Table of contents

Please check with local courts as dates are subject to change at any time. Should a work site party be convicted of an offence, the charges pending are removed from this webpage and the outcome can be found at OHS Convictions.

When charges are withdrawn, stayed, appealed or the work site party is found not guilty, the outcomes are posted at Prosecution outcomes and the pending charges are removed from this webpage.

Charges

  • 2021

    Charged is: Grove RV and Leisure Inc.

    Date charges laid: February 18, 2021

    Location of alleged offence: Spruce Grove

    Date of alleged offence: March 11, 2019

    Type: Fatality

    Description: A worker was fatally injured while towing a tri-axle 5th wheel RV unit with a John Deere tractor. The worker was found pinned between the RV and tractor in a jack-knife position by another worker.

    Contravention: Grove RV and Leisure Inc. was charged, as an employer, with 10 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 that loads were safely towed.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by failing to ensure that adequate equipment was used to tow loads safely.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by failing to ensure that excessive loads were not towed by the tractor.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by failing to keep the rollover protective structure (ROPS) installed properly on the tractor.
    • Section 15(1) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that their worker was trained in the safe operation of the equipment, a tractor, the worker was required to operate.
    • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that equipment, a tractor, was 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 115(1) of the OHS Code, failure to establish an emergency response plan for responding to an emergency that could require rescue or evacuation.
    • Section 12(1)(b) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that all equipment, tires, used at a work site would safely perform the function for which they were intended or were designed.
    • Section 270(1)(a) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that powered mobile equipment, a tractor weighing 700 kilograms or more, had a rollover protective structure.
    • Section 273 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that any addition, modification, welding or cutting of a rollover protective structure was done in accordance with the instructions of, and was  re-certified as restored to its original performance requirements by, the equipment manufacturer or a professional engineer.

    Charged is: Maple Reinders Constructors Ltd.

    Date charges laid: February 10, 2021

    Location of alleged offence: Lethbridge

    Date of alleged offence: March 1, 2019

    Type: Fatality

    Description: A site supervisor was operating a telehandler when the equipment tipped, striking a worker and causing fatal injury.

    Contravention: Maple Reinders Constructors Ltd. was charged, as an employer, with 8 counts:

    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the health and safety a worker engaged in the work of that employer, by failing to ensure work with a Genie GTH-1056 (telehandler) was performed safely.
    • Section 7(1) of the OHS Code, failure to assess its work site and identify existing and potential hazards before work began.
    • Section 7(2) of the OHS Code, failure to prepare a report of the results of a hazard assessment (H/A) and the methods used to control or eliminate the hazards identified.
    • Section 7(4)(b) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a H/A was repeated when a new work process was introduced.
    • Section 7(4)(c) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a H/A was repeated when a work process or operation changed.
    • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that equipment, a telehandler was operated in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications: “Only have trained/certified operators-directed by informed and knowledgeable supervision-running the machine”, or the specifications certified by a professional engineer.
    • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure equipment, a telehandler, was operated in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications: “This machine must only be operated by trained personnel, who have demonstrated their ability to do so safely”, or the specifications certified by a professional engineer.
    • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that equipment, a telehandler, was operated in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications: “Using the load chart, confirm that the load is within the rated capacity of the machine for the required configuration”, or the specifications certified by a professional engineer.

    Charged is: Homefront Property Maintenance Ltd.; Joseph Ogden

    Date charges laid: February 4, 2021

    Location of alleged offence: Leduc

    Date of alleged offence: March 4, 2019

    Type: Fatality

    Description: Workers were conducting balcony repair duties on a fourth floor balcony when a worker fell into an unsecured railing. The worker fell off the balcony and sustained fatal injuries.

    Contravention: Homefront Property Maintenance Ltd. and Joseph Ogden are charged, as an employer, with 10 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 that their worker was protected from the hazard of falling.
    • Section 3(2)(b) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure their worker was adequately trained in all matters necessary to protect their health and safety.
    • Section 13(4) of the OHS Regulation, where an adopted code imposed a duty on a worker, the duty to use a fall protection system as required by Section 139(8) of the OHS Code, failed to ensure their worker performed that duty.
    • Section 7(1) of the OHS Code, failure to assess its work site and identify existing and potential hazards before work began.
    • 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 139(1)(a) of the OHS Code, where a worker could fall a vertical distance of 3 metres or more, failed to ensure their worker was protected from falling at a temporary or permanent work area.
    • Section 140(1) of the OHS Code, where a worker could fall 3 metres or more and their worker was not protected by guardrails, failed to develop procedures that complied with part 9 of the OHS Code in a fall protection plan for the work site.
    • Section 141(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that their worker was trained in the safe use of a fall protection system in an area where a fall protection system must be used.
    • Section 185 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a work site was kept clean and free from materials or equipment that could cause workers to slip or trip.
    • Section 315(3) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure a guardrail was secured so that it could not move in any direction if it was struck or if any point on it came into contact with a worker, materials or equipment.

    Charged is: Pinnacle Renewable Energy Inc.

    Date charges laid: January 18, 2021

    Location of alleged offence: Entwistle

    Date of alleged offence: February 11, 2019

    Type: Serious Incident

    Description: Several fires broke out during a scheduled shutdown at the pellet manufacturing plant. Despite efforts to extinguish the fires, a large explosion occurred within the dryer that resulted in injuries to both workers and contractors.

    Contravention: Pinnacle Renewable Energy Inc. was charged with 36 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 worker 1, 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, worker 2.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failed to ensure the health and safety of their worker, worker 3.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failed to ensure the health and safety of their worker, worker 4.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failed to ensure the health and safety of their worker, worker 5.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failed to ensure the health and safety of their workers by failing to ensure that their pellet manufacturing plant system maintenance was performed safely.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failed to ensure the health and safety of their workers by means of safe design or adaptation of their pellet manufacturing plant process and equipment.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failed to ensure the health and safety of their workers by means of appropriate and sufficient engineering controls.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failed to ensure the health and safety of their workers by failing to ensure by means of appropriate and sufficient administrative controls.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failed to ensure the health and safety of their workers by failing to ensure that all pellet manufacturing plant system components and equipment were maintained in a condition that would not compromise the health and safety of workers.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failed to ensure the health and safety of their workers by failing to ensure that all pellet manufacturing plant system components and equipment would safely perform the functions for which they were intended or designed.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failed to ensure the health and safety of their workers by failing to ensure that workers were protected from fire and/or explosion on their work site.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failed to ensure the health and safety of their workers by failing to comply with The Alberta Fire Code, 1997. The Alberta Fire Code is adopted under Section 3 of the OHS Code.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failed to ensure the health and safety of their workers by failing to comply with their Fire Safety Plan of June 2018.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failed to ensure the health and safety of their workers by means of appropriate and sufficient firefighting equipment and supplies.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failed to ensure the health and safety of their workers by means of appropriate and sufficient personal protective equipment (PPE).
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failed to ensure the health and safety of their workers by means of appropriate and sufficient firefighting supervision and training.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failed to ensure the health and safety of their workers by failing to adequately supervise or direct them in the safe performance of their work on the work site.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failed to ensure the health and safety of their workers by means of the provision of appropriate and sufficient firefighting capability.
    • Section 3(2) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failed to ensure that workers were adequately trained in all matters necessary to protect their health and safety.
    • Section 8(a) of the OHS Act, being an owner, failed to ensure the infrastructure and any building or premises on the land under their control, were provided and maintained in a manner that did not endanger the health and safety of workers. Pinnacle was and remains the registered “owner” of the land on which the pelleting plant is built, as defined in Section 1 OHSA 2017.
    • Section 9(1)(a) of the OHS Act, being a contractor, failed to ensure the work site where an employer’s worker worked pursuant to a contract with the contractor that was under the control of the contractor, did not create a risk to the health and safety of any person. The work site was under the control of Pinnacle at all times.
    • Section 9(1)(b) of the OHS Act, being a contractor, failed to ensure every work process or procedure performed at the work site by an employer’s worker pursuant to a contract with the contractor that was under the control of the contractor, did not create a risk to the health and safety of any person.
    • Section 10(5)(b) of the OHS Act, being a prime contractor, failed 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.
    • Section 12(1)(a) of Alberta Regulation, being an employer, failed to ensure equipment used at a work site was maintained in a condition that would not compromise the health or safety of workers using it.
    • Section 12(1)(b) of Alberta Regulation, being an employer, failed to ensure equipment used at a work site would safely perform the function for which it was intended or was designed.
    • Section 12(1)(d) of Alberta Regulation, being an employer, failed to ensure equipment used at a work site, was free from an obvious defect.
    • Section 13(1) of Alberta Regulation, being an employer, failed to ensure if work was to be done that may endanger a worker, the work was done by a worker competent to do the work or by a worker who was working under the direct supervision of a worker who was competent to do the work.
    • Section 13(3) of Alberta Regulation, being an employer, failed to ensure workers who could be required to use safety equipment or PPE were competent in the application, care, use, maintenance and limitations of that equipment.
    • Section 15(1) of Alberta Regulation, being an employer, failed to ensure workers were trained in the safe operation of the equipment the workers were required to operate.
    • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, being an employer, failed to ensure that equipment, the components of their pellet manufacturing plant, were erected, installed, assembled, operated, handled, serviced, tested, adjusted, calibrated, maintained, and repaired in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications or the specifications certified by a professional engineer.
    • Section 116(c) of the OHS Code, being an employer, failed to ensure that their emergency response plan (ERP) included the identification of, location of and operational procedures for emergency equipment.
    • Section 116(d) of the OHS Code, being an employer, failed to ensure their ERP included the emergency response training requirements.
    • Section 116(h) of the OHS Code, being an employer, failed to ensure their ERP included the first aid services required.
    • Section 116(j) of the OHS Code, being an employer, failed to ensure their ERP included the designated rescue and evacuation workers.
    • Section 118(1) of the OHS Code, being an employer, failed to provide workers designated under Section 117 of the OHS Code with personal protective clothing and equipment appropriate to the work site and the potential emergencies identified in the ERP.
  • 2020

    Charged is: Millennium Cryogenic Technologies Inc.; John McKay

    Date charges laid: November 7, 2020

    Location of alleged offence: Leduc

    Date of alleged offence: November 15, 2018

    Type: Fatality

    Description: Three workers were fatally injured when they entered an oxygen-depleted confined space that lacked required safety features.

    Millennium Cryogenic Technologies Inc. was charged, being an employer, with 33 counts:

    • Section 3(1)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of workers engaged in the work of that employer by means of safe design of its processes and equipment.
    • Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of its workers by means of proper and sufficient engineering controls.
    • Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of its workers by means of proper and sufficient administrative controls.
    • Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of its workers by means of proper and sufficient personal protective equipment (PPE).
    • Section 3(1)(d) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by means of training or employment of a competent supervisor, that their  workers were supervised by someone who was competent and was familiar with this Act, Regulations and OHS Code that applied to the work performed at the work site.
    • Section 13(1) of the Alberta Regulation, failure to ensure where work was to be done that could endanger a worker, that the work was done by a worker that was competent to do that work or by a worker who was working under the direct supervision of a worker who was competent to do that work.
    • Section 13(3) of the Alberta Regulation, failure to ensure workers who could be required to use safety equipment or PPE were competent in the application, care, use, maintenance and limitations of that equipment.
    • Section 15(3) of Alberta Regulation, failure to ensure that if a worker could be exposed to a harmful substance at a work site, the employer established procedures that minimized the worker’s exposure to the harmful substance and ensured the worker was trained in the procedures, applied the training and was informed of the health hazards associated with exposure to the harmful substance.
    • 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 identify the hazards identified.
    • Section 16(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure the exposure of a worker to any substance listed in Schedule 1, Table 2 was kept as low as reasonably achievable.
    • Section 21(2)(c) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a worker who could be exposed to a harmful substance at a work site was trained in procedures developed by the employer to minimize the worker’s exposure to harmful substances and that the worker understood the procedures.
    • Section 27(1)(b) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a harmful substance used or stored at a work site was used and stored in such a way that the use or storage was not a hazard to workers.
    • Section 44(1) of the OHS Code, failure to have a written code of practice governing the practices and procedures to be followed when workers entered and worked in a confined space.
    • Section 45(a) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that where a worker would enter a confined or restricted space to work, that a competent person was appointed by the employer to identify and assess the hazards the worker was likely to be exposed to while in the confined or restricted space.
    • Section 45(e) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that where a worker would enter a confined or restricted space to work, that a competent person was appointed by the employer to identify the PPE and emergency equipment to be used by a worker who undertook rescue operations in the event of an accident or emergency.
    • Section 46(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a worker assigned duties related to confined or restricted space entry was trained by a competent person in recognizing hazards associated with working in confined or restricted spaces and performed the worker’s duties in a safe and healthy manner.
    • Section 46(2) of the OHS Code, failure to keep records of the training given under subsection 46(1) contrary to Section 46(2) of the OHS Code.
    • Section 46(3)(b) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that competence in the use of appropriate emergency response equipment was represented in the workers responding to a confined or restricted space emergency.
    • Section 47(2) of the OHS Code, failure to establish an entry permit system for a confined space that listed the name of each worker who entered the confined space and the reason for their entry, gave the location of the confined space, specified the time during which an entry permit was valid, took account of the work being done in the confined space and took account of the code of practice requirements for entering, being in and leaving a confined space.
    • Section 48(1)(c) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a worker who entered, occupied or left a confined space used the safety equipment and PPE.
    • Section 48(1)(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure the PPE and emergency equipment required under the Code was available to workers.
    • Section 48(1)(e) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure equipment appropriate to the confined or restricted space, including protective equipment, was available to perform a timely rescue.
    • Section 49(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure workers were protected against the release of hazardous substances or energy that could harm them.
    • Section 53(3) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that where mechanical ventilation was needed to maintain a safe atmosphere in a confined space during the work procedure, the employer must ensure it was provided and operated as needed.
    • Section 55(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a worker did not enter or remain in a confined or a restricted space unless an effective rescue could be carried out.
    • Section 55(3) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure the emergency response plan (ERP) included the emergency procedures to be followed if there was an accident or other emergency, including procedures in place to evacuate the confined or restricted space immediately.
    • Section 115(1) of the OHS Code, failure to establish an ERP for responding to an emergency that may require rescue or an evacuation.
    • Section 117(1) of the OHS Code, failure to designate the workers who would provide rescue services and supervise evacuation procedures in an emergency.
    • Section 117(2) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure designated rescue and emergency workers were trained in emergency response appropriate to the work site and the potential emergencies identified in the ERP.
    • Section 118(1) of the OHS Code, failure to provide workers designated under Section 117 with personal protective clothing and equipment appropriate to the work site and the potential emergencies identified in the ERP.
    • Section 130(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a fixed ladder installed on or after April 30, 2004, met the requirements of PIP Standard STF05501 (February 2002), Fixed Ladders and Cages, published by the Construction Industry Institute.
    • Section 244(1)(b) of the OHS Code, failure to determine the degree of danger to a worker at a work site and whether the worker needed to wear respiratory protective equipment if the atmosphere had or could have an oxygen concentration of less than 19.5 percent by volume.
    • Section 407 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that the safety data sheet required by this Part was readily available at a work site to workers who could be exposed to a hazardous product and to the joint work site health and safety committee or health and safety representative, if there was one.

    John McKay, being a supervisor, was charged with 3 counts:

    • Section 4(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by means of training and education or by means of employment of a competent subordinate, that the supervisor was competent to supervise every worker under the their supervision, and the workers were supervised by someone who was competent and familiar with this Act, Regulations and OHS Code that applied to the work performed at the work site.
    • Section 4(a)(iv) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure by means of  providing equipment, training, or enforcement of administrative controls and workplace discipline, that every worker under the supervisor’s supervision used all hazard controls and properly wore PPE designated or provided by the employer or required to be worn by this Act, Regulations and the OHS Code that applied to the work performed at the work site.
    • Section 4(e) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure by means of complying with the provisions regarding confined spaces (Part 5 of the OHS Code), to comply with this Act, the Regulations and OHS Code that applied to the work performed at the work site.

    Charged is: Ja-Co Welding & Consulting Ltd.

    Date charges laid: October 6, 2020

    Location of alleged offence: Nisku

    Date of alleged offence: December 27, 2018

    Type: Fatality

    Description: Workers were fabricating a metal skid when acetylene gas ignited causing an explosion. One worker suffered fatal injuries, one sustained life altering injuries and other workers were also injured.

    Ja-Co Welding & Consulting Ltd. was charged, as an employer, with 28 counts:

    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker, worker 1, who was 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, worker 2.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker, worker 3.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker, worker 4.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their workers by failing to ensure welding and/or grinding work was performed safely.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their workers by failing to use a leak detection system in the acetylene shack.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their workers by failing to ensure the acetylene shack was adequately ventilated.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their workers by failing to comply with the Linde Safety Data Sheet for Acetylene.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their workers by failing to comply with the Linde Safety Data Sheet for Acetylene, which states: “Use and store only outdoors or in a well ventilated place”.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their workers by failing to comply with the Linde Safety Data Sheet for Acetylene, which states: “Engineering Controls: Local exhaust ventilation to prevent accumulation of high concentrations and maintain air-oxygen levels at or above 19.5%. Explosion proof ventilation systems. Oxygen detectors should be used when asphyxiating gases may be released. Consider installation of leak detection systems in areas of use and storage. Systems under pressure should be regularly checked for leakages. Showers. Eyewash stations”.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their workers by failing to comply with the Alberta Fire Code, 1997, which requires that cylinders of Class 2.1 flammable gases stored indoors be located in a room that is separated from the remainder of the building by a gas-tight fire separation having a fire- resistance rating of at least 2 hours.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their workers by failing to comply with the Alberta Fire Code, 1997, which requires that cylinders of Class 2.1 flammable gases stored indoors be located in a room that is designed to prevent critical structural and mechanical damage from an internal explosion in conformance with good engineering practice.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their workers by failing to monitor for the lower explosive limit of acetylene in Bay 9.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their workers by failing to have an alarm system in place to warn workers of an acetylene leak.
    • Section 12(1)(a) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure equipment used at the work site, an acetylene manifold, was maintained in a condition that would not compromise the health or safety of workers using it.
    • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure the acetylene manifold system, was serviced, maintained, repaired, or dismantled in accordance with the specifications of a professional engineer or with the manufacturer’s specifications, which state:  “the manifold should not be placed in a location where the temperature will fall below -18 C˚”.
    • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure the acetylene manifold system, was serviced, maintained, repaired, or dismantled in accordance with the specifications of a professional engineer or with the manufacturer’s specifications, which state:  “the vent pipe must extend to the outside of the building and terminate not less than 12 feet above the ground, remote from any windows or openings in the building”.
    • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure the acetylene manifold system, was serviced, maintained, repaired, or dismantled in accordance with the specifications of a professional engineer or with the manufacturer’s specifications, which state under the heading “Installing Pigtails and Attaching Cylinders”: “6. Slowly open all cylinders fully (turn counter-clockwise to open). Check all cylinder and pigtail connections for leaks using Western leak detector LT-100 or an oxygen safe solution”.
    • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure the acetylene manifold system, was serviced, maintained, repaired, or dismantled in accordance with the specifications of a professional engineer or with the manufacturer’s specifications, which state, under the heading “Installing Pigtails and Attaching Cylinders”: “7. Back out the regulator adjusting knob.  This will prevent the downstream system from being over-pressurized when opening cylinders”.
    • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that equipment, an acetylene manifold system, was serviced, maintained, repaired, or dismantled in accordance with the specifications of a professional engineer or with the manufacturer’s specifications, which state: “If a pressure setting of less than 20 psig is required then a line regulator must be installed at the manifold outlet”.
    • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure the acetylene manifold system, was serviced, maintained, repaired, or dismantled in accordance with the specifications of a professional engineer or with the manufacturer’s specifications, which state:

    “General Maintenance

    1. Main section

    a) Daily-record line pressure

    b) Monthly

        1) Check regulators and valves for external leakage.

        2) Check valves for closure ability.

    c) Annually-check relief valve pressures
        – check regulators for crawl (inability to maintain a set delivery pressure)”.

    • Section 165(3)(a) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that in a hazardous area that equipment used, a grinder, would not ignite a flammable substance, acetylene vapours, in Bay 9.
    • Section 169(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that hot work was done in accordance with section 169(2) and (3) of the OHS Code, contrary to Section 169(1) of the OHS Code.
    • Section 169(2)(a) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that hot work was not begun until a hot work permit was issued that indicated (i) the nature of the hazard, (ii) the type and frequency of atmospheric testing required, (iii) the safe work procedures and precautionary measures to be taken, and (iv) the protective equipment required.
    • Section 169(2)(c) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that hot work was not begun until procedures were implemented to ensure continuous safe performance of the hot work.
    • Section 169(2)(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that hot work was not begun until testing showed that the atmosphere did not contain a flammable substance, in a mixture with air, in an amount exceeding 20 percent of that substance’s lower explosive limit for gas or vapours.
    • Section 171(1)(b) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure a cylinder of compressed flammable gas, acetylene, was not stored in the same room as a cylinder of compressed oxygen, unless the storage arrangements were in accordance with Part 3 of the Alberta Fire Code (1997).
    • Section 171.1(3) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure before a welding or allied process was commenced that the area surrounding the operation, Bay 9, was inspected and all combustible, flammable or explosive material, dust, gas or vapour, was removed or alternate methods of rendering the area safe were implemented.

    Charged is: 9819746 Canada Incorporated; 9819746 Canada Incorporated operating as (o/a) Renocon; Abdul Sheikh

    Date charges laid: July 29, 2020

    Location of alleged offence: Airdrie

    Date of alleged offence: September 28, 2018

    Type: Serious Incident

    Description: Two labourers were cutting concrete using a gas-powered concrete saw in an unventilated, enclosed workspace, and they sustained significant carbon monoxide poisoning. The work area where the workers were cutting concrete was found to contain 1140 parts per million (ppm) carbon monoxide. One worker was rendered unconscious and was admitted to hospital for treatment, and the other worker was disoriented and was treated and released from hospital the same day.

    Contravention: 9819746 Canada Incorporated; 9819746 Canada Incorporated operating as (o/a) Renocon; and Abdul Sheikh, as the employers, were charged with 22 counts:

    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker (worker 1), engaged in the work of the employer, by failing to ensure that worker 1 was protected from the hazard of carbon monoxide exposure.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker (worker 2), engaged in the work of the employer, by failing to ensure that worker 2 was protected from the hazard of carbon monoxide exposure.
    • Section 3(1)(b) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure worker 1 was aware of their rights and duties under the OHS Act, Regulations and the OHS Code and of any health and safety issues arising from the work being conducted at the work site.
    • Section 3(1)(b) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure worker 2 was aware of their rights and duties under the OHS Act, Regulations and the OHS Code and of any health and safety issues arising from the work being conducted at the work site.
    • Section 3(1)(d) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure its workers were supervised by a person who was competent and familiar with the OHS Act, Regulations and the OHS Code that applied to the work being performed at the work site.
    • Section 3(2) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure that workers were adequately trained in all matters necessary to protect their health and safety.
    • Section 13(1) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure, where work was 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 under the direct supervision of a worker who was competent to do the work.
    • Section 13(4) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that where a regulation or adopted code imposed a duty on a worker, worker 1, the duty imposed by Section 367(2) of the OHS Code, failed to ensure that the worker performed that duty.
    • Section 13(4) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that where a regulation or adopted code imposed a duty on a worker, worker 2, the duty imposed by Section 367(2) of the OHS Code, failed to ensure that the worker performed that duty.
    • Section 15(3)(a) of the OHS Regulation, where a worker could be exposed to a harmful substance at a work site, failed to establish procedures that would minimize the worker's exposure to the harmful substance,
    • Section 15(3)(b)(iii) of the OHS Regulation, where a worker could be exposed to a harmful substance at a work site, failed to ensure that worker 1, was informed of the health hazards associated with exposure to the harmful substance.
    • Section 15(3)(b)(iii) of the OHS Regulation, where a worker could be exposed to a harmful substance at a work site, failed to ensure that worker 2, was informed of the health hazards associated with exposure to the harmful substance.
    • Section 7(1) of the OHS Code, failure to access its work site and identify existing and potential hazards before work began.
    • 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 hazards identified.
    • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that equipment, a gas-powered concrete saw, was operated in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications, which stated: "read manual", or the specifications certified by a professional engineer.
    • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that equipment, a gas-powered concrete saw, was operated in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications, which stated: "read manual", or the specifications certified by a professional engineer.
    • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that equipment, a gas-powered concrete saw, was operated in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications, which stated: "do not operate this machine unless you have read and understood this operator's manual", or the specifications certified by a professional engineer.
    • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that equipment, a gas-powered concrete saw, was operated in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications, which stated: "do not operate this machine in an enclosed area", or the specifications certified by a professional engineer.
    • Section 16(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a worker's exposure to a substance listed in schedule 1, table 2, carbon monoxide, was kept as low as reasonably achievable.
    • Section 16(2) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure a worker's exposure to any substance listed in schedule 1, table 2 did not exceed its occupational exposure limits listed in schedule 1, table 2.
    • Section 21(2)(b) of the OHS Code, where a worker could be exposed to a harmful substance at a work site, failed to ensure worker 1 was informed of measurements made of airborne concentrations of harmful substances at the work site.
    • Section 21(2)(b) of the OHS Code, where a worker could be exposed to a harmful substance at a work site, failed to ensure worker 2 was informed of measurements made of airborne concentrations of harmful substances at the work site.

    Charged is: Precision Trenching Inc.

    Date charges laid: July 27, 2020

    Location of alleged offence: Edmonton

    Date of alleged offence: October 30, 2018

    Type: Fatality

    Description: A worker was inside a trench greater than 3 metres (m) deep by 6 m wide to level it out when the south bank gave way, covering the worker to their neck. Other workers in the area, with the use of an excavator, removed the worker from the trench and initiated cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).  The worker was transported to hospital in serious condition, later succumbing to their injuries.

    Contravention: Precision Trenching Inc., as an employer, was charged with six 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 stabilize a wall of an excavation to prevent its collapse.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure their worker’s safety by failing to ensure that the walls of an excavation were sufficiently or adequately cut back.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure their worker’s safety by failing to provide adequate methods of protection for workers entering an excavation from cave-ins or sliding or rolling materials.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure their worker’s safety by failing to ensure adequate or detailed  job procedure for entering and exiting trench.
    • Section 443(1)(a) of the OHS Code, failure to stabilize the soil in an excavation by shoring or cutting back.
    • Section 446(2) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure a worker did not enter an excavation that did not comply with Part 32 of the OHS Code in that the employer failed to comply with Section 443(1)(a) and/or 451, contrary to Section 446(2) of the OHS Code.

    Charged is: Deangelis Development Corporation

    Date charges laid: July 17, 2020

    Location of alleged offence: Acheson

    Date of alleged offence: September 18, 2018

    Type: Fatality

    Description: An operator and a labourer were using an excavator to move a second excavator in need of repair. When the excavator being moved was in the process of being unhooked by the labourer, the bucket of the excavator struck the labourer resulting in the labourer being knocked to the ground. The excavator that was in need of repair inadvertently moved backwards crushing the labourer.

    Contravention: Deangelis Development Corporation, being an employer, was charged with 11 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 work with an excavator was performed safely.
    • 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 enforce a system of communication between an equipment operator and other workers.
    • Section 3(2)(b) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure workers were adequately trained in all matters necessary to protect their health and safety.
    • Section 13(4) of the OHS Regulation, where a regulation or adopted code imposed a duty on a worker, the duty imposed by Section 256(3)(b) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that the worker performed that duty.
    • Section 13(4) of the OHS Regulation, where a regulation or adopted code imposed a duty on a worker, the duty imposed by Section 258(1)(b) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that the worker performed that duty.
    • Section 7(1) of the OHS Code, failure to assess its work site and identify existing and potential hazards before work began.
    • Section 7(2) of the OHS Code, failure to prepare a report of the results of a hazard assessment and the methods used to control or eliminate the hazards identified.
    • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that equipment, an excavator, was operated in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications, to “Prevent Unintended Machine Movement. Be careful not to accidentally actuate control levers when coworkers are present. Pull pilot control shutoff lever to locked position during work interruptions. Pull pilot control shutoff lever to locked position and stop engine before allowing anyone to approach machine”, or the specifications certified by a professional engineer.
    • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that equipment, an excavator, was operated in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications, to “Keep bystanders clear at all times. Keep bystanders away from raised booms, attachments, and unsupported loads. Avoid swinging or raising booms, attachments, or loads over or near personnel. Use barricades or a signal person to keep vehicles and pedestrians away. Use a signal person if moving machine in congested areas or where visibility is restricted. Always keep signal person in view. Coordinate hand signals before starting machine”, or the specifications certified by a professional engineer.
    • Section 189 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure, where a worker could be injured if equipment or material, an excavator, was dislodged or moved, that it was contained, restrained or protected to eliminate the potential danger.
    • Section 258(1)(a) of the OHS Code, did permit a worker to remain within range of a moving part of powered mobile equipment where movement of the cab or other part of the powered mobile equipment created a danger to workers.

    Charged is: Crystal Services Inc.

    Date charges laid: June 26, 2020

    Location of alleged offence: Calgary

    Date of alleged offence: October 9, 2018

    Type: Serious Incident

    Description: Workers were tasked with moving a rink chiller from a mechanical room to a temporary storage area located outside. During transportation the unit became unstable; it tipped and fell onto a worker causing serious injury.

    Contravention: Crystal Services Inc., being an employer, was charged with nine counts:

    • Section 3(1)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the health and safety a worker engaged in the work of that employer by properly instructing and directing them with regards to “jack and roll” operations.
    • Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure their workers’ health and safety by failing to properly equip them and train them for the safe operation of a “Hilman Rollers Tri-Glide” or like device.
    • Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure their workers’ health and safety by failing to require and enforce safe practices and procedures in the presence of a load.
    • Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure their workers’ health and safety by failing to provide secure support, footing and working surfaces for all aspects of the work.
    • Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure their workers’ health and safety by failing to provide an effective and enforced administrative control.
    • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure 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, specifically:  the manufacturer’s specifications with regards to the safe operation of the “Hilman Rollers Tri-Glide” or like device.
    • Section 258(1)(a) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure where the movement of a load or the cab, counterweight or any other part of powered mobile equipment created a danger to a their worker, that they did not permit their worker to remain within range of a load or a part, and the operator did not move the load or the equipment if a worker was exposed to danger.
    • Section 189 of the OHS Code, failure to take all reasonable steps to ensure material or equipment was contained, restrained, or protected to eliminate the danger where a worker could be injured if equipment was dislodged, moved, spilled or damaged.
    • Section 9(1) of the OHS Code, failure to eliminate or control a hazard identified during a hazard assessment.

    Charged is: Grande Prairie Salvage Ltd.; Superior General Partner Inc.

    Date charges laid: May 14, 2020

    Location of alleged offence: Grande Prairie

    Date of alleged offence: August 18, 2018

    Type: Serious Incident

    Description: An equipment operator was using an excavator with a hydraulic shear attachment to demolish a propane tank. As the worker cut through the tank, a large amount of propane was released resulting in a fire and explosion. The worker was admitted to the hospital.

    Contravention: Grande Prairie Salvage Ltd. and Superior General Partner Inc., between August 15 and August 18, 2018, both dates inclusive, being employers, were charged with one count:

    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of workers engaged in the work of the employers, by failing to ensure worker(s) loading and transporting propane tanks received clear instructions about which tanks to take.
      And further that:
      Grande Prairie Salvage Ltd., on or about August 18, 2018, being an employer, was charged with 5 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, by failing to ensure shearing work was performed safely.
    • 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 propane tank was drained prior to accepting it.
    • 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 propane tank that was in the processing area was empty with valves removed such that it was in a safe condition for processing.
    • Section 27 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a harmful substance, propane, stored at its work site was clearly identified or in a container that was clearly identified.
    • Section 27 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a harmful substance, propane, stored at its work site was stored in such a way that it was not a hazard to workers.
      And further that:
      Superior General Partner Inc., between August 15 and 17, 2018, both dates inclusive, being an employer, was charged with 4 counts:
    • Section 13(1) of the OHS Regulation, where work was to be done that may endanger a worker, preparing propane tanks for disposal, did fail to ensure that the work was done by a worker who was competent to do the work or by a worker who was working under direct supervision of a worker who was competent to do the work.
    • Section 13(2) of the OHS Regulation, having developed or implemented a procedure or other measure respecting the work at a work site, a procedure known as "authority for disposal policy & process", did fail to ensure that all workers who were affected by the procedure or measure were familiar with it before the work was begun.
    • Section 27 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a harmful substance, propane, stored at its work site was clearly identified or in a container that was clearly identified.
    • Section 27 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a harmful substance, propane, stored at its work site was stored in such a way that it was not a hazard to workers.

    Charged is: HR Investments Ltd.; Troy Gouchey

    Date charges laid: May 8, 2020

    Location of alleged offence: Entwistle

    Date of alleged offence: October 22, 2018

    Type: Serious Incident

    Description: A worker was retrieving equipment from a trench when the northwest wall of the trench collapsed on top of them. The worker was extricated from the trench and transported to the hospital where they were admitted.

    Contravention: HR Investments Ltd., being an employer, was charged with 14 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 was not injured by the collapse of a wall of an excavation.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker, by failing to sufficiently or at all stabilize a wall of an excavation to prevent its collapse.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker, by failing to ensure that a wall of an excavation was sufficiently cut back or that temporary protective structures were installed to prevent collapse of the wall onto their worker.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker, by failing to implement or monitor the implementation of a safe work procedure for the task of working in and around an excavation.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker, by failing to ensure the worker was suitably trained and competent to safely perform work in and around an excavation.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker, by failing to adequately supervise or direct the worker in the safe performance of their work in and around an excavation.
    • Section 13(1) of Alberta Regulation, failure to ensure that if work, an excavation was to be done that may endanger worker(s), the work was done by a worker or workers competent to do the work or by a worker or workers working under the direct supervision of a worker who was competent to do the work.
    • Section 7(1) of OHS Code, failure to assess its work site and to identify existing and potential hazards before work began.
    • Section 7(2) of 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 234(1) of the OHS Code, where there was a foreseeable danger of injury to the head of a worker and there was a significant possibility of lateral impact to a worker’s head, failure to ensure that the worker wore industrial protective headwear that was appropriate to the hazards and met the requirements of CSA Standard CAN/CSA-Z94.1-05 or ANSI Standard Z89.1-2003.
    • Section 443(1)(a) of the OHS Code, where the provisions of section 443(2) of the OHS Code were not applicable, failed to stabilize the soil in an excavation at its worksite by shoring or cutting back, contrary to Section 443(1)(a) of the OHS Code.
    • Section 446(2) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a worker did not enter an excavation that did not comply with Part 32 of the OHS Code in that the employer failed to comply with Sections 442(4) and/or 443(1)(a) and/or 451, contrary to Section 446(2) of the OHS Code.
    • Section 451 of the OHS Code, where one or more walls of an excavation were cut back, failed to ensure that the walls of the excavation were sloped as required.
    • Section 442(4) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure where one or more walls of an excavation were cut back, and where the excavation was in soil of more than one type, that the walls were sloped from the bottom of the excavation at an angle of not less than 45 degrees measured from the vertical as required by Section 451, contrary to Section 442(4) of the OHS Code.
      Troy Lea Gouchey, being a supervisor, was charged with 5 counts:
    • Section 4(a)(ii) of the OHS Act, failure to take all precautions necessary to protect the health and safety of a worker, by failing to ensure that the walls of an excavation were sufficiently cut back or that temporary protective structures were installed to prevent collapse of a wall onto the worker.
    • Section 4(a)(ii) of the OHS Act, failure to protect the health and safety of a worker, by failing to ensure that the worker was suitably trained and competent to safely perform work in and around an excavation.
    • Section 4(a)(ii) of the OHS Act, failure to protect the health and safety of a worker by failing to adequately supervise or direct the worker in the safe performance of their work in and around an excavation.
    • Section 4(a)(iv) of the OHS Act, failure to protect the health and safety of a worker by failing to ensure that the worker properly used or wore personal protective equipment designated or provided by the employer or required to be used or worn by the OHS Code, specifically industrial protective headwear and/or leg or body protective equipment.
    • Section 4(b) of the OHS Act, failure to advise the worker of all known or foreseeable hazards to health and safety, the hazard of cave-ins of the walls of an excavation and/or sliding or rolling materials, in the area in and around excavations where the worker was performing work.

    Charged is: 908732 ALBERTA LTD. o/a Forest Lawn Parts Depot, Calgary, AB
    908732 ALBERTA LTD.
    Vitaly Kobrusev
    Vitaly Kobrusev o/a Forest Lawn Parts Depot

    Date charges laid: April 29, 2020

    Location of alleged offence: Calgary

    Date of alleged offence: June 18, 2018

    Type: Fatality

    Description: A worker was in the process of removing a rear bumper from a partially dismantled vehicle for recycling. While the worker was under the vehicle, the vehicle moved and fell on the worker. The worker was fatally injured.

    Contravention: 908732 ALBERTA LTD. o/a Forest Lawn Parts Depot, Calgary, AB; 908732 ALBERTA LTD.; Vitaly Kobrusev; Vitaly Kobrusev o/a Forest Lawn Parts Depot, being the 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 by failing to ensure work on or near a vehicle at the work site was performed safely.
    • 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 enforce a safe work procedure for working under vehicles.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by failing to make suitable stands or blocks available for work underneath vehicles.
    • Section 13(4) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that the worker performed a duty as imposed on the worker through a regulation or adopted code by Section 113(3) of the OHS Code.
    • Section 7(1) of the OHS Code, failure to assess its work site and identify existing and potential hazards before work began.
    • 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 189 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that where a worker could be injured if equipment, a vehicle, was dislodged or moved, that it was contained, restrained or protected to eliminate the potential danger.
  • 2019

    Charged is: Taurus Natural Inc.

    Date charges laid: December 5, 2019

    Location of alleged offence: Cardston

    Date of alleged offence: January 30, 2018

    Type: Fatality

    Description: A worker climbed inside an enclosed dry mineral mixing hopper to unplug the bottom auger connection. The mixer control had not been isolated and locked out. The mixer control was activated while the worker was still in the hopper. The steel rotating agitator inside the mixer contacted and pinned the worker between the rotating agitator and the inside wall of the steel hopper. The worker was fatally injured.

    Contravention: Taurus Natural Inc., being an employer, was charged with 24 counts:

    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker (worker 1) engaged in the work of that employer by failing to sufficiently and adequately train the worker to safely work in the Scott Equipment Batch Mixer Model SRM5412 (mixer).
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 1 by failing to ensure that they were competent to work in the mixer.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 1 by failing to adequately supervise and/or direct them.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 1 by instructing or permitting them to work in a place where a hazard to them would not be dealt with in a timely way.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 1 by failing to create and/or enforce adequate administrative procedures or safeguards to avoid hazards.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 1 by failing protect them from the movement of an object which could constitute a hazard to them.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 1 by failing to have one or more other person(s) present while the worker was in the mixer.
    • Section 15(1) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that a worker (worker 2), was trained in the safe operation of the equipment worker 2 was required to operate.
    • Section 15(1) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that worker 1 was trained in the safe operation of the equipment worker 1 was required to operate.
    • Section 13(1)(a) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that where work was done that may endanger a worker, that work was done by a worker who was competent to do that work.
    • Section 7(1) of the OHS Code, failure to assess its worksite and identify existing or potential hazards before work began at the work site.
    • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that equipment was operated, handled and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications or the specifications certified by a professional engineer.
    • Section 44(1) of the OHS Code, failure to have a written code of practice governing the practices and procedures to be followed when workers entered and worked in a confined space.
    • Section 45(a) of the OHS Code, failure to appoint a competent person to identify and assess hazards that worker 1 was likely to be exposed to while in a confined or restricted space.
    • Section 46(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that worker 1, assigned duties related to confined space or restricted space entry, was trained by a competent person.
    • Section 46(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that worker 2, assigned duties related to confined space or restricted space entry, was trained by a competent person.
    • Section 47(2) of the OHS Code, failure to establish an entry permit system for a confined space, the mixer.
    • Section 49(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that worker 1, within a confined space, was protected against the release of hazardous energy that caused their death.
    • Section 49(3) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure any hazardous energy in a restricted space was controlled in accordance with Part 15.
    • Section 55(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that worker 1 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.
    • Section 189 of the OHS Code, failure to take all reasonable steps to ensure, where a worker maybe injured if equipment or material was dislodged, moved or spilled, that the material or equipment was contained, restrained or protected to eliminate the potential danger.
    • Section 212(1)(a) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure, if machinery, equipment or powered mobile equipment was to be serviced, repaired, tested, adjusted  or inspected, that no worker performed such work on the machinery, equipment or powered mobile 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, 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 Section 212(1)(a) of the OHS Code.
    • Section 214(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that once all energy-isolating devices had been activated to control hazardous energy in accordance with section 212(1) of the OHS Code, that worker 2, involved in work at a location requiring control of hazardous energy, secured the energy isolating device with a personal lock.

    Charged is: 1020610 Alberta Ltd; 1020610 Alberta Ltd. operating as (o/a) PGA Crop Inputs; and Dale Campbell

    Date charges laid: September 5, 2019

    Location of alleged offence: Grimshaw

    Date of alleged offence: October 16, 2017

    Type: Fatality

    Description: Two workers were using a compact track loader to add dirt to level postholes while constructing a perimeter fence. The worker on the ground was struck by the bucket and sustained fatal injuries.

    Contravention: 1020610 Alberta Ltd. and 1020610 Alberta Ltd. o/a PGA Crop Inputs were charged with 33 counts:

    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, being an employer, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of that employer when they did not ensure the worker (worker 1) was protected from the movement of an object, a compact track loader (loader), which was a potential hazard.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failure to ensure worker 1’s health and safety by failing to develop, implement or monitor the implementation of a safe work procedure for the task of erecting a fence by use of a loader in conjunction with ground personnel.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failure to ensure worker 1’s health and safety by failing to ensure worker 1 was suitably trained and competent to safely perform work as ground personnel in conjunction with the use of a loader during the task of erecting a fence.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failure to ensure worker 1’s health and safety by failing to adequately supervise or direct worker 1 in the safe performance of their work as ground personnel in conjunction with the use of a loader during the task of erecting a fence.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failure to ensure worker 1’s health and safety by failing to ensure worker 1 wore appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) while working in the proximity of a loader.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failed to ensure worker 1’s health and safety, by failing to develop, implement or monitor the implementation of a hand signaling or other safe communication procedure for use between worker 1 and the operator (worker 2) of a loader during the erection of a fence.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failed to ensure worker 1’s health and safety by failing to ensure that worker 2 was suitably trained and competent to safely operate the loader.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failed to ensure worker 1’s health and safety, by failing to ensure that worker 2 was suitably trained and competent to safely perform work in erecting a fence while operating the loader.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failed to ensure worker 1’s health and safety by failing to ensure that worker 2 was suitably trained and competent to safely perform work in erecting a fence while operating the loader in the proximity of another worker.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failed to ensure worker 1’s health and safety by failing to ensure worker 2 was suitably trained and competent to adequately supervise or direct worker 1 in the safe performance of their work as ground personnel in conjunction with the use of the loader during the task of erecting a fence.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failed to ensure worker 1’s health and safety by failing to identify existing and potential hazards of the task of erecting a perimeter fence on a work site before work began and to identify the methods to be used to control or eliminate the hazards identified.
    • Section 3(3) of the OHS Act, being a prime contractor, failed to ensure the OHS Act and the Regulations were complied with in respect of that work site. As prime contractor, they failed to establish or maintain a system to ensure that employer 1340726 Alberta Ltd. complied with Section 13(1)(a) of the Alberta Regulation regarding the competence of worker 2 to do the work of erecting a fence while operating a loader in the proximity of another worker.
    • Section 3(3) of the OHS Act, being a prime contractor, failed to ensure the OHS Act and the Regulations were complied with in respect of that work site by failing to establish or maintain a system to ensure that employer 1340726 Alberta Ltd. complied with Section 13(1)(b) of the Alberta Regulation regarding worker 2 working under the direct supervision of a worker who was competent to do the work of erecting a fence involving the use of a loader in the proximity of another worker.
    • Section 3(3) of the OHS Act, being a prime contractor, failed to ensure the OHS Act and the Regulations were complied with in respect of that work site by failing to establish or maintain a system to ensure that employer 1340726 Alberta Ltd. complied with Section 15(1) of the Alberta Regulation regarding the training of worker 2 in the safe operation of the equipment worker 2 was required to operate, the loader.
    • Section 3(3) of the OHS Act, being a prime contractor, failed to ensure the OHS Act and the Regulations were complied with in respect of that work site by failing to establish or maintain a system to ensure that employer 1340726 Alberta Ltd. complied with Section 7(2) of the OHS Code.
    • Section 7(2) of Alberta Regulation, being an employer, failed to ensure that, where Section 12(d) of the OHS Code refers to manufacturer’s specifications, during the period of time that the matters referred to in the specifications of a New Holland Construction compact track loader (loader) were in use, a legible copy of the specifications was readily available to worker 2.
    • Section 13(1)(a) of Alberta Regulation, being an employer, failed to ensure that if work (the erection of a fence) was to be done that may endanger worker 1, that the work was done by a worker competent to do the work.
    • Section 13(1)(b) of Alberta Regulation, being an employer, failed to ensure that if the erection of the fence may endanger worker 1, that the work was done by a worker who was working under the direct supervision of a worker who was competent to do the work.
    • Section 15(1) of Alberta Regulation, being an employer, failed to ensure that worker 2 was trained in the safe operation of the equipment worker 2 was required to operate, a loader, including the limitations and 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, being an employer, failed to assess its work site and identify potential or existing hazards before work, the erection of a fence, began at the work site.
    • Section 7(2) of the OHS Code, being an employer, failed to prepare a report of the results of a hazard assessment with regard to the work of erecting a fence, and the methods used to control or eliminate the hazards identified.
    • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, being an employer, failed to ensure that equipment, a New Holland Construction compact track loader (loader), was operated or handled in accordance with the specifications certified by a professional engineer or the manufacturer’s specifications which stated: “This skid steer, with standard equipment and authorized attachments, is intended for above ground material handling” and “Do not use this machine for any application or purpose other than those described in this manual”.
    • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, being an employer, failed to ensure that the loader, was operated or handled in accordance with the specifications certified by a professional engineer or the manufacturer’s specifications, which stated: “Do not remove this manual from the machine”.
    • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, being an employer, failed to ensure that the loader, was operated or handled in accordance with the specifications certified by a professional engineer or the manufacturer’s specifications, which stated: “Do not operate this machine until you and the other persons have read and understood the safety and operation instructions in this manual”.
    • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, being an employer, failed to ensure that the loader, was operated or handled in accordance with the specifications certified by a professional engineer or the manufacturer’s specifications which stated: “Keep bystanders clear of the skid steer when operating unless the lift arm is down on the ground so the lift arm is resting on the lift arm lock and the engine is off” and “Keep others away” and “Crush Hazard”.
    • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, being an employer, failed to ensure that the loader, was operated or handled in accordance with the specifications certified by a professional engineer or the manufacturer’s specifications, which stated: “Tip Hazard. Carry load low. Failure to comply could result in death or serious injury” and “Warning”, illustrated by a Safety Alert Symbol.
    • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, being an employer, failed to ensure that the loader, was operated or handled in accordance with the specifications certified by a professional engineer or the manufacturer’s specifications, which stated: “Field operation” and “Roll-over hazard! A full bucket in the raised position alters the center of gravity of the machine. When operating a loader with a full load on slopes, observe the following precautions: Always carry the load as low as possible. Failure to comply could result in death or serious injury” and “Warning”, illustrated by a Safety Alert Symbol.
    • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, being an employer, failed to ensure that the loader, was operated or handled in accordance with the specifications certified by a professional engineer or the manufacturer’s specifications, which stated: “Note and avoid all hazards and obstructions such as ditches” and “stay away from hazardous areas such as ditches, overhangs, etc.”
    • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, being an employer, failed to ensure that the loader, was operated or handled in accordance with the specifications certified by a professional engineer or the manufacturer’s specifications which stated: “Operator instructions” and “Personnel precautions” and “Know and use protective equipment that is to be worn when operating this machine. Hard hats, protective glasses, gloves, reflector type vests and ear protection are examples of equipment that may be required”.
    • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, being an employer, failed to ensure that the loader, was operated or handled in accordance with the specifications certified by a professional engineer or the manufacturer’s specifications which stated: “Operator instructions” and “Personnel precautions” and  “Know and use the hand signals required for particular jobs and know who has the responsibility for signaling.
    • Section 234(1) of the OHS Code, where there was a foreseeable danger of injury to worker 1’s head and there was a significant possibility of lateral impact to the head, and being an employer, failed to ensure that worker 1 wore industrial protective headwear that was appropriate to the hazards and met the requirements of CSA Standard CAN/CSA-Z94.1-05 or ANSI Standard Z89.1-2003.
    • Section 234(1) of the OHS Code, where there was a danger that a worker 1’s hand, arm, leg or torso may be injured, being an employer, did fail to ensure that the worker 1 wore properly fitting arm, leg or body protective equipment that was appropriate to the work, the work site and the hazards identified.
    • Section 258(1)(a) of the OHS Code, where the movement of a load or a part (the bucket) of powered mobile equipment, (the loader) created a danger to worker 1, and being an employer, permitted a worker to remain within range of the moving part or load.

    Dale Campbell (worker 2) was charged with 13 counts:

    • Section 2(2)(a) of the OHS Act, being a worker engaged in an occupation, failed to protect the health and safety of worker 1, another worker present while worker 2 was working, by failing to ensure that worker 1 was protected from being injured by the movement of an object (a loader) which could constitute a hazard to worker 1.
    • Section 2(2)(a) of the OHS Act, being a worker engaged in an occupation, failed to protect worker 1, by failing to ensure that, while operating a loader in the proximity of worker 1, that worker 1 was not injured by the loader.
    • Section 2(2)(a) of the OHS Act, being a worker engaged in an occupation, failed to protect worker 1, by failing to ensure that worker 1 wore appropriate PPE while worker 2 operated a loader in the proximity of worker 1.
    • Section 2(2)(a) of the OHS Act, being a worker engaged in an occupation, failed to protect worker 1, by failing to ensure that an adequate hand signaling or other safe communication procedure was used between them in carrying out the task of erecting a fence.
    • Section 2(2)(a) of the OHS Act, being a worker engaged in an occupation, failed to protect worker 1, by failing to ensure that he was competent to adequately supervise worker 1 while carrying out the task of erecting a fence.
    • Section 2(2)(a) of the OHS Act, being a worker engaged in an occupation, failed to protect worker 1, by failing to ensure that, before operating a loader in carrying out the task of erecting a fence, he had read and understood the safety and operation instructions in the loader operator’s manual.
    • Section 2(2)(a) of the OHS Act, being a worker engaged in an occupation, failed to protect the health and safety of worker 1, by failing to apply the Phoenix installation instructions for the task of fence erection.
    • Section 256(1)(a) of the OHS Code, being a worker, operated powered mobile equipment, (a loader) without having been trained to safely operate the equipment.
    • Section 256(1)(b) of the OHS Code, being a worker, operated a loader without having demonstrated competency in operating the equipment to a competent worker designated by his employer, 1340726 Alberta Ltd.
    • Section 256(1)(c) of the OHS Code, being a worker, operated a loader without being familiar with the equipment’s operating instructions.
    • Section 256(3)(b) of the OHS Code, being an operator of powered mobile equipment (a loader) failed to operate the equipment safely.
    • Section 256(3)(c) of the OHS Code, being an operator of a loader, failed to maintain full control of the equipment at all times.
    • Section 258(1)(b) of the OHS Code, where the movement of a load or a part (the bucket) of powered mobile equipment, (a loader), created a danger to worker 1, and being the operator of that equipment, moved the load or the bucket where worker 1 was exposed to the danger.

    Charged is: Village of Dewberry

    Date charges laid: May 31, 2019

    Location of alleged offence: Dewberry

    Date of alleged offence: June 13, 2017

    Type: Fatality

    Description: A worker was performing maintenance on a riding lawnmower elevated by a jack stand. The mower fell and crushed the worker. The worker was fatally injured.

    Contravention: The Village of Dewberry, as an employer, was charged with 7 counts:

    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of that employer.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to protect worker health and safety by failing to ensure their worker was adequately trained to safely maintain a Massey Ferguson riding lawnmower.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to protect worker health and safety by failing to ensure their worker maintained the Massey Ferguson riding lawnmower according to the manufacturer' s specifications.
    • Section 13(1) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure where work was done that may endanger a worker, that the work was done by a worker that was competent to do that work or by a worker who was working under the direct supervision of a worker who was competent to do the work.
    • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that the Massey Ferguson riding lawnmower was serviced, maintained, repaired, or dismantled in accordance with the specifications of a professional engineer or with the manufacturer's specifications.
    • Section 261 of the OHS Code, failure 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 accidentally.
    • Section 394(1) of the OHS Code, failure to provide an effective communication system for their worker when they were working alone.

Contact

Connect with OHS:

Phone: 780-415-8690 (Edmonton)
Toll free: 1-866-415-8690 
TTY: 780-427-9999 (Edmonton)
TTY: 1-800-232-7215

Ask an Expert