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When charges are withdrawn, stayed, appealed or the work site party is found not guilty, the outcomes are posted at Prosecution outcomes and the pending charges are removed from this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

  • 2019

    Charged is: Lafarge Canada Inc.

    Date charges laid: August 23, 2019

    Location of alleged offence: Edmonton

    Date of alleged offence: November 25, 2017

    Type: Fatality

    Description: Two workers were using a gantry crane to move precast concrete slabs in the storage yard. After being placed on racks and unhooked from the crane, one slab tipped over and pinned one of the workers against a second slab, causing fatal injuries.

    Contravention: Lafarge Canada Inc., being an employer, was charged with 9 counts:

    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, failure to protect the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of that employer, by failing to ensure concrete panels were properly placed on storage racks.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to protect the health and safety of their worker by failing to ensure storage racks used to hold concrete panels were placed in a suitable location.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to protect the health and safety of their worker by failing to develop a safe procedure for placing concrete panels on storage racks.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to protect the health and safety of their worker by failing to implement a safe procedure for placing concrete panels on storage racks.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to protect the health and safety of their worker by failing to ensure that storage racks used to hold concrete panels were free of snow and/or ice.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to protect the health and safety of their worker by failing to ensure that storage racks used to hold concrete panels were placed on clean, dry concrete or a suitable level surface.
    • Section 12(1) (a) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure equipment used at a work site, storage racks, were maintained in a condition that would not compromise the health and safety of workers using it.
    • Section 187(2) (a) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure racks used to store materials or equipment were maintained to support the load placed on them.
    • 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, moved or spilled, that the material or equipment was contained, restrained or protected to eliminate the potential danger.

    Charged is: Aecon Transportation West Ltd.

    Date charges laid: August 14, 2019

    Location of alleged offence: Duchess

    Date of alleged offence: August 21, 2017

    Type: Serious Incident

    Description: A worker was tasked with removing a rock lodged between a roller and conveyor belt of a power screen unit when the worker’s left hand became entangled causing serious injury.

    Contravention: Aecon Transportation West Ltd., being an employer, was charged with 10 counts:

    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of that employer.
    • Section 12(1)(a) of Alberta Regulation, failure to ensure equipment used at a work site, a Powerscreen Chieftain screener, was maintained in a condition that would not compromise the health or safety of workers using it.
    • Section 12(1)(d) of Alberta Regulation, failure to ensure equipment used at a work site, a Powerscreen Chieftain screener, was free from obvious defects.
    • 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 a hazard assessment (H/A) and the methods used to control or eliminate the hazards identified.
    • Section 7(4)(a) of the OHS Code, failure to repeat an H/A at reasonably practicable intervals to prevent the development of unsafe and unhealthy working conditions.
    • Section 7(4)(c) of the OHS Code, failure to repeat an H/A when a work process or operation changed.
    • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure equipment, a Powerscreen Chieftain screener, was installed, operated, handled, serviced, tested, adjusted, maintained or repaired in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications or the specifications certified by a professional engineer.
    • Section 212(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that if machinery or equipment, a Powerscreen Chieftain screener, was to be serviced, repaired, tested, adjusted or inspected, that no worker performed such work on the machinery or equipment, until it had come to a complete stop and all hazardous energy at the location at which the work was to be carried out was isolated by activation of an energy-isolating device and the energy-isolating device was secured in accordance with section 214, 215 or 215.1 as designated by the employer, or the machinery or equipment was otherwise rendered inoperative in a manner that prevented its accidental activation and provided equal or greater protection than the protection afforded under section 212(1)(a).
    • Section 310(2)(a) of the OHS Code, failure to provide safeguards if a worker could accidentally, or through the work process, come into contact with moving parts of machinery or equipment, a Powerscreen Chieftain screener.

    Charged is: Weatherford Canada Ltd.

    Date charges laid: July 22, 2019

    Location of alleged offence: Lloydminster

    Date of alleged offence: August 4, 2017

    Type: Serious Incident

    Description: A worker was conducting pressure testing when the equipment being worked on began spinning out of control striking the worker in the face.

    Contravention: Weatherford Canada Ltd., being an employer, was charged with 24 counts:

    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, failure to protect the health and safety of a worker (worker 1) engaged in the work of that employer by failing to train or supervise their worker properly.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to protect the health and safety of a worker (worker 2) engaged in the work of that employer by failing to train or supervise their worker properly.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to protect worker 1 by failing to properly design a work process or workflow.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to protect worker 2 by failing to properly design a work process or workflow.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to protect worker 1 by failing to properly organize a work place or body of persons.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to protect worker 2 by failing to properly organize a work place or body of persons.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to protect worker 1 by means of an engineering control or administrative control.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to protect worker 2 by means of an engineering control or administrative control.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to protect worker 1 by permitting a machine or equipment to operate without an operator at the controls.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to protect worker 2 by permitting a machine or equipment to operate without an operator at the controls.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to protect worker 1 by failing to have an adequate safeguard against the movement of equipment, materials, objects or machinery.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to protect worker 2 by failing to have an adequate safeguard against the movement of equipment, materials, objects or machinery.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to protect worker 1 by permitting a worker to work in proximity to a machine or equipment that was in operation.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to protect worker 2 by permitting a worker to work in proximity to a machine or equipment that was in operation.
    • Section 13(1) of OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that if work was to be done by worker 1, that this worker was competent to do the work or that this worker was under the direct supervision of a worker who was competent to do the work.
    • Section 13(1) of OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that if work was to be done by worker 2, that this worker was competent to do the work or that this worker was under the direct supervision of a worker who was competent to do the work.
    • Section 13(2) of OHS Regulation, failure to ensure worker 1 was familiar with a developed or implemented procedure or other measure respecting work at the work site before the work began.
    • Section 13(2) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure worker 2 was familiar with a developed or implemented procedure or other measure respecting work at the work site before the work began.
    • Section 15(1) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that worker 1 was trained in the safe operation of the equipment the worker was required to operate.
    • Section 15(1) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that worker 2 was trained in the safe operation of the equipment the worker was required to operate.
    • Section 8(2) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that worker 1, who was affected by a hazard identified in a hazard assessment report, was informed of the hazard and of the methods of control or elimination of the hazard.
    • Section 8(2) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that worker 2, who was affected by a hazard identified in a hazard assessment report, was informed of the hazard and of the methods of control or elimination of the hazard.
    • Section 9(2) of the OHS Code, failure to eliminate or control a hazard through the use of an engineering control.
    • Section 310(2) of the OHS Code, failure to provide safeguards if a worker could accidentally, or through the work process, come into contact with moving parts of machinery or equipment, or machinery or equipment which could be hazardous due to its' operation, or any other hazard.

    Charged is: Element Technical Services Inc.

    Date charges laid: July 17, 2019

    Location of alleged offence: Veteran

    Date of alleged offence: August 3, 2017

    Type: Fatality

    Description: A worker was completing a pressure test on the coil tube connector. The worker was positioned over the well head and was inadvertently contacted in the face by the test pipe, sustaining fatal injuries.

    Contravention: Element Technical Services Inc., being an employer, was charged with 8 counts:

    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, failure to protect the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of that employer by failing to ensure that there was adequate and/or detailed written safe work procedures for pressure testing equipment known as BOPS.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to protect a worker by failing to identify hazards with performing pressure testing.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to protect a worker by failing to monitor the compliance with developed or implemented procedures for pressure testing equipment known as blowout preventers (BOP’s).
    • Section 13(1)(a) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure where work was done that could endanger a worker, that work was done by a worker who was competent to do the work.
    • Section 13(2) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure, after developing or implementing a procedure or other measure respecting the work at a work site, that all workers who were affected by the procedure or measure were familiar with it before the work began.
    • Section 15(1) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure its worker was trained in the safe operation of the equipment they were required to operate, equipment known as BOP’s.
    • Section 15(1) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure its worker was trained in the safe operation of the equipment they were required to operate, equipment known as a test bar.
    • 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, equipment known as a test bar.

    Charged is: Dynamic Furniture Corp.

    Date charges laid: July 5, 2019

    Location of alleged offence: Calgary

    Date of alleged offence: August 25, 2017

    Type: Serious Incident

    Description: A worker was in the process of cleaning sawdust and other material accumulated from the processing of press-board through an edge banding machine when the worker’s hand contacted a cutting blade causing serious injury.

    Contravention: Dynamic Furniture Corp., as an employer, was charged with 21 counts:

    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, failure to protect the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of that employer, by failing to ensure the worker was protected from being injured by the blade of a Homag edge bander machine (edge bander), with serial number ending in 1832.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to protect their worker by failing to ensure the blade of the edge bander the worker was cleaning was maintained in a condition that would not compromise the worker’s safety.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to protect their worker by failing to identify and remedy the hazard of injury to the worker as a result of an interlock door safeguard on the edge bander being disabled.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to protect their worker by failing to train or maintain its workers at a sufficient competency in the safe operation of the edge bander.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to protect their worker by failing to ensure the worker performed no service work on the edge bander until it had come to a complete stop and all hazardous energy at the location of the work to be carried out was isolated by activation of an energy-isolating device.
    • Section 12(1)(a) of Alberta Regulation, failure to ensure equipment used at a work site, the edge bander, was maintained in a condition that would not compromise the health or safety of workers using it.

    The following 5 charges repeat the charge in the previous charge, mutatis mutandis, in respect of the additional five similar machines in use. These breaches are not causally related to the worker’s injury; these charges were recommended as the breach was systemic in the factory workplace.

    • Section 12(1)(a) of Alberta Regulation, failure to ensure equipment used at a work site, a wood processing machine with serial number ending in 3431, was maintained in a condition that would not compromise the health or safety of workers using it.
    • Section 12(1)(a) of Alberta Regulation, failure to ensure equipment used at a work site, a wood processing machine with serial number ending in 1436, was maintained in a condition that would not compromise the health or safety of workers using it.
    • Section 12(1)(a) of Alberta Regulation, failure to ensure equipment used at a work site, a wood processing machine with serial number ending in 1437, was maintained in a condition that would not compromise the health or safety of workers using it.
    • Section 12(1)(a) of Alberta Regulation, failure to ensure equipment used at a work site, a wood processing machine with serial number ending in 3285, was maintained in a condition that would not compromise the health or safety of workers using it.
    • Section 12(1)(a) of Alberta Regulation, failure to ensure equipment used at a work site, a wood processing machine with serial number ending in 0970, was maintained in a condition that would not compromise the health or safety of workers using it.
    • Section 12(1)(d) of Alberta Regulation, failure to ensure equipment used at a work site, the edge bander was free from obvious defects.
    • Section 13(1) of Alberta Regulation, failure to ensure if work was to be done that could endanger a worker cleaning the edge bander, 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 15(1) of Alberta Regulation, failure to ensure a worker was trained in the safe operation of the equipment the worker was required to operate, the edge bander, including use of the equipment, the operator skills required by manufacturer’s specifications for the equipment and 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 a hazard assessment (H/A) and the methods used to control or eliminate the hazards identified.
    • Section 7(4)(a) of the OHS Code, failure to repeat any H/A at reasonably practicable intervals to prevent the development of unsafe and unhealthy working conditions.
    • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that equipment, the edge bander was installed, operated, handled, serviced, tested, adjusted, maintained or repaired 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 212(1)(a)  of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that if machinery, the edge bander, was to be serviced, repaired, tested, adjusted or inspected, that no worker performed such work on the edge bander 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 of the OHS Code.
    • Section 310(2)(a) of the OHS Code, failure to provide safeguards if a worker could accidentally, or through the work process, come into contact with moving parts of machinery or equipment, the edge bander.

    Charged is: Town of Drayton Valley

    Date charges laid: June 20, 2019

    Location of alleged offence: Drayton Valley

    Date of alleged offence: August 3, 2017

    Type: Fatality

    Description: A summer student was cutting grass with a riding lawn mower around a pond. The lawn mower slid into the pond and flipped over, trapping the worker. The worker was fatally injured.

    Contravention: The Town of Drayton Valley, being an employer, was charged with 12 counts:

    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of that employer, by failing to ensure their worker was adequately trained to safely operate a John Deere riding lawn mower (riding lawn mower).
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by failing to ensure the worker did not operate the riding lawn mower on wet grass near a body of water.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by failing to ensure the roll over protection structure on the riding lawn mower the worker was operating was in the upright position.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by failing to ensure if the roll over protection structure (ROPS) on the riding lawn mower was folded down that the worker did not wear a seat belt.
    • Section 13(1)(a) of the Alberta Regulation, failure to ensure where work was done that may endanger a worker, that work was done by a worker that was competent to do that work.
    • Section 15(1) of the Alberta Regulation, failure to ensure their worker was trained in the safe operation of the equipment, a riding lawn mower, the worker was required to operate.
    • Section 7(1) of the OHS Code, failure to assess a work site, Aspen View Pond and the surrounding grassy area, and identify existing or potential hazards before work began at the work site.
    • Section 12(d), failure to ensure that equipment, a riding lawn mower, was operated in accordance with the specifications of a professional engineer or with the manufacturer’s specifications, which stated: "Do not mow or operate machine on wet grass".
    • Section 12(d), failure to ensure that the riding lawn mower, was operated in accordance with the specifications of a professional engineer or with the manufacturer’s specifications, which stated: "Mow up and down slopes, not across”.
    • Section 12(d), failure to ensure the riding lawn mower was operated in accordance with the specifications of a professional engineer or with the manufacturer’s specifications, which stated: "Do not mow near drop- offs, ditches, embankments, or bodies of water”.
    • Section 12(d), failure to ensure the riding lawn mower was operated in accordance with the specifications of a professional engineer or with the manufacturer’s specifications, which stated: "Do not use a seat belt if operating with an optional folding ROPS in the folded position. Return the folding ROPS to the upright position as soon as possible".
    • 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.

    Charged is: Lazer Wash; 2032321 Alberta Ltd.; 2032321 Alberta Ltd. operating as (o/a) Lazer Wash

    Date charges laid: June 11, 2019

    Location of alleged offence: Red Deer

    Date of alleged offence: August 18, 2017

    Type: Serious Incident

    Description: Three workers were in the process of repairing a pump from a barrel of solvent when one worker used a lighter and ignited the solvent creating a flash fire. All three workers received severe burn injuries.

    Contravention: Lazer Wash; 2032321 Alberta Ltd.; 2032321 Alberta Ltd. (o/a) Lazer Wash, as employers, were charged with 26 counts:

    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 1, engaged in the work of the employers, by failing to train the workers to review MSDS and the purpose and significance of the information on the MSDS.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety worker 1 by failing to develop procedures for safely storing, using and/or handling the product named Clear Dressing.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety worker 1 by failing to develop procedures for safely storing, using and/or handling the product named Annihilator.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety worker 1 by failing to develop procedures to be followed in case of an emergency involving the product named Clear Dressing.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety worker 1 by failing to develop procedures to be followed in case of an emergency involving the product named Annihilator.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 2, engaged in the work of the employers, by failing to train the workers to review MSDS and the purpose and significance of the information on the MSDS.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 2, a worker engaged in the work of that employer, by failing to develop procedures for safely storing, using and/or handling the product named Clear Dressing.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 2, a worker engaged in the work of that employer, by failing to develop procedures for safely storing, using and/or handling the product named Annihilator.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 2, a worker engaged in the work of that employer, by failing to develop procedures to be followed in case of an emergency involving the product named Clear Dressing.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 2, a worker engaged in the work of that employer, by failing to develop procedures to be followed in case of an emergency involving the product named Annihilator.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(ii) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 2, not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site, by failing to train the workers to review MSDS and the purpose and significance of the information on the MSDS.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(ii) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety worker 2, not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site, by failing to develop procedures for safely storing, using and/or handling the product named Clear Dressing.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(ii) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety worker 2, not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site,  by failing to develop procedures for safely storing, using and/or handling the product named Annihilator.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(ii) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety worker 2, not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site, by failing to develop procedures to be followed in case of an emergency involving the product named Clear Dressing.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(ii) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety worker 2, not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site, by failing to develop procedures to be followed in case of an emergency involving the product named Annihilator.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 3, a worker engaged in the work of that employer, by failing to train the workers to review MSDS and the purpose and significance of the information on the MSDS.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 3, a worker engaged in the work of that employer, by failing to develop procedures for safely storing, using and/or handling the product named Clear Dressing.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 3, a worker engaged in the work of that employer, by failing to develop procedures for safely storing, using and/or handling the product named Annihilator.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 3, a worker engaged in the work of that employer, by failing to develop procedures to be followed in case of an emergency involving the product named Clear Dressing.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 3, a worker engaged in the work of that employer, by failing to develop procedures to be followed in case of an emergency involving the product named Annihilator.
    • Section 13(1)(a) of Alberta Regulation, failure to ensure that where work was done that may endanger a worker, that work was done by a worker that was competent to do that work.
    • Section 15(3)(a) of Alberta Regulation, where a worker could be exposed to a harmful substance at a work site, failed to establish procedures that minimized the workers’ exposure to the harmful substance.
    • Section 7(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Code, failure to assess their worksite and identify existing or potential hazards before work began at the work site.
    • 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 181(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure the number of first aiders at a work site and their qualifications and training complied with schedule 2, tables 5, 6 or 7.
    • Section 407 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure the material safety data sheet (MSDS) required by this part was readily available at a work site to workers who could be exposed to a controlled product and to the joint work site health and safety committee if there was one.

    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.

    Charged is: Triple M Housing Ltd.; Triple M Housing Ltd. operating as (o/a) Triple M Housing; Triple M Housing; Triple M Modular Limited Partnership; Triple M Holdings (II) Limited Partnership; Triple M Housing (GP) II Ltd.; Triple M Holdings (GP) Parent Ltd.; Triple M Modular Limited Partnership o/a Triple M Housing; Triple M Modular Limited Partnership, a Limited Partnership, by its General Partner Triple M Housing (GP) II Ltd.; Triple M Holdings (II) Limited Partnership o/a Triple M Housing; Triple M Holdings (II) Limited Partnership, a Limited Partnership, by its General Partner Triple M Holdings (GP) Parent Ltd.

    Date charges laid: May 13, 2019

    Location of alleged offence: Lethbridge

    Date of alleged offence: May 15, 2017

    Type: Serious Incident

    Description: A worker was struck by a falling steel roof truss stand from the mezzanine area above. The worker was admitted to hospital because of the injuries sustained in the incident.

    Contravention: Triple M Housing Ltd.; Triple M Housing Ltd. operating as (o/a) Triple M Housing; Triple M Housing; Triple M Modular Limited Partnership; Triple M Holdings (II) Limited Partnership; Triple M Housing (GP) II Ltd.; Triple M Holdings (GP) Parent Ltd.; Triple M Modular Limited Partnership o/a Triple M Housing; Triple M Modular Limited Partnership, a Limited Partnership, by its General Partner Triple M Housing (GP) II Ltd.; Triple M Holdings (II) Limited Partnership o/a Triple M Housing; Triple M Holdings (II) Limited Partnership, a Limited Partnership, by its General Partner Triple M Holdings (GP) Parent Ltd., being employers, were charged with 13 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, by failing to enforce the use of spotters when operating the crane system.
    • Section 2(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 provide instruction on where stands should have been placed.
    • Section 2(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 that stands or other objects were not placed by the guard railing located at the mezzanine level.
    • Section 2(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 that the worker did not work in the potential fall path of objects from the mezzanine level above the work area.
    • Section 7(4) of the OHS Code, failure to assess their work site and identify existing or potential hazards when a new work process was introduced or a work process or operation changed at the work site.
    • Section 65(3)(a) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that date and time were entered into the logbook when any work was performed on the lifting device.
    • Section 65(3)(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that inspections, including examinations, checks and tests, that were performed, including those specified in the manufacturer’s specifications, were entered into the logbook.
    • Section 65(3)(e) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that repairs or modifications performed were entered into the logbook.
    • Section 65(3)(f) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a record of a certification under Section 73 of the OHS Code was entered into the logbook.
    • Section 65(3)(g) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure any matter or incident that may affect the safe operation of the lifting device was entered into the logbook.
    • Section 94 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that the bridge, jib, monorail, gantry or overhead travelling crane met the safety requirements of CSA Standard CAN/CSA-B167-96 (R2007), safety standard for maintenance and inspection of overhead cranes, gantry cranes, monorails, hoists and trolleys.
    • Section 189 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure, where a worker may be 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 318(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that workers in a work area where there may be falling objects were protected from the falling objects by an overhead safeguard.

    Charged is: Enmax Power Services Corporation; Enmax Corporation; and Enmax Power Corporation

    Date charges laid: April 3, 2019

    Location of alleged offence: Calgary

    Date of alleged offence: April 23, 2017

    Type: Serious Injuries

    Description: Two workers were doing an inspection while working from a bucket on a rail truck. The rail truck lost traction causing the bucket to come into contact with the entrance of a tunnel. Both of the workers suffered serious injuries as a result.

    Contravention: Enmax Power Services Corporation; Enmax Corporation; and Enmax Power Corporation, being employers, were charged with 9 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 Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a second worker engaged in the work of that employer.
    • Section 12(1)(a) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure all 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 the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that all equipment used at a work site would safely perform the function for which it was intended or designed.
    • Section 12(1)(d) of the OHS Regulation, fail to ensure that all equipment used at a work site was free from obvious defects.
    • 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.
    • Section 346(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that workers were not travelling in a basket, bucket, platform or any other elevated or aerial device that was moving on a road or work site if road conditions, traffic, overhead wires, cables or other obstructions created a danger to the workers.
    • Section 347(5) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a telescopic aerial device, aerial ladder, articulating aerial device, vertical tower, material-lifting aerial device or a combination of any of them, when mounted on a motor vehicle, whether operated manually or using power, met the requirements of CSA standard CAN/CSA-C225-00 (R2005), vehicle-mounted aerial devices.
    • Section 13(4) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure their workers followed Section 346(2) of the OHS Code imposing the duty on the workers not to travel in a basket, bucket, platform or other elevated or aerial device that was moving on a road or work site if road conditions, traffic, overhead wires, cables or other obstructions create a danger to the person.

    Charged is: CWC Energy Services Corp.

    Date charges laid: February 12, 2019

    Location of alleged offence: Wabasca

    Date of alleged offence: December 6, 2017

    Type: Serious Injury

    Description: A double service rig floor hand was injured when a joint of tubing became disconnected from a power swivel and fell approximately 7 metres. The floor hand was struck by the tubing and was seriously injured.

    Contravention: CWC Energy Services Corp., being an employer, was charged with 8 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 by failing to ensure the worker was not struck by a joint of tubing that fell out of a power swivel.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker, by failing to ensure that the worker moved to a safe position when a power swivel was used to hoist a joint of tubing.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker, by failing to ensure that the worker was not in the potential fall path of a suspended load.
    • Section 12(1)(a) of the OHS Regulations, failure to ensure that equipment used at a work site, the nipple on a power swivel, was maintained in a condition that would not compromise the health or safety of workers using it.
    • Section 12(1)(d) of the OHS Regulations, failure to ensure that equipment used at a work site, the nipple on a power swivel, was free from obvious defects.
    • Section 12(1)(a) of the OHS Regulations, failure to ensure that equipment used at a work site, a collar used to attach a joint of tubing to a power swivel, was maintained in a condition that would not compromise the health or safety of workers using it.
    • Section 12(1)(d) of the OHS Regulations, failure to ensure that equipment used at a work site, a collar used to attach a joint of tubing to a power swivel, was free from obvious defects.
    • Section 189 of the of the OHS Code, failure to ensure, where a worker may be injured if equipment or material, a joint of tubing, was dislodged or moved, that the equipment or material was restrained to eliminate the potential danger.

    Charged is: Agrium Inc. et al (35) and Aecom Production Services Ltd.

    Date charges laid: January 16, 2019

    Location of alleged offence: Carseland

    Date of alleged offence: January 30, 2017

    Type: Serious Incident

    Description: Two workers were reinstalling a thermal relief valve in an anhydrous ammonia piping system. There was a release of ammonia and both workers were exposed. One worker was taken to Strathmore hospital and was released later that day. The other worker was taken to Foothills Medical Center where the worker remained for greater than 48 hours.

    Contravention: Agrium Inc. et al (35), being prime contractors, were charged with 8 counts:

    • Section 3(3) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the OHS Act, the Regulations and the Adopted Code were complied with in respect of the work site.
    • Section 3(3) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the OHS Act, the Regulations and the Adopted Code were complied with in respect of the work site by failing to establish or maintain a system to ensure that Aecom Production Services Ltd. (Aecom) complied with Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act.
    • Section 7(5) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that any employer on the worksite was made aware of any existing or potential work site hazards that could affect that employer's workers.
    • Section 3(3) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the OHS Act, the Regulations and the Adopted Code were complied with in respect of that work site, by failing to establish or maintain a system to ensure that Aecom complied with Section 212(1) of the OHS Code.
    • Section 3(3) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the OHS Act, the Regulations and the Adopted Code were complied with in respect of that work site, by failing to establish or maintain a system to ensure that Aecom complied with Section 212(3) of the OHS Code.
    • Section 3(3) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the OHS Act, the Regulations and the Adopted Code were complied with in respect of that work site, by failing to establish or maintain a system to ensure that Aecom complied with Section 215.4(3) of the OHS Code.
    • Section 3(3) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the OHS Act, the Regulations and the Adopted Code were complied with in respect of that work site, by failing to establish or maintain a system to ensure that Aecom complied with Section 215.4(4) of the OHS Code.
    • Section 3(3) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the OHS Act, the Regulations and the Adopted Code were complied with in respect of that work site, by failing to establish or maintain a system to ensure that Aecom complied with Section 310(2)(h) of the OHS Code.

    Aecom Production Services Ltd. (Aecom), being an employer, was charged with 4 counts:

    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of that employer.
    • Section 212(1) 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).
    • Section 212(3) of the OHS Code, where piping containing a harmful substance under pressure that was to be serviced, failed to ensure that no worker performed such work on the piping, pipeline or process system until flow in the piping had been stopped or regulated to a safe level, and the location at which the work was to be carried out was isolated and secured in accordance with Section 215.4 of the OHS Code.
    • Section 310(2)(h) of the OHS Code, failure to provide safeguards if a worker could accidentally, or through the work process, come into contact with any hazard.
  • 2018

    Charged is: GP Reload Inc.

    Date charges laid: December 19, 2018

    Location of alleged offence: Grande Prairie

    Date of alleged offence: February 1, 2017

    Type: Fatality

    Description: An operator for Wapiti Carriers Inc., contracting to Pipestone Carriers Inc., was delivering a load of lumber at the GP Reload laydown yard.  In the process of offloading the lumber, the load collapsed and struck the operator causing fatal injuries.

    Contravention: GP Reloaded Inc., being an employer, was charged with 8 counts:

    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failed to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of that employer, by failing to ensure that lumber was not unloaded from a trailer when the worker was in the immediate vicinity of the trailer.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failed to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of that employer, by failing to ensure that another worker complied with manufacturer specifications, which stated: “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”.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failed to ensure the health and safety of a worker not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site, by failing to ensure that lumber was not unloaded from a trailer when the worker was in the immediate vicinity of the trailer.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failed to ensure the health and safety of a worker not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site,  by failing to ensure that another worker complied with manufacturer specifications, which stated: “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”.
    • Section 7(1) of the OHS Code, failed to assess its work site and identify existing and potential hazards before work began.
    • Section 7(2) of the OHS Code, failed to prepare a report of the result of a hazard assessment and the methods used to control or eliminate the hazards identified.
    • Section 189 of the OHS Code, failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure, where a worker could be injured if material was dislodged or moved, that the material was restrained to eliminate the potential danger.
    • Section 258(a) of the OHS Code, in circumstances where the movement of a load, specifically lumber, created a danger to worker(s), did permit a worker to remain within range of a moving load.

    Charged is:

    • 1733233 Alberta Ltd.
    • Jasper Auto Parts (1965) Ltd.
    • 1733233 Alberta Ltd. operating as Jasper Auto Parts
    • Jasper Auto Parts (1965) Ltd. operating as Jasper Auto Parts

    Date charges laid: December 14, 2018

    Location of alleged offence: Edmonton

    Date of alleged offence: December 29, 2016

    Type: Fatality

    Description: A worker at an auto wrecking facility had retrieved a truck chassis from the yard and brought it to the garage to remove a muffler system.  Jack stands were placed underneath the rear of the vehicle chassis in order for the work to be done.  During the removal process the chassis shifted and fell off of the jack stands pinning the worker underneath. The worker was fatally injured.

    Contravention: 1733233 Alberta Ltd.; Jasper Auto Parts (1965) Ltd.; 1733233 Alberta Ltd. o/a Jasper Auto Parts; and Jasper Auto Parts (1965) Ltd. o/a Jasper Auto Parts, as employers, were charged with 17 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 these employers, by failing to adequately supervise and/or direct the worker.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of these employers, by instructing or permitting the worker to work in a place where a hazard to the worker would either not be seen or 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 a worker engaged in the work of these employers, by using or permitting the use of dangerous or inappropriate equipment.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of these employers, by failing to create 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 a worker engaged in the work of these employers, by failing to require the worker  to work in an appropriate place.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of these employers, by failing to sufficiently and/or adequately train the worker.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of these employers, by failing to protect the worker from the movement of an object which could constitute a hazard to the worker.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of these employers, by failing to have one or more other person(s) present.
    • Section 15(1) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that a worker was trained in the safe operation of the equipment the worker was required to operate.
    • Section 7(1) of the OHS Code, failure to assess a work site and identify existing and potential hazards before work began at the work site or prior to the construction of a new work site.
    • Section 112 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a vehicle hoist installed on or after July 1, 2009 met the requirements of ANSI standard ANSI/ALI ALCTV- 2006, American National Standard for automotive lifts- safety requirements for construction, testing and validation or ANSI standard ANSI/ALI ALOIM - 2000, automotive lifts - safety requirements for operation, inspection and maintenance.
    • Section 13(4) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure the performance by a worker of a duty under Section 113 of the OHS Code that the worker must not be under a suspended load unless the load was supported by a vehicle hoist designed for that purpose, or stands or blocks, other than jacks, that were designed, constructed and maintained to support the load and placed on firm foundations.
    • Section 15 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that where the OHS Code  requires equipment to be approved by a named organization, an employer must use best efforts to ensure that the seal, stamp, logo or similar identifying mark of that organization was on the equipment and legible.
    • Section 13(2) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that where the OHS Code requires anything to be done in accordance with manufacturer's specifications and they are not available or do not exist, an employer must develop and comply with procedures that were certified by a professional engineer as designed to ensure the 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 69(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that the work was arranged so that a load did not pass over workers.
    • Section 189 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that if a worker could be injured if equipment or material was dislodged, moved, spilled, or damaged, both the employer and the worker ensured the equipment or material was contained, restrained or protected to eliminate the potential danger.
    • Section 318(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that workers in a work area where there may be falling objects were protected from the falling objects by an overhead safeguard.

    Charged is:

    • Agrium Inc. (31 subsidiaries)
    • Agrium Inc. Operating As (O/A) Agrium
    • Agrium Inc. O/A Agrium Wholesale
    • Agrium Inc. O/A Carseland Nitrogen Operations
    • Agrium Inc. O/A Agrium Carseland Nitrogen Operations
    • Agrium Inc. O/A Agrium  Partnership
    • Agrium
    • Viridian Fertilizers Limited
    • Agrium Products Inc.
    • Agrium Inc., And Viridian Fertilizers Limited, And Agrium Products Inc. O/A Agrium
    • Agrium Inc., And Viridian Fertilizers Limited, And Agrium Products Inc. O/A Agrium Wholesale
    • Agrium Inc, And Viridian Fertilizers Limited, And Agrium Products Inc. O/A Carseland Nitrogen Operations
    • Agrium Inc., And Viridian Fertilizers Limited, And Agrium Products Inc. O/A Agrium Carseland Nitrogen Operations
    • Agrium Inc., And Viridian Fertilizers Limited, And Agrium Products Inc. O/A Agrium Partnership
    • Viridian Fertilizers Limited O/A Agrium
    • Viridian Fertilizers Limited O/A Agrium Wholesale
    • Viridian Fertilizers Limited O/A Carseland Nitrogen Operations
    • Viridian Fertilizers Limited O/A Agrium Carseland Nitrogen Operations
    • Viridian Fertilizers Limited O/A Agrium Partnership
    • Agrium Products Inc. O/A Agrium
    • Agrium Products Inc. O/A Agrium Wholesale
    • Agrium Products Inc. O/A Carseland Nitrogen Operations
    • Agrium Products Inc. O/A Agrium Carseland Nitrogen Operations
    • Agrium Products Inc. O/A Agrium Partnership
    • Nutrien Ltd.
    • Nutrien Ltd. O/A Agrium Inc.
    • Nutrien Ltd. O/A Agrium
    • Nutrien Ltd. O/A Agrium Wholesale
    • Nutrien Ltd. O/A Carseland Nitrogen Operations
    • Nutrien Ltd. O/A Agrium Carseland Nitrogen Operations
    • Nutrien Ltd. O/A Agrium Partnership

    Date charges laid: December 17, 2018

    Location of alleged offence: Carseland

    Date of alleged offence: January 15, 2017

    Type: Serious Injury

    Description: A worker was opening the top hatch on a rail car when the lid bumped the turn valve on the overhead hose used to off load anhydrous ammonia.  This caused an unplanned release of anhydrous ammonia.  To escape the area, the worker jumped off the rail car and sustained serious injuries.

    Contravention: Agrium Inc. et al, being employers, were charged with 9 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 by failing to ensure that the hose end valve would not have accidental opening.
    • 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 by failing to remedy the hazard of inadvertent release of ammonia by bumping the valve.
    • 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 by failing to communicate regarding issues on the hoses with the quarter turn valves.
    • Section 12(1)(b) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure all equipment used at a work site would safely perform the function for which it  was intended or designed.
    • Section 13(3.1) of Alberta Regulation, where a worker reported an unsafe or harmful work site condition, failure to review the situation and take any necessary corrective action in a timely manner.
    • Section 368(a) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that an operational control on equipment was designed, located or protected to prevent unintentional activation.
    • Section 26(1)(b) of the OHS Code, failure to have a code of practice governing the storage, handling, use and disposal of a substance listed in Schedule 1, Table 1: ammonia, that is present at a work site in a mixture in which the amount of the substance is more than 10 kilograms and at a concentration of 0.1 percent weight or more.
    • Section 310(2)(h) of the OHS Code, failure to provide safeguards if a worker could accidentally, or through the work process, come into contact with any other hazard.
    • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that equipment was installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications or specifications certified by a professional engineer.

    Charged is: Canadian Natural Resources Limited, Treeline Well Service Inc., MX Consulting Ltd. and Kevin Mowat

    Date charges laid: November 20, 2018

    Location of alleged offence: At or near Brooks

    Date of alleged offence: December 3, 2016

    Type: Serious Injury

    Description: A contractor was removing downhole well tubing and stripping coil from within the tube. Approximately 500 metres of coil was pulled out of the well and laid on the ground. Workers had to reposition equipment closer to the well to pull the remainder of the coil out. When they disconnected from the coil, it unexpectedly retracted down the well and struck a worker. The worker suffered serious injuries.

    Contravention: Canadian Natural Resources Limited was charged with 7 counts:

    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, being an employer, failed to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of that employer, by failing to create, enforce or implement safe working procedures to protect workers when coil tubing was being removed.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i)(i) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failed to ensure the health and safety of a worker not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site by failing to create, enforce or implement safe working procedures to protect workers when coil tubing was being removed.
    • Section 189 of the OHS Code, being an employer, failed to ensure, where a worker may be injured if equipment or material is dislodged, moved or spilled, that the material or equipment was contained, restrained or protected to eliminate the potential danger.
    • Section 7(5) of the OHS Code, being a prime contractor, failed to ensure that employers on a work site were made aware of existing or potential work site hazards that could affect that employers’ workers, specifically: coil tubing becoming free while stripping out and falling down the well.
    • Section 7(5) of the OHS Code, being a prime contractor, failed to ensure that employers on a work site were made aware of existing or potential work site hazards that could affect that employers’ workers, specifically: potential coil whip during the time that the coiled tubing was cut, handled, or when the tail of the coil tubing was brought to the surface.
    • Section 7(5) of the OHS Code, being a prime contractor, failed to ensure that employers on a work site were made aware of existing or potential work site hazards that could affect that employers’ workers, specifically: a kick was taken while stripping the coil tubing out.
    • Section 13(1)(a) of Alberta Regulation, being an employer, failed to ensure that where work was done that could endanger a worker, that work was done by a worker who was competent to do the work.

    MX Consulting Ltd. and Kevin Mowat were charged with 2 counts:

    • Section 2(1)(a)(ii) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failed to ensure the health and safety of a worker not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site by permitting use of unsafe procedures in extracting coil tubing.
    • Section 189 of the OHS Code, being an employer, failed to ensure, where a worker may be injured if equipment or material is dislodged, moved or spilled, that the material or equipment was contained, restrained or protected to eliminate the potential danger.

    Tree line Well Services Inc. was charged with 2 counts:

    • Section 2(1)(a)(ii) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failed to ensure the health and safety of a worker not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site by permitting use of unsafe procedures in extracting coil tubing.
    • Section 189 of the OHS Code, being an employer, failed to ensure, where a worker may be injured if equipment or material is dislodged, moved or spilled, that the material or equipment was contained, restrained or protected to eliminate the potential danger.

    Charged is: City of Edmonton, operating as (o/a) City of Edmonton, Integrated Infrastructure Service/Utilities Infrastructure

    Date charges laid: October 26, 2018

    Location of alleged offence: Edmonton

    Date of alleged offence: November 1, 2016

    Type: Fatality

    Description: Workers were operating a tunnel boring machine on a drainage tunnel. The tunnel boring machine conveyor struck the foreman between the machinery and the tunnel wall. The foreman worker suffered fatal injuries as a result.

    Contravention: The City of Edmonton, o/a City of Edmonton, Integrated Infrastructure Service/Utilities Infrastructure, being an employer, was charged with 13 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 by failing to identify hazards for the task of adjusting, aligning, and/or moving of the conveyor.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure worker health and safety by failing to identify hazards for utilizing the lever hoist.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure worker health and safety by failing to create, enforce, and/or implement safe working procedures to protect workers when working with the conveyor.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure worker health and safety by permitting workers to be in proximity of an area where the conveyor was being adjusted, aligned, and/or moved.
    • Section 7(4)(d) of the OHS Code, failure to repeat its hazard assessment before the construction of significant additions or alterations to a work site.
    • Section 13(2)(a) of the OHS Code, failure to develop and comply with procedures that were certified by a professional engineer as designed when manufacturer’s specifications were either not available or did not exist for the tunnel boring machine to ensure procedures were done in a safe manner when the tunnel boring machine was being erected, installed, assembled, started, operated, handled, stored, serviced, tested, adjusted, calibrated, maintained, repaired and dismantled.
    • Section 189 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure, where a worker could be 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 7(1)(a) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure where the OHS Act, Regulation or Adopted Code required work to be done in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications or specifications certified by a professional engineer, that the workers responsible for the work were familiar with the specifications.
    • Section 7(1)(b) of OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that where the OHS Act, Regulation or Adopted Code required work to be done in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications or specifications certified by a professional engineer, that the specifications were readily available to the workers responsible for the work.
    • Section 12(1)(a) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure equipment, a lever hoist, used at the work site was maintained in a condition that would not compromise the health and safety of workers using it.
    • Section 15(1) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure its workers were trained in the safe operation of the equipment they were required to operate, a tunnel boring machine and/or conveyor.
    • Section 15(1) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure its workers were trained in the safe operation of the equipment, a lever hoist, they were required to operate.
    • Section 310(2)(h) of the OHS Code, failure to provide safeguards if a worker may accidentally, or through the work process, come into contact with any hazard of the conveyor system while it was being moved.

    Charged is: SPAR ROOFING & METAL SUPPLIES LIMITED operating as (o/a) Spar Marathon Roofing Supplies

    Date charges laid: September 26, 2018

    Location of alleged offence: Calgary

    Date of alleged offence: September 29, 2016

    Type: Serious Injury

    Description: A worker was securing a load on a trailer. The worker stepped onto a pallet that had been raised by a forklift. The pallet broke and the worker fell approximately 3.9 metres (m) to the ground. The worker suffered serious injuries.

    Contravention: SPAR ROOFING & METAL SUPPLIES LIMITED o/a Spar Marathon Roofing Supplies was charged, as an employer, with 19 counts:

    • Section2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure  to ensure the health and safety of their worker(s) engaged in the work of that employer, by not training or maintaining sufficient skill and competency in the safe operation of equipment.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to train or maintain sufficient training of its employees for hazards associated with heights or falling.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to train employees in the proper making of hazard assessments involved in loading or unloading vehicles
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to train employees regarding the hazards involved in the securing of loads.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to protect workers from falling or otherwise lacking support by means of sufficient management or engineering controls.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure workers used appropriate equipment in the lifting, moving, carrying, handling or transporting materials or personnel by supplying workers with such appropriate proper basket(s), ladder(s),stairs, and/or lift(s), and/or training them in the use of such items.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to  properly or sufficiently discipline its employees by creating and/or implementing a discipline policy and/or keeping sufficient records of disciplinary actions, and/or follow-up actions.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to prevent a  worker from working on top of an unsecured or insufficiently secured load by a sufficient administrative or engineering control.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure a vehicle or powered mobile equipment did not cause injury to a worker by a sufficient administrative control.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure a vehicle or powered mobile equipment did not cause injury to a worker by a sufficient engineering control.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure a platform was suitable for the purpose of the work done by supplying and enforcing the use of a platform that was suitable for the purpose.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure that suitable safety procedures for the purpose of the work done were in place by creating and enforcing suitable work procedures.
    • Section 7(4) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure a hazard assessment was repeated at reasonably intervals to prevent the development of unsafe and unhealthy working conditions when a new work process was introduced, a work process or operation changed, or before the construction of significant additions or alterations to a work site.
    • Section 15(1) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure a worker was trained in the safe operation of the equipment the worker was required to operate.
    • Section 139(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure a worker was protected from falling at a temporary or permanent work area if the worker could fall a vertical distance of 3 m or more.
    • Section 155(2) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that if a load was not secured against movement, a worker did not climb onto the load.
    • Section 140(1) of the OHS Code, failure to develop procedures that complied with this part in a fall protection plan for a work site if a worker at the work site could fall 3 m or more and the worker was not protected by guardrails.
    • Section 349(2) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure a work platform mounted on the forks of powered mobile equipment and intended to support a worker (a) was commercially manufactured or, if not commercially manufactured, was designed and certified by a professional engineer, (b) had guardrails and toe boards, and (c) had a screen or similar barrier that prevented a worker from touching any drive mechanism.
    • Section 208(2) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that worker(s) used the equipment provided for lifting, lowering, pushing, pulling, carrying, handling or transporting heavy or awkward loads.

    Charged is: Lafarge Canada Inc.

    Date charges laid: June 21, 2018

    Location of alleged offence: La Glace

    Date of alleged offence: July 25, 2016

    Type: Fatality

    Description: Two workers were operating a recycler machine conducting road resurfacing activities on a secondary highway. The machine was not equipped with a rollover protective structure. The machine rolled over into a ditch adjacent to the road, and the two workers suffered fatal injuries as a result.

    Contravention: LaFarge Canada Inc., being an employer, was charged with 8 counts:

    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 1 who was engaged in the work of that employer.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 2 who was engaged in the work of that employer.
    • Section 12(1)(b ) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that equipment, a Wirtgen Recycler Machine, being used at a work site would safely perform the function for which it is intended or was designed.
    • Section 13(1) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that if road pulverizing and/or reclamation work was to be done by use of a Wirtgen Recycler Machine that may endanger worker(s), that the work was done by worker(s) competent to do the work or by worker(s) working under the direct supervision of a worker who was competent to do the work.
    • Section 15(1) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that worker 1 was trained in the safe operation of the equipment, a Wirtgen Recycler Machine, the worker was required to operate.
    • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that equipment, a Wirtgen Recycler Machine, was operated according to the specifications certified by a professional engineer or with the manufacturer's specifications in the Wirtgen instruction manual stating: "The maximum theoretical lateral tilt of the machine must not exceed 8 degrees (14%) - danger"; and/or "the maximum permissible lateral tilt depends on the circumstances existing at the site. Ensure that dangerous operational conditions do not occur"; and/ or "when travelling with the machine between milled channels or operation sites, the machine must be horizontal in lateral direction and raised to its highest point - danger"; and/or "tipping over hazard - the permissible lateral tilt must not be exceeded".
    • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that equipment, a Wirtgen Recycler Machine, was operated according to the specifications certified by a professional engineer or manufacturer's specifications in the Wirtgen safety manual stating: "Dangerous situation - tipping machine can cause serious injuries. Do not drive across inclines. Pay attention to permitted machine tilt", and/or "warning - hazardous condition! - Tipping or uncontrollable machine can cause serious injury or death. Always move and operate the machine carefully on steep gradients either directly uphill or directly downhill. Never move and operate the machine horizontally on a slope. Never exceed permitted gradients as specified in the instruction manual".
    • Section 270(3) of the OHS Code, where powered mobile equipment, a Wirtgen Recycler Machine, was not referred to in section 270(1) of the OHS Code, and where a hazard assessment identified rollover as a potential hazard, failed to either equip the Wirtgen Recycler Machine with a rollover protective structure as specified or institute written safe work procedures that would eliminate the possibility of rollover.

    Charged is: A. Lassonde Inc.; and A. Lassonde Inc. operating as Lassonde Western Canada Division

    Date charges laid: May 15, 2018

    Location of alleged offence: Calgary

    Date of alleged offence: May 22, 2016

    Type: Reportable Incident

    Description: A worker was in a robot palletizing cage when the robot arm activated and pinned the worker against the conveyor, resulting in serious crush injuries.

    Contravention: A. Lassonde Inc.; and A. Lassonde Inc. operating as Lassonde Western Canada Division, being employers, were each charged with 3 counts:

    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failed to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of those employers.
    • Section 212(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that where machinery, equipment or powered mobile equipment was to be serviced, repaired, tested 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 where work was carried out was isolated by activation of an energy-isolating device, and the energy-isolating device was secured in accordance with OHS Code section 214, 215, or 215.1 as designated by the employer.
    • Section 384(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure the design, construction, installation, testing, start-up, operation and maintenance of an industrial robot system complied with CSA Standard Z434-003 (R2008), Industrial Robots and Robot Systems – General Safety Requirements.

    Charged is: Royop Development Corporation, Paladin Security Group Ltd.

    Date charges laid: April 24, 2018

    Location of alleged offence: Fort McMurray

    Date of alleged offence: April 29, 2016

    Type: Fatality

    Description: A security guard working the night shift at a shopping plaza was reported missing by the spouse when the worker did not arrive home after shift. The worker was found later in the security office having died of carbon monoxide overexposure.

    Contravention: Royop Development Corporation was charged with 8 counts:

    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, being an employer, failed to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of that employer.
    • Section 12(1)(a) of the OHS Regulation, being an employer, failed to ensure equipment used at a work site, a hydronic heat exchanger, was maintained in a condition that would not compromise the health or safety of workers using it.
    • Section 12(1)(a) of the OHS Regulation, being an employer, failed to ensure equipment used at a work site, a gas-fired boiler, was maintained in a condition that would not compromise the health or safety of workers using it.
    • Section 12(1)(b) of the OHS Regulation, being an employer, failed to ensure equipment used at a work site, a hydronic heat exchanger, would safely perform the function for which it was intended.
    • Section 12(1)(b) of the OHS Regulation, being an employer, failed to ensure equipment used at a work site, a gas-fired boiler, would safely perform the function for which it was intended.
    • Section 12(1)(d) of the OHS Regulation, being an employer, failed to ensure a piece of equipment used at a work site, a hydronic heat exchanger, was free from obvious defects.
    • Section 12(1)(d) of the OHS Regulation, being an employer, failed to ensure a piece of equipment used at a work site, a gas-fired boiler, was free from obvious defects.
    • Section 2(5) of the OHS Act, being a contractor directing the activities of an employer involved in work at a work site, Paladin Security Group Ltd., failed to ensure the employer complied with the OHS Act, the Regulations and the Adopted Code in respect of that work site.

    Paladin Security Group Ltd. was charged with 2 counts:

    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failed to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of that employer.
    • Section 394(1) of the OHS Code, being an employer, failed to provide an effective communication system for a worker working alone.

    Charged is: Horton CBI, Limited

    Date charges laid: March 12, 2018

    Location of alleged offence: Fort McMurray

    Date of alleged offence: March 21, 2016

    Type: Fatality

    Description: A worker had been welding on a large bitumen storage tank under fabrication when the worker fell from the board and bracket scaffold about sixty feet to the ground below. The worker received fatal injuries as a result of the fall.

    Contravention: Horton CBI, Limited, being an employer, was charged with 10 counts:

    • Section 2 (1) (a) (i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of that employer.
    • Section 139 (1) (a) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that where a worker could fall a vertical distance of 3 metres (m) or more, the worker was protected from falling at a temporary or permanent work area.
    • Section 139 (1) (c) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that where a worker could fall through an opening in a work surface, the worker was protected from falling at a temporary or permanent work area.
    • Section 121 (1) (d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a walkway had the appropriate toe boards and guardrails required by Part 22 of the OHS Code.
    • Section 314 (1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that an opening through which a worker could fall was protected by a securely attached cover designed to support an anticipated load or guardrails and toe boards.
    • Section 315 (3) of the OHS Code failure to ensure that a guardrail was secured so that it could not move in any direction if it was struck or if any point on it came into contact with a worker, materials or equipment.
    • Section 332 (1) (a) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a bracket scaffold was constructed, installed and used in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications or specifications certified by a professional engineer.
    • Section 185 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a worksite was kept clean and free from materials or equipment that could cause workers to slip or trip.
    • Section 326 (1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a scaffold was colour coded using tags at each point of entry indicating its status and condition.
    • Section 323 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a scaffold erected to provide a working platform during the construction of a structure complied with CSA Standards, accessing scaffolding for construction purposes.

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

    Date charges laid: January 17, 2018

    Location of alleged offence: Edmonton

    Date of alleged offence: January 18, 2016

    Type: Reportable Incident

    Description: A worker on foot at a public warehouse was struck from behind by a lift truck (powered mobile equipment). The worker sustained a serious lower leg injury.

    Contravention: MTE Logistix Management Inc. and MTE Logistix Edmonton Inc., being prime contractors, were charged with 1 count:

    Section 3(3) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure compliance with the Act, the Regulations and Adopted Code in respect of the worksite.

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

    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of those employers.
    • Section 7(1) of the OHS Code, failure to assess a work site and identify existing and potential hazards before work began at the work site or prior to the construction of a new work site.
    • Section 259 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that walkways were designated that separated pedestrian traffic for workers from areas where powered mobile equipment was operating or that safe work procedures were used to protect workers who entered areas where powered mobile equipment was operating.
  • 2017

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

    Date charges laid: June 19, 2017

    Location of alleged offence: Canmore

    Date of alleged offence: June 26, 2015

    Type: Reportable Incident

    Description: A contractor was excavating for footings and foundations at a new development site and struck a gas main. This resulted in an explosion which destroyed one home and damaged several others. No workers were injured. One worker was taken to the hospital as a precautionary measure.

    Contravention: APM Construction Service Inc. was charged with 7 counts:

    • Section 2(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker.
    • Section 2(5) of the OHS Act, being a contractor who directed the activities of an employer at a worksite, failed to ensure the employer complied with this Act, the regulations and the adopted code.
    • Section 7(5) of the OHS Code, being a prime contractor, failed to ensure an employer on a work site was made aware of any existing or potential work site hazards.
    • Section 9(1) of the OHS Code, being an employer, failed to eliminate or control a hazard.
    • Section 10(1)(a) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that where emergency action was required to control or eliminate a hazard that was dangerous to the health or safety of workers, only those workers competent in correcting the condition, and the minimum number necessary to correct the condition, could be exposed to the hazard.
    • Section 447(3) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure locate marks for buried or concrete-embedded facilities were re-established if activities at the work site moved or destroyed the locate marks.
    • Section 448(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that work with mechanical excavation equipment was not permitted within the hand expose zone of a buried facility until the buried facility had been exposed to sight by hand-digging or a non-destructive technique acceptable to the owner of the buried facility.

    Ground Zero Grading Inc. was charged with 6 counts:

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

    Jerry Arbeau was charged with 1 count:

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

    Andrew Pacaud was charged with 1 count:

    • Section 2(2)(a) of the OHS Act, while engaged in an occupation, failed to protect the health and safety of other workers present while the worker was working.
  • 2016

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

    Date charges laid: January 18, 2016

    Location of alleged offence: Acheson

    Date of alleged offence: October 14, 2014

    Type: Reportable Incident

    Description: Workers were attempting to replace/repair a tire on a semi-truck. A worker went under the trailer to begin work. A second worker instructed the driver to move forward without verifying the first worker’s location. The first worker was consequently run over by the semi-trailer. The worker was transported by EMS to the University of Alberta Hospital for serious injuries. The injuries required surgery which resulted in hospitalization for greater than two days.

    Contravention: Kal Tire et al have been charged with 5 counts:

    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health And Safety (OHS) Act
    • Section 189 of the OHS Code
    • Section 194(1) of the OHS Code
    • Section 212 of the OHS Code
    • Section 259(1)(a) of the OHS Code

     

  • 2015

    Charged is: Midwest Pipelines Inc.

    Date charges laid: December 9, 2015

    Location of alleged offence: Manville

    Date of alleged offence: December 12, 2013

    Type: Other Incident

    Description: Workers were attaching a stick (boom) to a side boom (mobile equipment used to lower pipe into an excavation). The workers were using a second side boom to hoist and place the stick into the first side boom. During the hoist, the stick fell and contacted a worker causing serious injuries to his foot.

    Contravention: Midwest Pipelines Inc. has been charged with 8 counts:

    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act
    • Section 12(1)(b) of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation
    • Section 9(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Code
    • Section 70(1)(c) of the Occupational Health And Safety Code
    • Section 293(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Code
    • Section 298(1)(b) of the Occupational Health and Safety Code
    • Section 298(1)(c) of the Occupational Health and Safety Code
    • Section 303(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Code

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