Charges under the OHS Legislation

Charged is: HTK Iron Works Ltd.

Date charges laid: April 3, 2024

Location of alleged offence: Burdett

Date of alleged offence: Feb 1, 2023

Type: Fatality

Description: A labourer was fatally injured when a windbreak panel fell on the worker as the panel was being pushed out of the manufacturing facility with a forklift.

Contravention: HTK Iron Works 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.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by failing to protect the worker from a falling windbreak panel.
• Section 12(e) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure equipment, a forklift, was 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, did permit a worker to remain within range of the moving load or part.

Charged is: Joy Global (Canada) Ltd. et al; NCSG Crane & Heavy Haul Services Ltd. et al; and Suncor Energy Services Inc. et al

Date charges laid: March 29, 2024

Location of alleged offence: Fort McMurray

Date of alleged offence: July 7, 2022

Type: Fatality

Description: A heavy equipment technician was conducting shovel maintenance duties when the worker was struck by a piece of equipment that was suspended from a crane and fell. The worker sustained fatal injuries.

Contravention: 

Joy Global (Canada) Ltd.; Joy Global (Canada) Ltd., operating as Komatsu; NCSG Crane & Heavy Haul Services Ltd.; Northern Crane Services Ltd.; Suncor Energy Services Inc.; Suncor Energy Oil Sands Limited Partnership; and Suncor Energy Inc, general partner of Suncor Energy Oil Sands Limited Partnership, being an employer, were 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 suffered fatal injuries when equipment, a pendant line, fell on the worker as they worked under a suspended load.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by failing to ensure work was not conducted under a suspended load.
• Section 3(2) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by failing to ensure workers engaged in the work of that employer, removing and/or handling components from a boom shovel, were adequately trained in all matters necessary to perform their work in a healthy and safe manner.
• Section 7(4)(b) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure a hazard assessment was repeated when a new work process was introduced, hoisting a pendant line/equalizer assembly.
• Section 69(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure work was arranged so that a load did not pass over workers.
• 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, failure to ensure a tag line was used.
• Section 296 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure sharp edges on load(s) to be hoisted were guarded to prevent damage to the slings or straps of the rigging. 

Joy Global (Canada) Ltd. and Joy Global (Canada) Ltd., operating as Komatsu, being an employer, were charged with 6 counts:

• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by providing and/or permitting the use of rag(s) and/or soft flexible material as softeners.
• 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 trained to select suitable softeners for use with synthetic slings.
• Section 12(e) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure equipment, a pendant cable from a 4100C BOSS Mining Shovel, was handled in accordance with specifications certified by a professional engineer or the manufacturer’s specifications, which state: “Using inadequate lifting devices or improper lifting techniques could cause the load to fall and crush, resulting in severe personal injury or death. Use lifting devices suitably rated for the weight of the component being lifted. Be certain that lifting devices are firmly attached to the component being lifted. Keep all persons clear of the area when lifting, lowering, or moving components with lifting equipment”.
• Section 12(e) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure equipment, a sling, was operated or handled in accordance with specifications certified by a professional engineer or the manufacturer’s specifications, which state: “Stand clear of lifted loads and never be under, on or near suspended loads”.
• Section 12(e) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure equipment, a sling, was operated or handled in accordance with specifications certified by a professional engineer or the manufacturer’s specifications, which state: “Protect sling from being cut or damaged by corners, protrusions, or from contact with edges that are not well rounded…using material of sufficient strength, thickness and construction to prevent damage”.
• Section 12(e) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure equipment, a sling, was operated or handled in accordance with specifications certified by a professional engineer or the manufacturer’s specifications, which state: “Connection surfaces must be smooth to avoid abrading or cutting web slings”. 

NCSG Crane & Heavy Haul Services Ltd. and Northern Crane Services Ltd., being an employer, were charged with one count:

• Section 12(e) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure equipment, a Kobelco crane, was operated or handled in accordance with specifications certified by a professional engineer or the manufacturer’s specifications, which state: “Make sure all personnel stand clear of the load as it is lifted”. 

Suncor Energy Services Inc.; Suncor Energy Oil Sands Limited Partnership; and Suncor Energy Inc, general partner of Suncor Energy Oil Sands Limited Partnership, being an employer, were charged with 4 counts:

• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by failing to provide a job procedure for handling pendant lines and equalizers.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by failing to provide adequate direction to workers tasked with removal of, and subsequent handling of, pendant lines and equalizers from the boom of a mining shovel.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by permitting an ad hoc procedure for removal and handling of components attached to the boom of a mining shovel.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by failing to ensure softeners suitable for use with synthetic slings were readily available to workers.

Charged is: Emcon Services Inc.

Date charges laid: March 23, 2024

Location of alleged offence: Acheson

Date of alleged offence: August 15, 2022

Type: Serious Incident

Description: A worker was cleaning up debris on a highway when they were struck by a vehicle. The worker was seriously injured.

Contravention: Emcon Services Inc., being an employer, was charged with 8 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 struck by a motor vehicle while performing debris clearance work on a highway.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by permitting the worker to work on a highway without adequate traffic control measures in place, including use of a directional arrow board and temporary warning signage, in circumstances where traffic was a danger to the worker.
• 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 work zone on a highway through traffic lane closure.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by failing to ensure a crash truck or other barrier, and/or a spotter or flagperson, was used to protect them in circumstances where traffic was a danger to 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 safely, including the requirements to assess its work site on a highway and identify potential or existing hazards before the work of clearing debris from the highway began at the work site, and/or to comply with the employer’s Traffic Accommodation Strategy and/or its Safe Work Practice and Risk Assessment for Road Check and Road Kill Removal.
• Section 7(1) of the OHS Code, failure to assess its work site on a highway 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 a hazard assessment done at its work site on a highway and the methods used to control or eliminate the hazards identified.
• Section 194(1) of the OHS Code, where vehicle traffic at a work site on a highway was dangerous to a worker on foot, failed to ensure the traffic was controlled to protect their worker.

Charged is: Steele Tech Fabrication Inc.

Date charges laid: March 4, 2024

Location of alleged offence: Barrhead

Date of alleged offence: March 17, 2022

Type: Serious Incident

Description: While a steel beam was being moved with a zoom boom, it hit a door frame and fell and landed on a worker’s foot, causing a serious injury.

Contravention: Steele Tech Fabrication Inc., being an employer, is 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, by permitting unsafe rigging procedures.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of that employer, by permitting him to guide a beam by hand when it was unsafe to do so.
• Section 189 of the OHS Code, failure to take all reasonable steps to ensure, where a worker may be injured if equipment or material: a beam, is dislodged, moved or spilled, that the material or equipment was contained, restrained or protected to eliminate the potential danger.
• Section 258(1)(a) of the OHS Code, in circumstances where the movement of a load, a beam, created a danger to worker(s), did permit a worker, to remain within range of the moving load.
• 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, to wit a beam being moved by a telehandler, did fail to ensure that the worker used a tag line to control the load.

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.

Charged is: Reward Construction Ltd., Global Sport Resources Ltd.

Date charges laid: January 16, 2024

Location of alleged offence: Tofield

Date of alleged offence: March 31, 2022

Type: Fatality

Description: A worker was conducting rink demolition/reclamation duties when a support beam broke free and struck the worker who then fell approximately 1.5 m from a step ladder.

Contravention: Reward Construction Ltd., being a prime contractor, was charged with one count:

• Section 10(7) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to establish a system or process that will ensure compliance with this 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.

Reward Construction Ltd. and Global Sport Resources Ltd., being an employer, were charged with 6 counts:

• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of that employer, who suffered injuries that caused the worker’s death when removing a beam from a structure known as a Lift Gate.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker, by failing to ensure a safe work procedure was used to handle a structure known as a Lift Gate.
• Section 7(4)(b) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a hazard assessment was repeated when a new work process was introduced, removing a cross beam from a structure known as a Lift Gate.
• Section 7(4)(c) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a hazard assessment was repeated when a work process or operation changed, from lowering a structure known as a Lift Gate to removing a beam from said structure.
• Section 189 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure, where a worker may be injured if equipment or material was dislodged or moved, a beam on a structure known as a Lift Gate, did fail to take all reasonable steps to ensure that that it was contained, restrained or protected to eliminate the potential danger.
• Section 208(1) of the OHS Code, failure to provide, appropriate equipment for lifting, lowering, pushing, pulling, carrying, handling or transporting heavy or awkward loads, structure known as a Lift Gate.

Charged is: Excel Projects Ltd.

Date charges laid: December 16, 2023

Location of alleged offence: Edson

Date of alleged offence: March 5, 2022

Type: Fatality

Description: An equipment operator was preparing a CAT D4H pipelayer sideboom for transport. While the operator was on top of the tracks at the entry to the open cab, the pipelayer drive mechanism became engaged. The operator was pulled between the moving track and side boom lower support arm resulting in fatal injuries.

Excel Projects Ltd., being an employer, was charged with 20 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 by a moving sideboom pipelayer.
• 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 suitably trained to safely perform work as the operator of equipment, a sideboom pipelayer.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by failing to ensure that they were sufficiently experienced to safely perform work as the operator of equipment, a sideboom pipelayer.
• 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 tarpaulin fitted to a sideboom pipelayer did not affect the safe operation of the sideboom pipelayer.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by failing to establish, implement or enforce a safe procedure or adequate administrative procedures or practices for the safe operation of equipment,  a sideboom pipelayer.
• Section 3(2) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure a worker engaged in the work of that employer was adequately trained in all matters necessary to perform their work as an equipment operator of a sideboom pipelayer, in a healthy and safe manner.
• Section 3(3) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure that if work was to be done that could endanger a worker, the operation of a sideboom pipelayer, 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 3(4)(b) 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 their worker.
• Section 3.3 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure their worker performed the duty imposed on them as operator of powered mobile equipment, a sideboom pipelayer, pursuant to section 256(3)(b) of the OHS Code, contrary to section 3.3 of the OHS Code.
• Section 3.3 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure their worker performed the duty imposed on them as operator of powered mobile equipment, a sideboom pipelayer, pursuant to section 256(3)(f) of the OHS Code, contrary to section 3.3 of the OHS Code.
• Section 3.3 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure their worker performed the duty imposed on them as a person pursuant to section 263(1) of the OHS Code, contrary to section 3.3 of the OHS Code.
• Section 9(1) of the OHS Code, between March 1 and March 5, 2022 (both dates inclusive), where an existing or potential hazard to workers was identified during a hazard assessment, leaking exhaust fumes to an equipment operator, to take measures in accordance with this section to eliminate, or if elimination was not practical, control the hazard.
• Section 12(e) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure equipment, a sideboom pipelayer, was operated or handled in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications, when parking the machine, “Engage the parking brake”.
• Section 12(e) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure equipment, a sideboom pipelayer, was operated or handled in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications, when parking the machine, “Stop the engine”.
• Section 12(e) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure equipment, a sideboom pipelayer, was operated or handled in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications, when parking the machine, “Turn the start switch key to OFF and remove the key”.
• Section 119(3) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that the entrances and exits of a work area, a sideboom pipelayer, was free from materials, equipment or other obstructions, a tarpaulin, that could endanger workers or restrict their movement.
• Section 185 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a work site, a sideboom pipelayer, was kept free from materials or equipment, a tarpaulin, that could cause workers to slip or trip.
• Section 258(1)(a) of the OHS Code, where the movement of a part of powered mobile equipment, the tracks of a sideboom pipelayer, created a danger to a worker, permitted the worker to remain within range of the part.
• 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, the tracks of a sideboom pipelayer.
• Section 368 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that an operational control, a parking brake lever, on equipment, a sideboom pipelayer, was designed, located or protected to prevent unintentional activation, and, appropriately, was suitably identified to indicate the nature or function of the control.

Charged is: Amyotte’s Plumbing & Heating Ltd.

Date charges laid: December 11, 2023

Location of alleged offence: Edmonton

Date of alleged offence: May 14, 2023

Type: Fatality

Description: Following a fatality at a work site in 2019, Amyotte’s Plumbing & Heating Ltd. (Amyotte’s) pled guilty on May 13, 2022, to contravention of the Occupational Health and Safety Code for failing to ensure that if elevated parts of powered mobile equipment were being maintained or repaired by workers, the parts and the powered mobile equipment were securely blocked in place and could not move accidently. The company was fined $170,000 inclusive of the 20 per cent victim fine surcharge and placed on two years of Enhanced Regulatory Supervision (ERS).

Contravention: Amyotte’s Plumbing & Heating Ltd. has been charged with two counts for breaching conditions of the ERS Court Order:

• Section 47(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act on or about May 14, 2023, while being bound by an Court Order under the OHS Act dated May 13, 2022, failed to comply with Condition 11 of that Order that no later than 12 months from the date of the Order, the corporate representative would make arrangements for and schedule a third party external auditor, to conduct an audit of Amyotte’s Health and Safety Management Program and prepare a report of the audit.
• Section 47(a) of the OHS Act on or about June 1, 2023, while being bound by an Court Order administered under the OHS Act dated May 13th, 2022, failed to comply with Condition 17 of that Order, which was subsequently amended on March 3, 2023, that the corporate representative would attend and pass the following Alberta Construction Safety Association courses:
  • Alberta Occupational Health & Safety Legislation Awareness
  • Principles of Health and Safety Management
  • Leadership for Safety Excellence
  • Communications and Ethics for the Safety Leader

by May 31st, 2023, and supply the OHS designate with the completion certificates from the courses within 14 days of completion.

Charged is: West Coast Scaffolding Inc.

Date charges laid: December 5, 2023

Location of alleged offence: Peace River

Date of alleged offence: June 11, 2022

Type: Fatality

Description: A scaffolder was dismantling a section of scaffold at a pulp mill when they fell. The worker was fatally injured.

Contravention: West Coast Scaffolding Inc., 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, safety and welfare of a worker engaged in the work of that employer.
• Section 12(e) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure equipment, scaffolding, was erected, installed, assembled and dismantled in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications or the specifications certified by a professional engineer.
• Section 13(2)(a) of the OHS Code, failure, where manufacturer specifications were not available or did not exist, to develop procedures that were certified by a professional engineer designed to ensure the erection, installation, assembly and dismantling of scaffolding was done in a safe manner.
• Section 13(2)(a) of the OHS Code, failure, where manufacturer specifications were not available or did not exist, to develop procedures that were certified by a professional engineer designed to ensure the erection, installation, assembly and dismantling of scaffolding was done in a safe manner. -Section 139(1)(a) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that workers were protected from falling from a temporary or permanent work area where a worker could fall a vertical distance of 3 metres or more.
• Section 140(1) of the OHS Code, failure to develop procedures that complied with Part 9 in a fall protection plan for a worksite where a worker may fall 3 metres or more and the worker was not protected by guardrails.
• Section 140(4) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that the fall protection plan for the worksite was updated when conditions affecting the fall protected plan changed.
• Section 3.3 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that their worker performed the duty imposed on them pursuant to section 152.2(1) of the OHS Code, contrary to section 3.3 of the OHS Code.
• Section 331 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that metal scaffolding was erected, used, inspected, maintained and dismantled in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications or specifications certified by a professional engineer.

Charged is: TAQA Drilling Solutions, Inc.

Date charges laid: October 20, 2023

Location of alleged offence: Edmonton

Date of alleged offence: March 23, 2022

Type: Serious Incident

Description: A worker was seriously injured when they were struck by a projectile while disassembling a piece of oilfield drilling equipment.

Contravention: TAQA Drilling Solutions Inc., being an employer, was charged with 9 counts:

• Section 3(1)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure, by adequately assessing work including adequately identifying a hazard, 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 where work was being carried out and other persons at or in the vicinity of the work site who may be affected by hazards originating in the work site.  
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by providing proper tools and requiring the correct use of available tools, the safety of their workers, workers not engaged in the  employer’s work 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 ensuring their worker was not in the line of fire of an object capable of hazardous discharge, the safety of their workers, workers not engaged in the  employer’s work 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 training or maintaining the competence of their worker or workers in the recognition of hazardous situations, the safety of their workers, workers not engaged in the  employer’s work 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(4)(b) of the OHS Act, failure to keep readily available information related to work site hazards, controls, work practices and procedures and provide that information by adequately placing such materials in the hands of their workers while they are conducting the work.
• Section 8(1) of the OHS Code, failure to involve affected workers in the hazard assessment and in the control or elimination of hazards identified.
• Section 12(b)(ii)  of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that equipment used at a work site would safely perform the function for which it was intended or was designed. 
• Section 212(1)(b)  of the OHS Code, failure to ensure where machinery, equipment or powered mobile equipment was to be serviced, repaired, tested, adjusted or inspected, or if any other work was to be performed on it, the control of hazardous energy that the machinery, equipment or powered mobile equipment was otherwise rendered inoperative in a manner that prevented its unintended activation and provided equal or greater protection than the protection afforded under clause (a), contrary to s. 212(1)(b) of the OHS Code. 
• 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.

Charged is: Graham Construction and Engineering LP, a Limited Partnership; Graham Construction and Engineering Inc.; Graham Construction and Engineering LP, A Limited Partnership, through its general partner, Graham Construction and Engineering Inc. and Jeff Gross

Date charges laid: October 3, 2023

Location of alleged offence: Calgary

Date of alleged offence: December 10, 2021

Type: Serious Incident

Description: A worker was completing roof work, removed plywood covering an opening, intending on accessing a work area concealed by the covering. As the cover was removed, the worker fell through the opening, falling a distance of 4.5 metres (m). The worker was seriously injured.

Contravention: Jeffrey Ryan Gross, being a work site superintendent, was charged with 5 counts:

• Section 4(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to take all precautions necessary to protect the health and safety of a worker under their supervision.
• Section 4(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to take all precautions necessary to protect the health and safety of the worker by failing to ensure that a temporary cover used to protect an opening or hole, had a warning or marking clearly indicating the nature of the hazard posted near or fixed to the cover, in accordance with section 314(3) of the OHS Code, contrary to section 4(a)(i) of the OHS Act.
• Section 4(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to take all precautions necessary to protect the health and safety of the worker by failing to ensure that a fall protection plan for a work site where a worker may fall 3 metres or more and the worker was not protected by guardrails, was in place in accordance with section 140(1) of the OHS Code, contrary to section 4(a)(i) of the OHS Act.
• Section 4(a)(ii) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, that the worker worked in a manner and in accordance with the requirements of the OHS Act, the Regulations and the OHS Code.
• Section 4(b) of the OHS Act, failure to advise the worker, of all known or reasonably foreseeable hazards to health and safety in the area where he was performing work.

and further that:

• Graham Construction and Engineering LP, a Limited Partnership; Graham Construction and Engineering LP, A Limited Partnership, through its general partner, Graham Construction and Engineering Inc.; Graham Construction and Engineering Inc. were charged both as the prime contractor and the employer with 7 counts:
• Section 10(7)(a) of the OHS Act, being the prime contractor, failure to establish a system or process to ensure compliance with the OHS Act, Regulations and the OHS Code in respect of the work site, by failing to require, implement and/or enforce the existence of a fall protection plan in accordance with section 140(1) of the OHS Code, in respect of a work site where a worker may fall 3 metres or more and the worker was not protected by guardrails, contrary to section 10(7)(a) of the OHS Act.
• Section 10(7)(a) of the OHS Act, being the prime contractor, failure to establish a system or process to ensure compliance with the OHS Act, Regulations and the OHS Code in respect of the work site, by failing to ensure that a temporary cover used to protect an opening or hole, had a warning or marking clearly indicating the nature of the hazard posted near or fixed to the cover, in accordance with the section 314(3) of the OHS Code, contrary to section 10(7)(a) of the of the OHS Act.
• Section 139(1)(a) of the OHS Code, being the employer, failure to ensure that workers were protected from falling from a temporary or permanent work area where a worker could fall a vertical distance of 3 metres or more.
• Section 140(1) of the OHS Code, being the employer, failure to develop procedures that complied with part 9 in a fall protection plan for a work site where a worker could fall 3 metres or more and the worker was not protected by guardrails.
• Section 140(3) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that the fall protection plan was available at the work site and reviewed with workers before work with a risk of falling began.
• Section 141(3) of the OHS Code, being the employer, failure to ensure that a worker was made aware of the fall hazards particular to that worksite and the steps taken to eliminate or control those hazards.
• Section 314(3) or the OHS Code, being the employer, failure to ensure that a temporary cover used to protect an opening or hole, had a warning or marking clearly indicating the nature of the hazard posted near or fixed to the cover.

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: 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: 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: 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.