contact with moving parts of equipment, a trommel ring or guide roll.
• Section 310(2)(g)  of the OHS Code, failure to provide  safeguard/s if a worker could accidentally, or through the work process, come into contact with machinery or equipment, a trommel ring or guide roll, that could be hazardous due to its operation.
• Section 362(1)(a) of the OHS Code, where contact was likely between moving parts of electrically energized equipment or as part of the work process, and a worker’s clothing, failed to ensure the worker’s clothing fit closely to the body.

Charged is: City of Calgary

Date charges laid: June 26, 2025

Location of alleged offence: Calgary

Date of alleged offence: July 9, 2023

Type: Serious Incident

Description: A worker was raking asphalt behind a paving machine when they were struck by a dump truck, causing serious injuries to the worker.

Contraventions: The City of Calgary, being an employer, was charged with 9 counts:

• Section 3(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, who was injured by an asphalt dump truck.
• Section 3(2) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure their worker was adequately trained in all matters necessary to perform their work in a healthy and safe manner.
• Section 9(1) of the OHS Code, failure to take measures to eliminate or control the existing or potential hazard of contact between workers and moving equipment they identified during a hazard assessment.
• Section 9(1) of the OHS Code, failure to take measures to eliminate or control an existing or potential hazard they identified during a hazard assessment: “struck by (individual/object is stationary)” while engaged in the task of “raking asphalt behind a paver”.
• Section 9(1) of the OHS Code, failure to take measures to eliminate or control an existing or potential hazard they identified during a field hazard assessment: “trucks” while engaged in the job of “raking”.
• Section 194(1) of the OHS Code, where vehicle traffic at a work site was dangerous to workers on foot, failure to ensure the traffic was controlled to protect the workers.
• Section 258(1)(a) of the OHS Code, where the movement of a part of powered mobile equipment, a dump truck, created a danger to a worker, permitted the worker to remain within range of the part.
• Section 259(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure walkways were designated that separated pedestrian traffic from areas where powered mobile equipment was operating and that workers used the designated walkways.
• Section 259(2) of the OHS Code, where it was not reasonably practicable to use designated walkways that separated pedestrian traffic from areas where powered mobile equipment was operating pursuant to section 259(1) of the OHS Code, failed to ensure safe work procedures were used to protect workers who entered those areas.

Charged is: Stephenson’s Rental Services Inc.

Date charges laid: June 13, 2025

Location of alleged offence: Calgary

Date of alleged offence: June 29, 2023

Type: Fatality

Description: A truck driver was struck by a machine shaft when it rolled off the forks of a telehandler, causing the worker to fall from the upper deck of the trailer. The machine shaft then landed on the worker on the ground causing fatal injuries

Contraventions: Stephenson’s Rental Services Inc., being an employer, was charged with 10 counts:

• Section 3(1)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure, by adequately controlling the workspace, including by ensuring communication between workers or by creating and enforcing a zone of exclusion, the safety of a worker engaged in the work of that employer or a worker present at that work site.  
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by adequately securing a load, including adequately training a worker in how to handle that load, the safety of their worker or a worker present at that work site.  
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by adequately training or supervising a worker, including training in how to handle and secure a load, the safety of their worker or a worker present at that work site.
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by adequately assessing the potential hazards in a task, the safety of their worker or a worker present at that work site.
• Section 3(2) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure their workers were adequately trained in all matters necessary to perform their work in a healthy and safe manner.
• Section 7(2) of the OHS 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 12(e) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure equipment, a telehandler or like device, was used or operated in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications or the specifications certified by a professional engineer.  
• Section 189 of the OHS Code, where a worker could be injured if equipment or material was dislodged, moved, spilled or damaged, failed to ensure the equipment or material was contained, restrained or protected to eliminate the potential danger.    
• Section 258(1)(a) of the OHS Code, where the movement of a load or the cab, counterweight or any other part of powered mobile equipment created a danger to workers, permitted a worker to remain within range of the moving load or part.     
• Section 259(2) of the OHS Code, where it was not practicable to use designated walkways, failed to ensure safe work procedures were used to protect workers who entered areas where powered mobile equipment was operating.

Charged is: Mr. Mike’s Plumbing Ltd.

Date charges laid: May 29, 2025

Location of alleged offence: Calgary

Date of alleged offence: June 8, 2023

Type: Fatality

Description: Workers were contracted to replace the sewer/waterlines from a residential house to the City of Calgary sewer line when the excavation caved in. A worker was fatally injured.

Contraventions: Mr. Mike’s Plumbing Ltd., being an employer, was charged with 11 counts:

• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, on or about June 8, 2023, failure to ensure the health, safety and welfare of a worker engaged in the work of that employer, by failing to ensure that they were protected from the collapse of a wall of an excavation.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, on or about June 8, 2023, failure to ensure the health, safety and welfare of their worker by failing to sufficiently or at all stabilize a wall of an excavation to prevent its collapse.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, on or about June 8, 2023, failure to ensure the health, safety and welfare of their worker by failing to ensure a wall of an excavation was sufficiently cut back or temporary protective structures were installed to prevent collapse of the wall on the worker.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, on or about June 8, 2023, failure to ensure the health, safety and welfare of their worker by failing to implement or monitor the implementation of a safe work procedure for the task of working in and around an excavation.
• Section 443(1)(a) of the OHS Code, on or about June 8, 2023, where provisions of section 443(2) of the OHS Code were not applicable, failed to stabilize the soil in an excavation at its work site by shoring or cutting back, contrary to section 443(1)(a) of the OHS Code.
• Section 446(2) of the OHS Code, on or about June 8, 2023, failure to ensure a worker did not enter an excavation that did not comply with Part 32 of the OHS Code by failing to comply with section(s) 443(1)(a) and/or 450(1) and/or 456(1), contrary to section 446(2) of the OHS Code.
• Section 450(1) of the OHS Code, on or about June 8, 2023, failure to ensure that before a worker began working in an excavation that was more than 1.5 metres deep and closer to the wall or bank than the depth of the excavation, that the worker was protected from cave-ins or sliding or rolling material.
• Section 456(1)(b) of the OHS Code, on or about June 8, 2023, failure to ensure temporary protective structures in an excavation more than 3 metres deep were designed, constructed and installed in accordance with the specifications of a professional engineer.
• Section 7(2) of the OHS Code, on or about June 8, 2023, failure to prepare a report of the results of the hazard assessment and the methods used to control and eliminate the hazards identified.
• Section 7(4)(c) of the OHS Code, on or about June 8, 2023, failure to ensure the hazard assessment was repeated when a work process or operation changed.
• Section 9(1) of the OHS Code, on or about June 7, 2023, failure where an existing or potential hazard to workers was identified during a hazard assessment, failed to take measures to eliminate the hazard, or if elimination was not reasonably practicable, to control the hazard.

Charged is: Marigold Infrastructure Partners Inc.; Marigold Infrastructure Partners Limited Partnership a limited partnership, through its general partner, Marigold Infrastructure Partners Inc.; and Marigold Infrastructure Partners LP, a limited partnership operating as Marigold Infrastructure Partners, through its general partner, Marigold Infrastructure Partners Inc.

Date charges laid: May 7, 2025

Location of alleged offence: Edmonton

Date of alleged offence: June 23, 2023

Type: Serious Incident

Description: On June 23, 2023, a worksite incident occurred in Edmonton. Workers were completing temporary post-tensioning of a segment of the Valley West LRT Line Expansion project. As one of the jacks pressured up, the concrete crumbled, causing the tensioning bar and jack to strike the worker. The worker was seriously injured.

Contraventions: Marigold Infrastructure Partners Inc.; Marigold Infrastructure Partners Limited; and Marigold Infrastructure Partners LP, being an employer, were charged with 14 counts:

• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act between May 12 and June 23, 2023, both dates inclusive, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of that employer, by failing to ensure that they were protected from being injured by a hydraulic jack and/or post tensioning bar while performing the task of temporary post tensioning of a concrete bridge span segment.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, between May 12 and June 23, 2023, both dates inclusive, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by failing to ensure the concrete edge of a blockout on a bridge span segment did not fail or burst.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, between May 12 and June 23, 2023, both dates inclusive, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker, by failing to establish, implement or enforce a safe procedure or other adequate administrative procedures or practices to prevent them from being injured by a hydraulic jack and/or post tensioning bar while performing the task of temporary post tensioning of a concrete bridge span segment.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, between May 12 and June 23, 2023, both dates inclusive, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker, by failing to adequately supervise or direct them in the safe performance of their work, the temporary post tensioning of a concrete bridge span segment.
• Section 3(2) of the OHS Act, between May 12 and June 23, 2023, both dates inclusive, failure to ensure their workers were adequately trained in all matters necessary to perform their work in a healthy and safe manner.
• Section 3(3) of the OHS Act between May 12 and June 23, 2023, both dates inclusive, failure to ensure if work was to be done, the task of temporary post tensioning of a concrete bridge span segment, that may endanger a worker, the work was done by a worker competent to do the work or by a worker who was working under the direct supervision of a worker who was competent to do the work.
• Section 7(4)(b) of the OHS Code, between May 12 and June 23, 2023, both dates inclusive, failure to ensure a hazard assessment was repeated when a new work process was introduced.
• Section 7(4)(c) of the OHS Code, between May 12 and June 23, 2023, both dates inclusive, failure to ensure a hazard assessment was repeated when a work process or operation changed.
• Section 8(1) of the OHS Code, between May 12 and June 23, 2023, both dates inclusive, failure to involve affected workers in the hazard assessment and in the control or elimination of the hazards identified.
• Section 9(1) of the OHS Code, between May 12 and June 23, 2023, both dates inclusive, where an existing or potential hazard to workers was identified during a hazard assessment, failed to take measures in accordance with Safety Code section 9 to eliminate the hazards, or, if elimination was not reasonably practicable, to control the hazard.
• Section 12(e) of the OHS Code, between May 12 and June 23, 2023, both dates inclusive, failure to ensure equipment, a hydraulic jack and/or an electric pump, was operated, handled, serviced, tested, adjusted, calibrated, maintained and subjected to any other work in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications or the specifications certified by a professional engineer.
• Section 119(3) of the OHS Code, on or about June 23, 2023, failure to ensure a work area’s entrances and exits were free from materials, equipment, accumulations of waste or other obstructions that might endanger workers or restrict their movement.
• Section 189 of the OHS Code, between May 12 and June 23, 2023, both dates inclusive, where a worker may be injured if equipment was dislodged or moved, failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure that equipment, a hydraulic jack, was contained, restrained or protected to eliminate the potential danger.
• Section 310(2)(g) of the OHS Code, between May 12 and June 23, 2023, failure to provide safeguards if a worker may accidentally, or through the work process, come into contact with machinery or equipment, a hydraulic jack, that may be hazardous due to its operation.

Charged is: Nutrien (Canada) Holdings ULC

Date charges laid: April 7, 2025

Location of alleged offence: Redwater

Date of alleged offence: May 2, 2023

Type: Serious Incident

Description: Several members of a site emergency response team were sprayed with anhydrous ammonia as they were doing a familiarization tour of the ammonia rail system. Two workers suffered serious injuries.

Contraventions: Nutrien (Canada) Holdings ULC, being an employer, was charged with 17 counts:

• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, between April 25 and May 2, 2023, both dates inclusive, failure to ensure the health and safety of 4 of their workers engaged in the work of that employer, who were injured by exposure to ammonia.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, April 25 – May 2, 2023, failure to ensure the health and safety of 4 of their workers by failing to establish, implement or enforce a safe procedure or other adequate administrative procedures or practices to prevent the workers’ exposure to ammonia during a familiarization tour.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, April 25 – May 2, 2023, failure to ensure the health and safety of 4 of their workers by failing to establish, implement or enforce a safe procedure or other adequate administrative procedures or practices to prevent the workers’ exposure to ammonia after a loadout operation of ammonia.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, May 2, 2023, failure to ensure the health and safety of 4 of their workers by failing to establish, implement or enforce a safe procedure or adequate administrative procedures or practices for the safe operation of equipment, a maintenance hose adapter tool.
• Section 3(2) of the OHS Act, May 2, 2023, failure to ensure their worker was adequately trained in all matters necessary to perform their work in a healthy and safe manner.
• Section 7(1) of the OHS Code, May 2, 2023, failure to assess its work site and identify potential or existing hazards before work began on the task of a familiarization tour on the work site.
• Section 7(3) of the OHS Code, May 2, 2023, failure to ensure the date on which a hazard assessment was prepared or revised was recorded on it.
• Section 7(4)(c) of the OHS Code, May 2, 2023, failure to ensure a hazard assessment was repeated when a work process or operation changed.
• Section 12(b)(i) of the OHS Code, May 2, 2023, failure to ensure that equipment at a work site, an eyewash facility, was maintained in a condition that would not compromise the health and safety of workers using it.
• Section 12(b)(ii) of the OHS Code, May 2, 2023, failure to ensure equipment at a work site, an eyewash facility, would safely perform the function for which it was intended or was designed.
• Section 13(2)(a) of the OHS Code, May 2, 2023, where the OHS Code required something to be done in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications, the use, handling or testing of equipment, and they were not available or did not exist, failed to develop and comply with procedures that are certified by a professional engineer as designed to ensure the thing, the use, handling or testing of an open-ended loadout pipe tool, was done in a safe manner.
• Section 13(2)(b) of the OHS Code, May 2, 2023, where the OHS Code required something to be done in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications, the use, handling or testing of equipment, and they were not available or did not exist, failed to have the equipment, an open-ended loadout pipe tool, certified as safe to operate by a professional engineer at least every 12 calendar months.
• Section 16(1) of the OHS Code, April 25 – May 2, 2023, failure to ensure the exposure of workers to a substance listed in Schedule 1, Table 2, ammonia, was kept as low as reasonably achievable.
• Section 21(1) of the OHS Code, May 2, 2023, where a worker could be exposed to a harmful substance, ammonia, at a work site, failed to identify the health hazards associated with the exposure and assess the worker’s exposure, and establish procedures that minimized the worker’s exposure to ammonia.
• Section 21(2) of the OHS Code, May 2, 2023, where a worker could be exposed to a harmful substance, ammonia, at a work site, failed to comply with one or more of the 4 obligations set out in OHS Code section 21(2).
• Section 228(1)(a) of the OHS Code, May 2, 2023, where a hazard assessment indicated the need for personal protective equipment, failed to ensure workers wore PPE correct for the hazard of exposure to ammonia and protected workers.
• Section 397(1) of the OHS Code, April 25 – May 2, 2023, failure to ensure workers who worked with or near a hazardous product, ammonia, were trained in procedures for safely storing, using and handling ammonia.

Charged is: Weyerhaeuser Company Limited

Date charges laid: March 31, 2025

Location of alleged offence: Grande Prairie

Date of alleged offence: November 18, 2023

Type: Fatality

Description: A worker was using a pike pole to clear an obstruction/blockage in the Canter machine when the pike pole came in contact with the energized rotating side heads. The pike pole was ejected from the machinery, striking and fatally injuring the worker.

Contraventions: Weyerhaeuser Company Limited, being an employer, was charged with 13 counts:

• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the health, safety and welfare of a worker engaged in the work of that employer, who was fatally injured when clearing a blocked photo eye in equipment known as Canter 4 when it was unsafe to do so.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health, safety and welfare of their worker by permitting the worker to clear a blocked photo eye in Canter 4 without shutting it down.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health, safety and welfare of their worker by permitting the worker to clear a blocked photo eye in Canter 4 without shutting it down and locking it out.
• Section 3(2) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure their worker was adequately trained in all matters necessary to perform their work in a healthy and safe manner.
• Section 3(2) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure another worker engaged in the work of that employer was adequately trained in all matters necessary to perform their work in a healthy and safe manner.
• Section 9(1) of the OHS Code, having identified an existing or potential hazard, failed to take measures to eliminate the hazard or to control the hazard.
• Section 212(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure, if machinery or equipment was being serviced, repaired, tested, adjusted  or inspected, that no worker performed such work on the machinery or equipment until it had come to a complete stop and all hazardous energy at the location at which the work was to be carried out is isolated by activation of an energy-isolating device and the energy-isolating device was secured in accordance with section 214, 215 or 215.1 or, the machinery or equipment was otherwise rendered inoperative in a manner that prevented its unintended activation and provided equal or greater protection than the protection afforded under section 212(1)(a), contrary to  section 212(1) of the OHS Code.
• Section 212(2) of the OHS Code, failure to develop and implement procedures and controls to ensure machinery or equipment was safely serviced, repaired, tested, adjusted or inspected, or that any other work was safely performed on it,  when there were no manufacturer’s specifications and it was not reasonably practicable to stop or render inoperative the machinery or equipment.
• Section 310(2)(a) of the OHS Code, 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, 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 was cut, shaped or bored.
• Section 310(2)(e) of the OHS Code, failure to provide safeguards if a worker could accidentally, or through the work process, come into contact with debris, material or objects thrown from machinery or equipment.
• Section 310(2)(g) of the OHS Code, failure to provide safeguards if a worker could accidentally, or through the work process, come into contact with machinery or equipment that could be hazardous due to its operation.
• Section 13(2)(a) of the OHS Code, where manufacturer specifications were not available or did not exist, failed to develop procedures that were certified by a professional engineer designed to ensure the clearing of a blocked photo eye in equipment known as Canter 4, was done in a safe manner.

Charged is: Canlin Energy Corporation; Canlin Resources Partnership, a partnership, through its partner Canlin Energy Corporation and through its partner 8401268 Canada Inc.; Ulysses Engineering Inc.; and Matthew Morris

Date charges laid: January 30, 2025

Location of alleged offence: Edson

Date of alleged offence: March 21, 2024

Type: Serious Incident

Description: A welder was using a torch to cut a wellhead casing for removal as part of the well abandonment process. During the work, the wellhead dislodged and seriously injured the welder. 

Contraventions: Canlin Energy Corporation; and Canlin Resources Partnership, a partnership, through its partner Canlin Energy Corporation and through its partner 8401268 Canada Inc., are charged with 8 counts:

• Section 10(7)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, being a prime contractor, failed to establish a system or process that would ensure compliance with the OHS Act, the Regulations and the OHS Code in respect of the work site, including a system to ensure cooperation between the employer and workers in respect to health and safety, by failing to implement a safe procedure for cutting casing connected to a wellhead or components thereof.
• Section 10(7)(c) of the OHS Act, being a prime contractor, failure to conduct its own activities to ensure no person was exposed to hazards at the work site, by failing to ensure a worker was not injured when cutting casing connected to a wellhead or components thereof.
• Section 10(7)(c) of the OHS Act, being a prime contractor, failure to conduct its activities to ensure no person was exposed to hazards at the work site, by directing a worker to cut casing connected to a wellhead or components thereof that was not restrained or secured to eliminate the potential danger of the wellhead or components being dislodged or falling during the cutting process.
• Section 10(7)(c) of the OHS Act, being a prime contractor, failure to conduct its activities to ensure no person was exposed to hazards at the work site, by failing to implement a safe work procedure for cutting casing connected to a wellhead or components thereof that addressed stability of the wellhead or components.
• Section 10(7)(c) of the OHS Act, being a prime contractor, failure to conduct its activities to ensure no person was exposed to hazards at the work site, by failing to implement an engineering control at an appropriate stage of the work process for hazards resulting from the work of cutting casing to facilitate removal of a wellhead or components thereof.
• Section 10(10) of the OHS Act, being a prime contractor, failure to ensure an employer on a work site was informed of any existing or potential work site hazards that could affect workers or other persons at the work site, by failing to inform Bunch Welding Ltd. of the hazard of the potential for the wellhead or components thereof to become dislodged or fall when casing was cut.
• Section 189 of the OHS Code, being an employer, where a worker could be injured if equipment or material, a wellhead or components thereof, was dislodged, moved, spilled or damaged, failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure equipment or material was contained, restrained or protected to eliminate the potential danger.
• Section 12(e) of the OHS Code, being an employer, failure to ensure equipment, a wellhead or components thereof, was dismantled and subjected to any other work in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications or the specifications certified by a professional engineer.

and further that:

Ulysses Engineering Inc., being a service provider, is charged with 3 counts:

• Section 7(2)(c) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure no person at or in the vicinity of the work site was endangered as a result of the service provider’s activity, by directing a worker to cut casing connected to a wellhead or components thereof that was not restrained or secured to eliminate the potential danger of the wellhead or components being dislodged or falling during the cutting process.
• Section 7(2)(c) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure no person at or in the vicinity of the work site was endangered as a result of the service provider’s activity, by directing a worker to cut casing in the absence of an implemented safe work procedure that addressed stability of the wellhead or components thereof.
• Section 7(2)(c) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure no person at or in the vicinity of the work site was endangered as a result of the service provider’s activity, by failing to implement an engineering control at an appropriate stage of the work process for hazards resulting from the work of cutting casing to facilitate removal of a wellhead or components thereof.

and further that:

Matthew Morris, being a supervisor, is charged with 4 counts:

• Section 4(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to take all precautions necessary to protect the health and safety of every worker under his supervision, by directing a worker to cut casing connected to a wellhead or components thereof that was not restrained or secured to eliminate the potential danger of the wellhead or components being dislodged or falling during the cutting process.
• Section 4(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to take all precautions necessary to protect the health and safety of every worker under his supervision, by failing to implement a safe work procedure for the work of cutting casing connected to a wellhead or components thereof that addressed stability of the wellhead or components.
• Section 4(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to take all precautions necessary to protect the health and safety of every worker under his supervision, by failing to implement an engineering control at an appropriate stage of the work process for hazards resulting from the work of cutting casing to facilitate removal of a wellhead or components.
• Section 4(b) of the OHS Act, failure to advise every worker under his supervision of all known or reasonably foreseeable hazards to health and safety in the area where the worker was performing work, by failing to advise the worker that the wellhead or components thereof could be dislodged and fall during the process of cutting casing.

Charged is: Cold Lake First Nations Casino Corporation; Cold Lake First Nations Casino Corporation operating as Casino Dene; and Casino Dene LP

Date charges laid: January 22, 2025

Location of alleged offence: Cold Lake

Date of alleged offence: September 22, 2023

Type: Serious Incident

Description: A worker was struck and pinned by falling lockers, resulting in serious injuries. 

Contraventions: Cold Lake First Nations Casino Corporation; Cold Lake First Nations Casino Corporation operating as Casino Dene; and Casino Dene LP, being an employer, was charged with 4 counts:

• Section 3(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, who was injured when a set of lockers fell over and struck the worker.
• Section 9(1) of the OHS Code, failure to eliminate or control a hazard it identified during a hazard assessment, a set of lockers that was not secured to a wall.
• Section 12(e) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure equipment and supplies, lockers, were used, erected, installed, and assembled in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications or the specifications certified by a professional engineer, “anchor units to wall or floor. Units are not intended to stand free and may topple if not secured”.
• Section 189 of the OHS Code, failure to take all reasonable steps to ensure, where a worker may be injured if equipment or material, to wit: a set of lockers, is dislodged or moved, that the equipment or material was contained, restrained or protected to eliminate the potential danger.

Charged is: Diamond Dust Acres Ltd.

Date charges laid: September 18, 2024

Location of alleged offence: Enchant

Date of alleged offence: March 18, 2023

Type: Fatality

Description: A worker was dumping gravel on an approach to a field when the end dump semi-trailer contacted an overhead power line. The worker was standing outside the vehicle to operate the controls necessary to raise the dump box and was fatally injured.

Contraventions: Diamond Dust Acres Ltd., being an employer, is charged with 7 counts:

• Section 3(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 who was electrocuted while operating an end dump trailer box near an overhead power line.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by failing to establish, implement and enforce a safe work procedure for operating equipment near an overhead power line.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by failing to ensure the worker maintained a safe distance between an end dump trailer box and an overhead power line.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by failing to provide the worker with a spotter while the worker was raising an end dump trailer box near an overhead power line.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by failing to ensure the worker followed the operator’s manual for the end dump trailer, in which an operator must ensure that overhead clearance is adequate before hoisting an end dump trailer box.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by failing to ensure the worker complied with section 4(1)(c)(iii) of the Commercial Vehicle Dimension and Weight Regulation.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by failing to comply with section 4(1)(c)(iii) of the Commercial Vehicle Dimension and Weight Regulation.

Charged is: Savanna Drilling Corp. and Par Energy Services Inc.

Date charges laid: February 7, 2024

Location of alleged offence: Rocky Mountain House

Date of alleged offence: February 8, 2023

Type: Serious Incident

Description: A worker suffered a serious injury when their right hand contacted the gear inside a power tong while running casing into a horizontal well.

Contravention: 

Savanna Drilling Corp. and Par Energy Services Inc. were charged with 2 counts:

• Section 3(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 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act,  being an employer, failed to ensure the health and safety of their worker, by failing to prevent them from being injured while assisting with the placement of a power tong.

Par Energy Services Inc. was charged with an additional 4 counts:

• Section 6(1)(a) of the OHS Act, being a supplier, failed to ensure, any equipment the supplier supplied, a power tong, was in safe operating condition.
• Section 7(2)(c) of the OHS Act, being a service provider, failed to ensure, that no person at or in the vicinity of a work site was endangered as a result of the service provider’s activity.
• Section 12(b) of the OHS Code, being an employer, failed to ensure that equipment used at a work site, a power tong, was maintained in a condition that would not compromise the health or safety of workers using or transporting it, that it would safely perform the function for which it was intended or was designed, and that it was free from obvious defects.
• Section 12(e) of the OHS Code, being an employer, failed to ensure that equipment, a power tong, was operated, serviced, tested, maintained and repaired in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications or the specifications certified by a professional engineer.