Charges under the OHS Legislation

Charged is: Westpower Equipment Ltd.

Date charges laid: August 22, 2023

Location of alleged offence: Calgary

Date of alleged offence: March 3, 2022

Type: Fatality

Description: A worker operating an overhead crane was installing a pump cover when the cover released from rigging, struck, and pinned the worker. The worker sustained fatal injury.

Contravention: Westpower Equipment Ltd., being an employer, was charged with 23 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.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health, safety and welfare of their worker by failing to ensure that the worker used the correct size of eye bolt to lift a Flowserve HDX pump cover.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health, safety and welfare of their worker by failing to establish a safe procedure for installing a Flowserve HDX pump cover.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health, safety and welfare of their worker by failing to implement a safe procedure for installing a Flowserve HDX pump cover.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health, safety and welfare of their worker by failing to enforce a safe procedure for installing a Flowserve HDX pump cover.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health, safety and welfare of their worker by failing to ensure that a work area was arranged and maintained in such a way that clutter, congestion, or the placement of objects would not interfere with work safety. 
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health, safety and welfare of their worker by failing to ensure a tag line was used to control a Flowserve HDX pump cover during installation.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health, safety and welfare of their worker by failing to ensure that restrictions placed on the worker’s use of a crane were enforced.
• 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 attempt to install a Flowserve HDX pump cover without assistance.
• 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.
• 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 7(4)(b) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a hazard assessment was repeated when a new work process was introduced.
• Section 8(1) of the OHS Code, failure to involve affected workers in the hazard assessment and in the control or elimination of the hazards identified.
• Section 12(a) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that equipment, an eye bolt, was of sufficient size, strength and design and made of suitable materials to withstand the stresses imposed on it during its operation and to perform the function for which it was intended or was designed.
• Section 12(b)(iii) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that equipment used at a work site, rigging, was free from obvious defects.
• Section 12(e) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that equipment and supplies, an eye bolt, was installed, assembled, operated and handled in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications or the specifications certified by a professional engineer.
• Section 12(e) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that equipment and supplies, a device identified as a “grabber”, was installed, assembled, operated and handled in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications or the specifications certified by a professional engineer.
• Section 64(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a lifting device was only operated by a competent worker authorized by the employer to operate the equipment.
• Section 65(4) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that that each entry in a paper logbook was signed by the person doing the work.
• Section 70(1) of the OHS Code, where a worker was in danger because of the movement of a load being lifted, lowered or moved by a lifting device, failed to ensure that a tag line was used.
• Section 189 of the OHS Code, failure to take all reasonable steps to ensure, where a worker could be injured if equipment or material was dislodged or moved, that the equipment or material was contained, restrained or protected to eliminate the potential danger.
• Section 294 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that rigging to be used during a work shift was inspected thoroughly prior to each period of continuous use during the shift to ensure the rigging was functional and safe.
• Section 304(a) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that rigging did not have makeshift fittings or attachments, including those constructed from reinforcing steel rod, that were load bearing components.

Charged is: Nexar Sicim Pipeline Ltd.; Xtreme Oilfield Group Inc.; Xtreme Oilfield Technology Ltd.

Date charges laid: August 17, 2023

Location of alleged offence: Grande Prairie

Date of alleged offence: November 22, 2021

Type: Fatality

Description: A worker that was on site testing pipe that was under pressure when a check valve broke and contacted the worker causing fatal injuries.

Contravention: Nexar Sicim Pipeline Ltd., being a prime contractor, was charged with 4 counts:

• Section 10(5)(b) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to coordinate, organize and oversee the performance of all work at the work site to ensure that no person was exposed to hazards arising out of, or in connection with, activities at the work site by failing to ensure work was done safely.
• Section 10(5)(b) of the OHS Act, failure to coordinate, organize and oversee the performance of all work at the work site to ensure that no person was exposed to hazards arising out of, or in connection with, activities at the work site by failing to ensure a work area at the work site, the test head area where a worker was working, had adequate lighting.
• Section 10(5)(b) of the OHS Act, failure to coordinate, organize and oversee the performance of all work at the work site to ensure that no person was exposed to hazards arising out of, or in connection with, activities at the work site by failing to ensure a work area at the work site, the test head area, where a worker was working, was adequately designed for safe valve handling.
• Section 10(5)(b) of the OHS Act, failure to coordinate, organize and oversee the performance of all work at the work site to ensure that no person was exposed to hazards arising out of, or in connection with, activities at the work site by failing to ensure a valve position indicator was easily visible.

Xtreme Oilfield Group Inc. and Xtreme Oilfield Technology Ltd., being an employer, were charged with 16 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 fatally injured when removing a check valve from a test head.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by failing to ensure that a check valve was isolated from a source of pressure.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker, by failing to ensure that a ball valve intended to isolate pressure in piping from a check valve was secured in the closed position.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by permitting the introduction of air pressure to piping prior to removal of a check valve.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, the health and safety of their worker, by failing to a fit a gear operated ball valve on a test head with a locking and restraining system.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker, by using Victaulic Clamps to secure a check valve on a test head apparatus despite there being no vent valve between the check valve and ball valve.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker, by using Victaulic Clamps to secure a check valve on a test head apparatus when air pressure was present.
• 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, by failing to conduct a hazard assessment for work at a work area known as RD 26, at which their worker was fatally injured.
• 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 by failing to identify the hazard of pressure being released when the check valve was removed from a test head.
• 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, by failing to prepare a report of the results of a hazard assessment for work at a location known as RD 26.
• Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that equipment, a Victaulic Check Valve, was installed, operated, handled, serviced, adjusted, and dismantled in accordance with the specifications of a professional engineer or with the manufacturer’s specifications, which state “Depressurize and drain the piping system before attempting to install, remove, adjust, or maintain any Victaulic piping products”.
• Section 115(3) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that an emergency response plan was current.
• Section 188(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that that a hose or piping and its connections operating under pressure were restrained if workers could be injured by its movement if it failed or if it was disconnected.
• Section 212(3) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that if piping containing a harmful substance under pressure was to be serviced, repaired, tested, adjusted, or inspected, that no worker performed such work on the piping until the flow in the piping 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 215.4 of the OHS Code, contrary to section 212(3) of the OHS Code.
• Section 215.4(3) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that valve(s) or similar blocking seals in the flow lines were functional and secured in the “CLOSED” position.
• Section 13(1) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that if work was to be done that could endanger a worker, the work was done by (a) a worker who was competent to do the work or (b) by a worker who was working under the direct supervision of a worker who was competent to do the work, by failing to suitably train workers to, or ensure all workers are suitably trained to, recognize all pressure hazards relevant to their work.

Charged is: Glenmore Fabricators Ltd.

Date charges laid: July 26, 2023

Location of alleged offence: Calgary

Date of alleged offence: August 16, 2021

Type: Fatality

Description: A worker was moving a steel beam using an overhead crane when it released from rigging, striking and pinning the worker. The worker sustained fatal injury.

Contravention: Glenmore Fabricators Ltd., being an employer, was charged with 11 counts:

• Section 3(1)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure, by adequately training or maintaining competence in their worker, the safety of workers engaged in the work of that employer, workers not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site at which that work was being carried out and other persons at or in the vicinity of the work site who could be affected by hazards originating in the work site.
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by maintaining a work area in a condition where clutter, congestion, or the placement of objects would not interfere with work safety, the safety of their workers, other workers present at the work site and other persons at or near the work site who could be affected by hazards originating in the work site.
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by controlling the use of an item used in the work, clamps, the safety of their workers, other workers present at the work site and other persons at or near the work site who could be affected by hazards originating in the work site.
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by preventing the moving of a load where it might strike a worker, the safety of their workers, other workers present at the work site and other persons at or near the work site who could be affected by hazards originating in the work site.
• Section 13(2) of the OHS Code, where this code required anything to be done in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications and they were not available or did not exist,  failed to develop and comply with procedures that were certified by a professional engineer as designed to ensure that a thing was done in a safe manner or had the equipment certified as safe to operate by a professional engineer at least every 12 calendar months.
• Section 61 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that all major structural, mechanical, and electrical components, clamps, were permanently and legibly identified as being component parts of a specific make and model of lifting device.
• Section 61 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a lifting device was operated by a competent worker authorized by the employer to operate the equipment.
• Section 189 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure, by maintaining a work area in a condition where clutter, congestion, or the placement of objects would not interfere with work safety, that equipment or material was contained, restrained, or protected to eliminate a potential danger if a worker could be injured if equipment or material was dislodged, moved, spilled, or damaged.
• Section 189 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure, by preventing the moving of a load where it might strike a worker, that equipment or material was contained, restrained, or protected to eliminate a potential danger if a worker could be injured if equipment or material was dislodged, moved, spilled, or damaged.
• Section 297(2) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure, that below-the-hook lifting devices other than slings, clamps, met the requirements of ASME Standard B30.20-2006.
• Section 70(1)(c) of the OHS Code, where workers were in danger because of the movement of a load being lifted, lowered, or moved by a lifting device, failed to ensure that a tag line was used when it allowed worker separation from a load.

Charged is: Isolation Equipment Services Inc.

Date charges laid: July 26, 2023

Location of alleged offence: Red Deer

Date of alleged offence: January 13, 2022

Type: Fatality

Description: An overhead crane operator was positioning a valve bonnet when the equipment released from rigging, striking and pinning a worker. The worker sustained fatal injury.

Contravention: Isolation Equipment Services Inc. was charged, being an employer, with 29 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.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker, by failing to prevent the worker from placing their head beneath a suspended valve bonnet.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker, by failing to prevent another worker from lifting a valve bonnet using a crane and hoist without first checking the rigging to ensure it would not fail.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker, by permitting the use of hooks inserted into eye bolts.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker, by failing to establish a safe procedure for rigging 5-inch 15,000 PSI valve bonnets.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker, by failing to implement a safe procedure for rigging 5-inch 15,000 PSI valve bonnets.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker, by failing to enforce a safe procedure for rigging 5-inch 15,000 PSI valve bonnets.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker, by failing to establish a safe procedure for assembling 5-inch 15,000 PSI valves.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker, by failing to implement a safe procedure for assembling 5-inch 15,000 PSI valves.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker, by failing to enforce a safe procedure for assembling 5-inch 15,000 PSI valves.
• Section 3(2) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker, by failing 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 the health and safety of their worker, by failing to ensure another worker was adequately trained in all matters necessary to perform their work in a healthy and safe manner.
• Section 3(3) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, where work was to be done that may endanger a worker, that 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 7(4)(c) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a hazard assessment was repeated when a work process or operation changed.
• 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 8(1) of the OHS Code, failure to involve affected workers in the hazard assessment and in the control or elimination of the hazards identified.
• Section 12(b)(iii) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure equipment used at a work site, a sling, was free from obvious defects.
• Section 12(b)(iii) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that equipment used at a work site, a hook, was free from obvious defects.
• Section 12(e) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that equipment and supplies, Vanguard Eye Bolts, were installed, assembled, operated and handled in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications, to: “NEVER insert the tip of a hook into an eye bolt, use a Golden Pin shackle to avoid loading the hook tip”.
• Section 64(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a lifting device was only operated by a competent worker authorized by the employer to operate the equipment.
• Section 70(1) of the OHS Code, where workers were in danger because of the movement of a load being lifted, lowered or moved by a lifting device, failure to ensure that a tag line was used.
• Section 189 of the OHS Code, failure to take all reasonable steps to ensure, where a worker could be injured if equipment or material was dislodged or moved, that the equipment or material was contained, restrained or protected to eliminate the potential danger.
• Section 293(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that the maximum load rating of rigging, as determined by the rigging manufacturer or a professional engineer, was legibly and conspicuously marked on the rigging.
• Section 294 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that rigging to be used during a work shift was inspected thoroughly prior to each period of continuous use during the shift to ensure that the rigging was functional and safe.
• Section 297(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a synthetic fibre sling manufactured on or after July 1, 2009, a sling identified as Item 011, met the requirements of ASME Standard B30.9-2006, Safety Standard for Cableways, Cranes, Derricks, Hoists, Hooks, Jacks, and Slings.
• Section 297(2) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a below-the-hook lifting device, the plate clamp component of what is identified as Item 013, met the requirements of ASME Standard B30.20-2006, Below-the-Hook Lifting Devices.
• Section 297(2) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a below-the-hook lifting device, a lifting clamp identified as Item 018, met the requirements of ASME Standard B30.20-2006, Below-the-Hook Lifting Devices.
• Section 298(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a synthetic fibre sling was permanently and legibly marked or appropriately tagged with the manufacturer’s name or trademark, the manufacturer’s code or stock number, the safe working load for the types of hitches permitted, and the type and material of construction.
• Section 304(a) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that rigging did not have makeshift fittings or attachments, including those constructed from reinforcing steel rod, that were load bearing components.

Charged is: Canadian Natural Resources Limited and O'Reilly Oilfield Services Ltd

Date charges laid: June 16, 2023

Location of alleged offence: Valleyview

Date of alleged offence: July 7, 2021

Type: Serious incident

Description: A work crew was discontinuing a well site using a portable flare stack to burn off excess gas. A disruption in the line sent fluid into the line and caused a fire.  A worker positioned near the flare stack sustained serious burn injuries.

Contravention: Canadian Natural Resources Limited, being an employer, was charged with the following counts:

• Section 3(1)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure, by adequately training and supervising their workers, the safety of workers engaged in the work of that employer, workers not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site at which that work was being carried out and other persons at or in the vicinity of the work site who could be affected by hazards originating in the work site.
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by adequately selecting or supervising the selection of a portable flare knock-out and associated equipment, the safety of their workers, other workers and other persons in the vicinity of the work site who could be affected by hazards originating in the work site.
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by adequately controlling a portable flare knock-out and associated equipment, the safety of their workers, other workers and other persons in the vicinity of the work site who could be affected by hazards originating in the work site.
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by adequately maintaining, refurbishing, cleaning, emptying, and servicing a portable flare knock-out and associated equipment, the safety of their workers, other workers and other persons in the vicinity of the work site who could be affected by hazards originating in the work site.
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by minimizing exposure to a hazard, a flare stack, the safety of their workers, other workers and other persons in the vicinity of the work site who could be affected by hazards originating in the work site.
• Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that equipment and supplies were erected, installed, assembled, started, operated, handled, stored, serviced, tested, adjusted, calibrated, maintained, repaired and dismantled in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications or the specifications certified by a professional engineer.
• Section 13(2) of the OHS Code, where the OHS Code requires anything to be done in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications and they were not available or did not exist, did fail to (a) develop and comply with procedures that are certified by a professional engineer as designed to ensure the thing was done in a safe manner, or (b) have the equipment certified as safe to operate by a professional engineer at least every 12 calendar months.
• Section 12(1) of the Alberta Regulation, failure to ensure that all equipment used at a work site, a portable flare knock-out, was (a) maintained in a condition that would not compromise the health or safety of workers using or transporting it, (b) would safely perform the function for which it was intended, and (d) was free from obvious defects

O’Reilly Oilfield Services Ltd, being a supervisor, was charged with the following counts:

• Section 4(a)(ii) of the OHS Act, failure to take all precautions, by adequately selecting or assisting the selection of a portable flare knock-out and associated equipment, necessary to protect the health and safety of every worker under the supervisor’s supervision.
• Section 4(a)(ii) of the OHS Act, failure to take all precautions,  by adequately controlling use of a portable flare knock-out and associated equipment, necessary to protect the health and safety of every worker under the supervisor’s supervision.
• Section 4(a)(ii) of the OHS Act, failure to take all precautions,  by ensuring adequate maintenance, refurbishment, cleaning, emptying, and servicing of a portable flare knock-out and associated equipment, necessary to protect the health and safety of every worker under the supervisor’s supervision.
• Section 4(a)(ii) of the OHS Act, failure to take all precautions,  by minimizing exposure to a hazard, a flare stack, necessary to protect the health and safety of every worker under the supervisor’s supervision.

Canadian Natural Resources Limited, being a prime contractor, was charged with the following counts:

• Section 10(5)(b) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by coordinating, organizing, and overseeing the performance of all work at the work site by adequately training and supervising workers, that no person was exposed to hazards arising out of, or in connection with, activities at the work site.
• Section 10(5)(b) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by coordinating, organizing, and overseeing the performance of all work at the work site by adequately selecting or supervising the selection of a portable flare knock-out and associated equipment, that no person, was exposed to hazards arising out of, or in connection with, activities at the work site.
• Section 10(5)(b) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by coordinating, organizing, and overseeing the performance of all work at the work site by adequately controlling a portable flare knock-out and associated equipment, that no person was exposed to hazards arising out of, or in connection with, activities at the work site.
• Section 10(5)(b) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by coordinating, organizing, and overseeing the performance of all work at the work site by adequately maintaining, refurbishing, cleaning, emptying, and servicing a portable flare knock-out and associated equipment, that no person was exposed to hazards arising out of, or in connection with, activities at the work site.
• Section 10(5)(b) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by coordinating, organizing, and overseeing the performance of all work at the work site by minimizing exposure to a hazard, a flare stack, that no person was exposed to hazards arising out of, or in connection with, activities at the work site.

Canadian Natural Resources Limited and O’Reilly Oilfield Services Ltd, being an employer, were charged with the following counts:

• Section 15(1) of the Alberta Regulation, failure to ensure that workers were trained in the safe operation of the equipment they were required to operate.
• Section 763(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that derrick, mast or self-contained snubbing unit guy lines were installed in accordance with (a) the manufacturer’s specifications, or (b) API recommended practice RP 4G, “recommended practice for maintenance and use of drilling well servicing structures (2004)”.

Charged is: Marathon Underground Constructors Corporation

Date charges laid: June 15, 2023

Location of alleged offence: Edmonton

Date of alleged offence: March 7, 2022

Type: Serious Incident

Description: A worker was directed to get a piece of plywood to cover a piling hole at a construction site. The worker found a piece of plywood on the ground. When the worker lifted the plywood and took a step, they fell into a hole and sustained serious injuries.

Contravention: Marathon Underground Constructors Corporation , being an employer, was 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, by failing to ensure workers followed the Ground Procedures During Drilling Operations section of the Marathon Site Specific Health and Safety Plan: Adequate protection shall be placed surrounding any open holes or an adequate cover shall be placed over the open hole when left unfilled during such periods when the hole is not being worked on.
• 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 was aware of an open hole in the ground beneath a sheet of plywood.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker, by failing to ensure an open hole in the ground was protected by a barricade.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker, by failing to ensure an open hole in the ground was protected by a guardrail.
• 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 was unable to remove a cover from an open hole in the ground without mechanical assistance.
• Section 314(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure an opening or hole 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 314(3) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that, if a temporary cover was used to protect an opening or hole, a warning sign or marking clearly indicating the nature of the hazard was posted near or fixed on the cover and was not removed unless another effective means of protection was immediately provided.

Charged is: Sonic Coating Solutions Inc.

Date charges laid: May 26, 2023

Location of alleged offence: Leduc

Date of alleged offence: October 30, 2021

Type: Fatality

Description: Four workers were transferring pipe from the abrasive blasting building to the paint shop for painting. When one of the workers was struck by the section of pipe being moved, the worker was fatally injured.

Contravention: Sonic Coating Solutions Inc., being an employer, was charged with 14 counts:

• Section 3(1)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure, by requiring and enforcing the use of adequate, sufficient, and appropriate equipment, the safety of workers engaged in the work of that employer, workers not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site at which that work was being carried out and other persons at or in the vicinity of the work site who could be affected by hazards originating in the work site.
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by preventing a worker from standing in proximity to or under a suspended load, the safety of their workers, other workers and other persons in the vicinity of the work site who could be affected by hazards originating in the work site.
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by having in place a safe work procedure for moving pipes between buildings, the safety of their workers, other workers and other persons in the vicinity of the work site who could be affected by hazards originating in the work site.
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by enforcing administrative controls, the health and safety of their workers, other workers and other persons in the vicinity of the work site who could be affected by hazards originating in the work site.
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by rigging a load in a safe manner, the health and safety of their workers, other workers and other persons in the vicinity of the work site who could be affected by hazards originating in the work site.
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by adequately supervising workers or stopping the work if they could not be adequately supervised, the safety of their worker, other workers and other persons in the vicinity of the work site who could be affected by hazards originating in the work site.
• Section 13(1)(a) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that if work was to be done that could endanger their worker, the employer must ensure that the work was done by a worker who was competent to do the work.
• Section 69(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that work was arranged so that a load did not pass over workers by means of tag lines.
• Section 70(1)(a) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that if workers were in danger because of the movement of a load being lifted, lowered, or moved by a lifting device that a worker used a tag line of sufficient length to control the load.
• Section 70(1)(c) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that if workers were in danger because of the movement of a load being lifted, lowered, or moved by a lifting device that a tag line was used which allowed worker separation from the load.
• Section 71 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that hand signals necessary to ensure a safe hoisting operation were given in accordance with section 191 by a competent signaler designated by the employer.
• 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 that all reasonable steps to ensure the equipment or material was contained, restrained or protected to eliminate the potential danger.
• Section 258(1)(a) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that if the movement of a load or the cab, counterweight or any other part of powered mobile equipment created a danger to workers, the employer must not permit a worker to remain within range of the moving load or part.
• Section 275(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that no part of an operator’s or passenger’s body extended beyond the side of a vehicle or powered mobile equipment while it was in operation.

Charged is: La Crete Sawmills Ltd.

Date charges laid: April 27, 2023

Location of alleged offence: La Crete

Date of alleged offence: March 31, 2022

Type: Fatality

Description: A worker was feeding boards into a planer. It is believed the planer jammed so the worker attempted to unjam the planer using a steel bar. The bar flipped back, contacted the worker, and fatally injured them.

Contravention: La Crete Sawmills Ltd., 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 fatally injured when unjamming equipment known as a Planer when it was unsafe to do so.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker, by permitting the worker to unjam equipment known as a Planer without shutting it down.
• Section 212(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure, if machinery or equipment was to be 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 was isolated by activation of 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 or the machinery or equipment 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), contrary to  Section 212(1) of the OHS Code.
• 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.

Charged is: Mainline Construction (2014) Ltd.

Date charges laid: April 19, 2023

Location of alleged offence: Sexsmith

Date of alleged offence: May 3, 2021

Type: Fatality

Description: A worker was struck and fatally injured by a pipe while it was being loaded onto the back of a trailer.

Contravention: Mainline Construction (2014) Ltd., being an employer, was charged with 3 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 develop a safe work procedure and/or practice for loading pipes onto a trailer.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker, by failing to implement a proper method of stacking pipe when loading pipe onto a trailer.
• Section 189 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that if a worker could be injured if equipment or material was dislodged, moved, spilled or damaged, that all reasonable steps were taken to ensure the equipment or material was contained, restrained or protected to eliminate the potential danger.

Charged is: Syncrude Canada Ltd.

Date charges laid: March 27, 2023

Location of alleged offence: Fort McKay

Date of alleged offence: June 6, 2021

Type: Fatality

Description: A worker was operating an excavator to build a berm when the bank slumped into the fresh water. The cab of the excavator was fully submerged, and the worker was fatally injured.

Contravention: Syncrude Canada Ltd, being an employer, was charged with 5 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 drowned when the John Deere excavator they were operating fell into a waterbody known as the “AMI”.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker, by permitting the worker to operate the excavator on a ramp with an over steepened slope.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker, by failing to restrict access to a ramp leading to a water body known as the “AMI”.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker, by failing to implement and/or monitor compliance with safety rules in Energy Safety Canada’s publication “Working on & Around Bodies of Water & Ice”, which states “Whenever work is to be carried out within 5 m of a body of water using mobile equipment ... Consider keeping the door of the equipment open and/or not wearing a seatbelt”.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker, by failing to implement safety direction(s) recommended in Energy Safety Canada’s publication “Working on & Around Bodies of Water & Ice”, which states “When ground conditions are unknown or when surface cracks are discovered, a trafficability risk assessment or ground constructability assessment must be conducted in conjunction with geotechnical engineer approval to complete a safe access plan”.

Charged is: Brooks Asphalt and Aggregate Ltd.; Smith Group Holdings Ltd.

Date charges laid: November 16, 2022

Location of alleged offence: County of Newell

Date of alleged offence: July 23, 2021

Type: Fatality

Description: A loader operator was cleaning out a gravel bin with a running conveyor and was asphyxiated in the gravel.

Contravention: Brooks Asphalt and Aggregate Ltd. and Smith Group Holdings Ltd., being an employer, were charged with 15 counts:

• Section 3(1)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the safety of workers engaged in the work of that employer, by means of ensuring that no worker clear, clean, or work in proximity to any device including a conveyor which was capable of movement.
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the safety of workers engaged in the work of that employer, by means of adequately supervising their worker or stopping work if their worker could not be adequately supervised.
• Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that equipment and supplies were erected, installed, assembled, started, operated, handled, stored, serviced, tested, adjusted, calibrated, maintained, repaired and dismantled in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications or the specifications certified by a professional engineer.
• Section 46(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a worker assigned duties related to confined space or restricted space entry was trained by a competent person in recognizing hazards associated with working in confined spaces or restricted spaces and performing the worker’s duties in a safe and healthy manner.
• Section 47(3) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that before a worker entered a confined space, an entry permit was properly completed, signed by a competent person and a copy kept readily available.
• Section 48(1)(f) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a communication system was established that was readily available to workers in a confined space or a restricted space and was appropriate to the hazards.
• Section 55(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a worker did not enter or remain in a confined space or a restricted space unless an effective rescue could be carried out.
• Section 56(1) of the OHS Code, failure to designate a competent worker to be in communication with a worker in the confined space or restricted space for every confined space or restricted space entry.
• Section 57 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a safe means of entry and exit was available to all workers required to work in a confined space or a restricted space and to all rescue personnel attending to the workers.
• Section 119(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that every worker could enter a work area safely and leave a work area safely at all times.
• Section 212(1) of the OHS Code, where machinery, equipment or powered mobile equipment was to be serviced, repaired, tested, adjusted or inspected, did fail to ensure that no worker performed such work on the machinery, equipment or powered mobile equipment until it had come to a complete stop and (a) all hazardous energy at the location at which the work was to be carried out was isolated by activation of 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, or (b) the machinery, equipment or powered mobile equipment was otherwise rendered inoperative in a manner that prevented its accidental activation and provided equal or greater protection than the protection afforded under (a).
• Section 310(2) 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, material being fed into or removed from process machinery or equipment, machinery or equipment that could be hazardous due to its operation, or any other hazard.
• Section 316 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that if a worker could access materials in hoppers, bins or chutes, that the hoppers, bins or chutes had horizontal bars, screens or equally effective safeguards that prevented a worker from falling into the hoppers, bins or chutes.
• Section 366 of the OHS Code, failure to install a positive means to prevent the activation of equipment if a worker was required, during the course of the work process, to feed material into the machine or a part of the worker’s body was within the danger zone of the machine.
• Section 13(4) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that if a Regulation or Adopted Code, Section 372(2) of the OHS Code, imposed a duty on a worker, the worker’s employer was to ensure that the worker performed that duty.

Charged is: Great Northern Plumbing Inc.

Date charges laid: July 5, 2022

Location of alleged offence: Calgary

Date of alleged offence: August 10, 2020

Type: Serious Incident

Description: A worker was seriously injured when crushed by a load of steel pipe that fell off a rack that had collapsed under the excessive load that had been placed upon it.

Contravention: Great Northern Plumbing Inc. was charged, as an employer, with 15 counts:

• Section 3(1)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act failure to ensure, by designing, manufacturing and maintaining a rack of sufficient strength, the safety of workers engaged in the work of that employer, workers not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site at which that work was being carried out and other persons at or in the vicinity of the work site who could be affected by hazards originating in the work site. 
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by storing pipes in dunnage, the safety of workers engaged in the work of that employer, workers not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site at which that work was being carried out and other persons at or in the vicinity of the work site who could be affected by hazards originating in the work site.
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by adequately controlling the number and weight of pipes stored in a rack, the safety of workers engaged in the work of that employer, workers not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site at which that work was being carried out and other persons at or in the vicinity of the work site who could be affected by hazards originating in the work site.
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by establishing and enforcing a zone of exclusion, the safety of workers engaged in the work of that employer, workers not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site at which that work was being carried out and other persons at or in the vicinity of the work site who could be affected by hazards originating in the work site.
• Section 12(1)(b) of the Alberta OHS Safety Regulation, failure to ensure all the equipment used at a work site, a rack and pipes, would safely perform the function for which it was intended or was designed.
• Section 12(1)(c) of the Alberta OHS Safety Regulation, failure to ensure all the equipment used at a work site, a rack and pipes, was of adequate strength for its purpose.
• Section 12(a) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure equipment and personal protective equipment was of sufficient size, strength and design and made of suitable materials to withstand the stresses imposed on it during its operation and to perform the function for which it was intended or 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, or any part of it, as described in the manufacturer’s specifications or specifications certified by a professional engineer, were not exceeded.
• Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that equipment and supplies, a rack and pipes, were erected, installed, assembled, started, operated, handled, stored, serviced, tested, adjusted, calibrated, maintained, repaired and dismantled in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications or the specifications certified by a professional engineer.
• Section 187(2) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure racks used to store materials or equipment were designed, constructed and maintained to support the load placed on them, and were placed on firm foundations that could support the load.
• Section 189 of the OHS Code, failure to take all reasonable steps designing, manufacturing and maintaining a rack of sufficient strength, to ensure that if equipment or material was dislodged, moved, spilled or damaged, that the equipment or material was contained, restrained, or protected to eliminate the potential danger.
• Section 189 of the OHS Code, failure to take all reasonable steps storing pipes in dunnage, to ensure that if equipment or material was dislodged, moved, spilled or damaged, that the equipment or material was contained, restrained, or protected to eliminate the potential danger.
• Section 189 of the OHS Code, failure to take all reasonable steps, adequately controlling the number and weight of pipes stored in a rack, to ensure that if equipment or material was dislodged, moved, spilled or damaged, that the equipment or material was contained, restrained, or protected to eliminate the potential danger.
• Section 189 of the OHS Code, failure to take all reasonable steps, establishing and enforcing a zone of exclusion, to ensure that if equipment or material was dislodged, moved, spilled or damaged, that the equipment or material was contained, restrained, or protected to eliminate the potential danger.
• Section 318(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that workers in a work area where there may be falling objects were protected from the falling objects by an overhead safeguard.

Charged is: Blue Collar Silviculture Ltd.

Date charges laid: May 19, 2022

Location of alleged offence: County of Mackenzie

Date of alleged offence: July 2, 2020

Type: Fatality

Description: A tree planter was struck and fatally injured by a falling tree.

Contravention: Blue Collar Silviculture Ltd. was charged, being an employer, with 8 counts:

• Section 3(1)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure, by adequately warning or communicating a warning or alert of changes in the circumstances of work which could present a hazard to a worker, the safety of workers engaged in the work of that employer, workers not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site at which that work was being carried out and other persons at or in the vicinity of the work site who could be affected by hazards originating in the work site.
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by adequately establishing or maintaining or enforcing a zone or zones excluding workers from a hazardous place, the safety of workers engaged in the work of that employer, workers not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site at which that work was being carried out and other persons at or in the vicinity of the work site who could be affected by hazards originating in the work site, Worker 1.
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by adequately assessing a workplace prior to the commencement of work including adequately identifying hazardous or dangerous trees, the safety of workers engaged in the work of that employer, workers not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site at which that work was being carried out and other persons at or in the vicinity of the work site who could be affected by hazards originating in the work site, Worker 1.
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by adequately establishing or executing a shutdown procedure, evacuation procedure, or similar procedure, the safety of workers engaged in the work of that employer, workers not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site at which that work was being carried out and other persons at or in the vicinity of the work site who could be affected by hazards originating in the work site, Worker 1.
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by adequately training or maintaining the alertness of a worker or workers, Worker 1 or Worker 2, in the recognition of hazardous situations, the safety of workers engaged in the work of that employer, workers not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site at which that work was being carried out and other persons at or in the vicinity of the work site who could be affected by hazards originating in the work site, Worker 1.
• Section 9(1) of the OHS Code, failure to eliminate a hazard, or if elimination was not possible, control a hazard, if an existing or potential hazard was identified during a hazard assessment.
• Section 189 of the OHS Code, failure to take all reasonable steps, falling of a tree or establishing a no-work zone, to ensure equipment or material was contained, restrained, or protected to eliminate a hazard, or if elimination was not possible, control a hazard, if a worker could be injured if equipment or material was dislodged, moved, spilled, or damaged.
• Section 318(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that workers in a work area where there could be falling objects were protected from the falling objects by an overhead safeguard.

 

Charged is: SA Energy Group; Robert B. Somerville Co. Limited; Aecon Construction Group Inc.

Date charges laid: October 20, 2021

Location of alleged offence: Edmonton

Date of alleged offence: October 27, 2020

Type: Fatality

Description: A worker was fatally injured while a trench box was being disassembled in relation to pipeline activities.

Contravention: SA Energy Group; Robert B. Somerville Co. Limited; and Aecon Construction Group Inc., being employers, were charged with 10 counts:

• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 1, a worker engaged in the work of that employer, by failing to ensure that disassembly of a trench box was carried out safely.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 1 by failing to train workers who were directed to disassemble a groundworks high arch trench box on how to disassemble that trench box in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 1, by failing to ensure workers who were directed to disassemble a groundworks high arch trench box knew how to disassemble that trench box in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications.
• Section 7(1)(a) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that where the OHS Act, a Regulation or an Adopted Code required work to be done in accordance with a manufacturer's specifications or specifications certified by a professional engineer, that the workers responsible for the work, dismantling a trench box, were familiar with the manufacturer's specifications.
• Section 7(1)(b) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that where the OHS Act, a Regulation or an Adopted Code required work to be done in accordance with a manufacturer's specifications or specifications certified by a professional engineer, that the manufacturer's specifications were readily available to the workers responsible for the work, dismantling a trench box.
• Section 13(1) of the OHS Regulation, where work was to be done that may endanger a worker, dismantling a trench box, failed to ensure that the work was done by a worker who was competent to do the work or by a worker working under the direct supervision of a worker who was competent to do the work.
• Section 15(1) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that worker 1 was trained in the safe operation of equipment that the worker was required to operate, a trench box
• Section 15(1) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that worker 2 was trained in the safe operation of equipment that the worker was required to operate, a trench box.
• Section 15(1) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that worker 3 was trained in the safe operation of equipment that the worker was required to operate, a trench box.
• Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that equipment, a groundworks trench box known as a groundworks high arch trench box, was dismantled in accordance with the specifications certified by a professional engineer or with the manufacturer's specifications.

Charged is: Volker Stevin Contracting Ltd.; Michael Joseph O’Neill; Donald Neustaedter

Date charges laid: September 27, 2021

Location of alleged offence: Airdrie

Date of alleged offence: October 2, 2019

Type: Fatality

Description: A worker was fatally injured while working in a storm drain when run over by the work truck operated by another worker.

Contravention: Volker Stevin Contracting Ltd. was charged, as an employer, with 26 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 their worker (worker 1) was not beyond the range of powered mobile equipment, a company truck, while performing work.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 1, by failing to ensure catch basin inspection and/or repair work was done safely.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 1, by failing to sufficiently or adequately train worker 1 and/or worker 2 in work around catch basins and powered mobile equipment.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 1, by failing to develop, implement and enforce adequate administrative procedures or practices to eliminate or control hazards during work in or around catch basins and powered mobile equipment.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 1, by failing to develop, implement and enforce adequate administrative procedures or practices to ensure safe work in confined spaces or restricted spaces.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 1, by failing to develop, implement and enforce adequate administrative procedures or practices to control vehicle traffic during work in or around catch basins and powered mobile equipment.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 1, by failing to adequately supervise or direct worker 1 in the safe performance of work in or around catch basins and powered mobile equipment.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 1, by failing to assess its work site and conduct a hazard assessment (H/A) before the work began.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 1, by failing to ensure worker 2 was adequately trained in the safe operation of powered mobile equipment, a company truck.
• Section 13(1) of the Alberta Regulation, failure to ensure that if work was to be done that may endanger a worker, inspection and/or repair of catch basins, that 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 13(4) of the Alberta Regulation, where a regulation or adopted Code imposed a duty, the duties imposed by Section 5(a) of the OHS Act, on a worker/s, worker 1 and/or worker 2, failed to ensure that the worker/s performed that duty.
• Section 13(4) of the Alberta Regulation, where a regulation or adopted Code imposed a duty, the duties imposed by Section 258(2) of the adopted Code, on a worker, worker 1, failed to ensure the worker performed that duty.
• Section 15(1) of the Alberta Regulation, failure to ensure a worker, worker 2, was trained in the safe operation of the equipment the worker was required to operate, a company truck, including the use of the equipment and the hazards specific to the operation of the equipment at the work site.
• Section 7(1) of the OHS Code, 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, failure to prepare a report of the results of an H/A and the methods used to control or eliminate the hazards identified.
• Section 7(3) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure the dates on which H/As were prepared were recorded on them.
• Section 7(4)(a) of the OHS Code, failure to repeat any H/A at reasonably practicable intervals to prevent the development of unsafe and unhealthy working conditions.
• Section 8(1) of the OHS Code, failure to involve affected workers, worker 1 and/or worker 2 in an H/A, and in the control or elimination of hazards identified.
• Section 9(1) of the OHS Code, where an existing or potential hazard to workers was identified during an H/A, failed to take measures in accordance with Section 9 of the OHS Code to eliminate the hazards, or, if elimination is not reasonably practicable, to control the hazard, contrary to Section 9(1) of the OHS Code.
• Section 44(2)(c) of the OHS Code, where the employer had a written code of practice governing the practices and procedures to be followed when workers entered and worked in a confined space, failed to identify in its code of practice all existing and potential confined space work locations at a work site.
• Section 45(a) of the OHS Code, where workers, worker 1 and/or worker 2, would enter a restricted space to work, a catch basin, the employer failed to appoint a competent person to identify and assess the hazards the workers were likely to be exposed to while in the restricted space.
• Section 51 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that worker 1, in a restricted space, a catch basin, was protected from hazards created by traffic in the vicinity of the restricted space.
• Section 194(1) of the OHS Code, where vehicle traffic at a work site was dangerous to a worker on foot, worker 1, failed to ensure that traffic was controlled to protect the worker.
• Section 258(1)(a) of the OHS Code, where the movement of a part of powered mobile equipment, a company truck, created a danger to worker 1, permitted the worker to remain within range of the part.
• Section 258(3)(a) of the OHS Code, where worker 1 could be caught between a moving part of a unit of powered mobile equipment and another object, failed to restrict entry to the area by workers.
• Section 258(3)(b) of the OHS Code, where worker 1 could be caught between a moving part of a unit of powered mobile equipment and another object, failed to require the worker to maintain a clearance distance of at least 600 millimetres between the powered mobile equipment and the object.

Michael Joseph O’Neill was charged with 4 counts:

• Section 4(a)(ii) of the OHS Act, being a supervisor, failure to take all precautions necessary to protect the health and safety of a worker under his supervision, worker 1, by driving over worker 1 with a company vehicle while distracted.
• Section 4(b) of the OHS Act, being a supervisor, failure to advise a worker under his supervision, worker 1, of all known or reasonably foreseeable hazards to health and safety in the area where worker 1 was performing work.
• Section 5(a) of the OHS Act, being a worker engaged in an occupation, failed to take reasonable care to protect the health and safety of worker 1, another worker present while he was working, by failing to ensure that, while operating a company truck in the proximity of worker 1, worker 1 was not injured by the company truck.
• Section 258(1)(b) of the OHS Code, being an operator, and where the movement of a part of powered mobile equipment, a company truck, created a danger to worker 1, moved the equipment where the worker was exposed to the danger.

Donald Neustaedter was charged with 3 counts:

• Section 4(a)(ii) of the OHS Act, being a supervisor, failure to take all precautions necessary to protect the health and safety of a worker under his supervision, worker 1, by failing to enforce the completion of Field Level Hazard Assessments on work sites where worker 1 was working.
• Section 4(a)(iii) of the OHS Act, being a supervisor, failure to ensure that a worker under his supervision, worker 1, worked in the manner and in accordance with the procedures and measures required by this Act, the Regulations and the OHS Code.
• Section 4(b) of the OHS Act, being a supervisor, failure to advise a worker under his supervision, worker 1, of all known or reasonably foreseeable hazards to health and safety in the area where worker 1 was performing work.

Charged is: Inland Machining Services Ltd.

Date charges laid: July 19, 2021

Location of alleged offence: Calgary

Date of alleged offence: August 16, 2019

Type: Fatality

Description: A worker was operating a manual lathe to polish a work piece when the worker was drawn into the rotating work piece and entangled on it. The worker was fatally injured.

Contravention: Inland Machining Services Ltd. was charged with 33 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 the worker was protected from being injured while operating a European Lion lathe machine.
• 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 was protected from injury by a safeguard while operating a European Lion lathe machine.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by failing to develop, implement and monitor the implementation of a safe work practice or safe job procedure for the task of operating a European Lion lathe machine.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by failing to adequately supervise or direct their worker in the safe performance of operating a European Lion lathe machine.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by failing to assess their work site and conduct or repeat adequate or any hazard assessments (H/A) at reasonably practicable intervals in respect of the operation of a European Lion lathe machine.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by failing to identify and control the hazard of injury to the worker while operating a European Lion lathe machine.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by failing to train the worker or maintain the worker’s sufficient competency in the safe operation of a European Lion lathe machine.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety their workers by failing to ensure they were protected from injury by a safeguard or safeguards while operating a Modern and/or a Poreba and/or a Nardini lathe machines for which they were intended or was designed.
• Section 12(1)(b) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure equipment used at a work site, a European Lion lathe machine, would safely perform the function for which it was intended or was designed.
• Section 12(1)(b) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure equipment used at a work site, a Modern lathe machine, would safely perform the function for which it was intended or was designed.
• Section 12(1)(b) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure equipment used at a work site, a Poreba lathe machine, would safely perform the function for which it was intended or was designed.
• Section 12(1)(b) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure equipment used at a work site, a Nardini lathe machine, would safely perform the function for which it was intended or was designed.
• Section 12(1)(d) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure equipment used at a work site, a European Lion lathe machine, was free from obvious defects.
• Section 12(1)(d) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure equipment used at a work site, a Modern lathe machine, was free from obvious defects.
• Section 12(1)(d) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure equipment used at a work site, a Poreba lathe machine, was free from obvious defects.
• Section 12(1)(d) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure equipment used at a work site, a Nardini lathe machine, was free from obvious defects.
• Section 13(1) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that if work was to be done that may endanger a worker, operating a European lion lathe machine, that the work 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 was competent to do the work.
• Section 15(1) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure a worker was trained in the safe operation of the equipment the worker was required to operate, a European lion lathe machine, including the use of the equipment, the operator skills required by the manufacturer's specifications for the equipment and the hazards specific to the operation of the equipment at the work site.
• Section 7(1) of the OHS Code, failure to assess their work site and identify potential or existing hazards before work began at the work site.
• Section 7(2) of the OHS Code, failure to prepare a report of the results of an H/A and the methods used to control or eliminate the hazards identified.
• Section 7(4)(a) of the OHS Code, failure to repeat any H/A at practicable intervals to prevent the development of unsafe and unhealthy working conditions.
• Section 8(1) of the OHS Code, failure to involve affected workers in an H/A and in the control or elimination of hazards identified.
• Section 9(1) of the OHS Code, where an existing or potential hazard to workers was identified during an H/A, failed to take measures in accordance with OHS Code Section 9 to eliminate or control the hazards.
• Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure equipment, a European Lion lathe machine, was operated, handled, serviced, tested, adjusted, maintained or repaired in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications set out in the service manual for the lathe.
• Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure equipment, a European Lion lathe machine, was operated or handled in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications: "do not touch the spindle, chuck or work piece while they are in motion”.
• Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure equipment, a Nardini lathe machine, was operated, handled, serviced, tested, adjusted, maintained or repaired in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications set out in the service manual for the lathe.
• 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, a European Lion lathe machine.
• 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, a Modern lathe machine.
• 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, a Poreba lathe machine.
• 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, a Nardini lathe machine.
• 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 may be hazardous due to its operation, a European Lion lathe machine.
• Section 310(2)(h) of the OHS Code, failure to provide safeguards if a worker could accidentally, or through the work process, come into contact with a hazard, a revolving material being shaped on a European Lion lathe machine.
• Section 312(2) of the OHS Code, where machinery in OHS Code Section 312(1), a European Lion lathe, was operated without safeguards, the employer failed to ensure that a worker operating the machine wore personal protective equipment that was appropriate to the hazard and offered protection equal to or greater than that offered by the safeguards, contrary to section 312(2) of the OHS Code.