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When charges are withdrawn, stayed, appealed or the work site party is found not guilty, the outcomes are posted at Prosecution outcomes and the pending charges are removed from this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

    Date charges laid: July 19, 2021

    Location of alleged offence: Calgary

    Date of alleged offence: August 16, 2019

    Type: Fatality

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

    Contravention: Inland Machining Services Ltd. was charged with 33 counts:

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

    Charged is: Northern Services (1978) (High Level) Ltd., Thomas Gramson

    Date charges laid: July 26, 2021

    Location of alleged offence: High Level

    Date of alleged offence: September 1, 2020

    Type: Fatality

    Description: A worker was in an excavation installing the bottom section on a septic tank when a portion of the excavation released and struck the worker. The worker was fatally injured.

    Contravention: Northern Services (1978) (High Level) Ltd., being an employer, was charged with eight 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, engaged in the work of that employer.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 1 by permitting worker 1 to be in an excavation that was not cut back or shored.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 1 by failing to follow their own ground disturbance procedure.
    • Section 443(1)(a) of the OHS Code, failure to stabilize the soil in an excavation by shoring or cutting back.
    • Section 446(1) of the OHS Code, failure to provide workers with a safe means of entering and leaving an excavation.
    • Section 446(2) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure worker 1 did not enter an excavation that did not comply with Part 32 of the OHS Code contrary to Section 446(2) of the OHS Code.
    • Section 446(2) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure their worker, worker 2, did not enter an excavation that did not comply with Part 32 of the OHS Code, contrary to Section 446(2) of the OHS Code.
    • Section 450(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure before a worker began working in an excavation that was more that 1.5 metres deep and was closer to the wall or bank than the depth of the excavation, that the worker was protected from cave-ins or sliding or rolling materials.

    Thomas Lawrence Gramson, being a supervisor, was charged with one count:

    • Section 4(a)(ii) of the OHS Act, failure to take all precautions necessary to protect the health and safety of a worker under his supervision, worker 1, by permitting worker 1 to enter an unsafe excavation.

    Charged is: Emcon Services Inc.

    Date charges laid: April 26, 2021

    Location of alleged offence: Camrose

    Date of alleged offence: June 12, 2019

    Type: Serious Incident

    Description: A worker was tasked with assisting in the lowering of equipment ramps on a tandem trailer when the ramps released, striking the worker causing serious injury. The worker was admitted to hospital.

    Contravention: Emcon Services Inc., being an employer, was charged with 24 counts:

    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of that employer, worker 1.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 1 by failing to remove a defective trailer from service until repaired or replaced.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 1 by failing to ensure that worker 1 was protected from injury by the ramp of a defective trailer.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 1 by failing to implement and/or monitor the implementation of a safe work practice or procedure governing the removal of defective equipment from service until repaired or replaced.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 1 by failing to adequately manage, supervise or direct worker 2 and/or worker 3 and/or worker 1 in the safe performance of their work while using a defective trailer.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 1 by failing to ensure that worker 2, and/or worker 3 and/or worker 1 were adequately trained in the task of unloading equipment from a defective trailer.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 1 by failing to ensure that an adequate hazard assessment (H/A) for the task of unloading equipment from a defective trailer was performed on the work site.
    • Section 40(1) of the OHS Act, failure to report the time, place and nature of an injury or incident to a Director of Inspection as soon as possible where an injury or incident at a work site resulted in a worker, worker 1, being admitted to a hospital.
    • Section 40(9) of the OHS Act, being a person, and without being otherwise directed by a Director of Inspection, an OHS officer or a police officer, and except insofar as was necessary in attending to a person injured, preventing further injuries or incidents, and protecting property endangered as a result of the incident or injury, did disturb the scene of an injury or incident required to be reported under Section 40(1) of the OHS Act, by moving and/or removing equipment from the scene, contrary to Section 40(9) of the OHS Act.
    • Section 7(1)(a) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that, where Section 12(d) of the OHS Code required work, the unloading of mobile equipment from a trailer, to be done in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications, the workers responsible for the work were familiar with the specifications, contrary to Section 7(1)(a) of the OHS Regulation.
    • Section 7(1)(b) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that, where Section 12(d) of the OHS Code required work, the unloading of mobile equipment from a trailer, to be done in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications, the specifications were readily available to the workers responsible for the work, contrary to Section 7(1)(b) of the OHS Regulation.
    • Section 7(2) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that, where Section 12(d) of the OHS Code referred to manufacturer’s specifications, and during the period of time that the matters referred to in the specifications of a trailer were in use, a legible copy of the specifications was readily available to workers 1,2 and 3 contrary to Section 7(2) of the OHS Regulation.
    • Section 12(1)(a) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure equipment used at a work site, a trailer, 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 equipment used at a work site, a trailer, would safely perform the function for which it was intended or was designed.
    • Section 12(1)(d) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure equipment used at a work site, a trailer, was free from obvious defects.
    • Section 13(1) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that if work, unloading of mobile equipment, was to be done that could endanger a worker, the work was done by a worker competent to do the work or by a worker working under the direct supervision of a worker who was competent to do the work.
    • Section 15(1) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that worker 1 was trained in the safe operation of the equipment, a trailer, the worker was required to operate.
    • Section 7(1) of OHS Code, failure to assess its work site and identify existing and potential hazards before work began.
    • Section 7(2) of OHS Code, failure to prepare a report of the results of an H/A, and the methods used to control or eliminate the hazards identified.
    • Section 7(4)(c) of OHS Code, failure to ensure that an H/A was repeated when a work process or operation, the unloading of mobile equipment from a trailer of which the air system for lowering its ramps was defective, was done.
    • Section 8(1) of OHS Code, failure to involve an affected worker, worker 1, in an H/A and in the control or elimination of the hazards identified.
    • Section 12(d) of OHS Code, failure to ensure equipment, a trailer, was operated or handled in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications: “Ensure that the area behind the ramps is clear and obstruction free” and “Wait until the ramps lower to the ground before moving to the rear of the trailer” and “Insure ramp lowering area is clear”.
    • Section 12(d) of OHS Code, failure to ensure equipment, a trailer, was operated or handled in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications: “Keep safety decals and signs clean and legible at all times” and “Replace safety decals and signs that are missing or have become illegible”.
    • Section 189 of OHS Code, failure to ensure equipment, a trailer, was operated or handled in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications: to take all reasonable steps to ensure, where a worker, worker 1, could be injured if equipment, a trailer, was dislodged, moved or damaged, that the equipment was contained, restrained or protected to eliminate the potential danger.

    Charged is: Insituform Technologies Limited

    Date charges laid: March 15, 2021

    Location of alleged offence: Edmonton

    Date of alleged offence: March 21, 2019

    Type: Serious Incident

    Description: A worker was rolling tubing into the back of a tractor trailer with hydraulic rollers in order to push the tubing to the back when the worker’s arm got caught in the rollers. The worker suffered serious injuries to their arm.

    Contravention: Insituform Technologies Limited, being an employer, was charged with 8 counts:

    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of workers engaged in the work of that employer, including worker 1, by failing to adequately train workers and supervisors in the safe use, adjustment and maintenance of conveyors.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their workers, including worker 1, by failing to adequately supervise, audit the work and discipline the workers.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their workers, including worker 1, by failing to provide adequate equipment, a conveyor belt and guard.
    • Section 7(1) of the Alberta Regulation, failure to ensure that if the Act, a regulation or an adopted code required work to be done in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications or specifications certified by a professional engineer, that the workers responsible for the work were familiar with the specifications and the specifications were readily available to the workers responsible for the work.
    • Section 7(2) of the Alberta Regulation, failure to ensure that if the Act, a regulation or an adopted code referred to a manufacturer’s or employer’s specifications or specifications certified by a professional engineer, that during the period of time that the matters referred to in the specifications were in use, a legible copy of the specifications were readily available to the workers affected by them.
    • Section 13(2) of the Alberta Regulation, being an employer who developed or implemented a procedure or other measure respecting the work at a work site, failed to ensure that all workers who were affected by the procedure or measure were familiar with it before the work was done.
    • Section 13(4) of Alberta Regulation, failure to ensure their worker, Worker 1, performed a duty imposed by a regulation or an adopted code, Section 372(3) of the OHS Code, contrary to Section 13(4) of the Alberta Regulation.
    • Section 212(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that 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 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 accidental activation and provided equal or greater protection, contrary to Section 212(1) of the OHS Code.

    Charged is: Precision Drilling Corporation; Precision Drilling Canada Limited Partnership, a Partnership; Precision Drilling Canada Limited Partnership, a Partnership, Carrying on Business Under the Firm Name and Style of Precision Drilling; Precision Drilling Canada Limited Partnership, a Partnership, through its’ general partner Precision Diversified Oilfield Services Corp.; Precision Diversified Oilfield Services Corp.; Vanoco Consulting Ltd.; Codeco-Vanoco Engineering Inc.; Vanoco Supervision Ltd.; and Whitecap Resources Inc.

    Date charges laid: March 3, 2021

    Location of alleged offence: Municipal District of Greenview

    Date of alleged offence: March 10, 2019

    Type: Fatality

    Description: A floor hand was assisting the rig manager and the wellsite supervisor to move a skid mounted pump house. The floor hand, standing between the bulldozer and the pump house, was hooking a tow chain from the skid of the pump house to the ripper tooth on the bulldozer. The wellsite supervisor, operating the bulldozer, inadvertently backed into the floor hand and pinned the floor hand between the dozer and the pump house causing fatal injuries.

    Contravention: Precision Drilling Corporation; Precision Drilling Canada Limited Partnership, a Partnership; Precision Drilling Canada Limited Partnership, a Partnership, carrying on business under the firm name and style of Precision Drilling; Precision Drilling Canada Limited Partnership, a Partnership, through its’ general partner Precision Diversified Oilfield Services Corp.; Precision Diversified Oilfield Services Corp.; Vanoco Consulting Ltd.; Codeco-Vanoco Engineering Inc.; Vanoco Supervision Ltd.; and Whitecap Resources Inc., being the employer, were charged with:

    • Section 3(1)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure, by means of a pre-job safety meeting with all the workers involved in the work, the safety of workers engaged in the work of that employer, workers not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site at which that work is being carried out and other persons at or in the vicinity of the work site, including worker 1, who may have been affected by hazards originating in the work site.
    • Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the safety of workers and other persons at or in the vicinity of the work site, including worker 1, by failing to require and enforce the use of adequate and appropriate equipment and materials.
    • Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the safety of workers and other persons at or in the vicinity of the work site, including worker 1, by failing to implement a safe work procedure for moving pump houses.
    • Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the safety of workers and other persons at or in the vicinity of the work site, including worker 1, by failing to implement and enforce administrative controls or workplace rules or directions or training.
    • Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the safety of workers and other persons at or in the vicinity of the work site, including worker 1, by failing to prevent a person who was not sufficiently competent from operating equipment.
    • Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the safety of workers and other persons at or in the vicinity of the work site, including worker 1, by failing to adequately supervise workers or stop the work if they could not work safely.
    • Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the safety of workers and other persons at or in the vicinity of the work site, including worker 1, by failing to require workers or supervisors to maintain an adequate state of alertness, calmness or sobriety.

    And further that:

    Vanoco Consulting Ltd.; Codeco-Vanoco Engineering Inc.; Vanoco Supervision Ltd.; and Whitecap Resources Inc., being the contractor, were charged with:

    • Section 9(1) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by means of a pre-job safety meeting with all the workers involved in the work, that every work site where an employer, employer’s worker or self-employed person worked pursuant to a contract with the contractor, and every work process or procedure performed at a work site by an employer, employer’s worker or self-employed person 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, including worker 1.
    • Section 9(1) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by means of requiring and enforcing the use of adequate and appropriate equipment and materials, that every work site did not create a risk to the health and safety of any person, including worker 1.
    • Section 9(1) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by means of implementing a safe work procedure for moving pump houses that every work site did not create a risk to the health and safety of any person, including worker 1.
    • Section 9(1) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by means of implementing and enforcing administrative controls or workplace rules or directions or training, that every work site did not create a risk to the health and safety of any person, including worker 1.
    • Section 9(1) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by means of preventing a person who was not sufficiently competent from operating equipment, that every work site did not create a risk to the health and safety of any person, including worker 1.
    • Section 9(1) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by means of adequately supervising workers or stopping the work if they could not work safely, that every work site did not create a risk to the health and safety of any person, including worker 1.
    • Section 9(1) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by means of requiring workers or supervisors to maintain an adequate state of alertness, calmness or sobriety, that every work site did not create a risk to the health and safety of any person, including worker 1.

    And further that:

    Precision Drilling Corporation; Precision Drilling Canada Limited Partnership, a Partnership; Precision Drilling Canada Limited Partnership, a Partnership, carrying on business under the firm name and style of Precision Drilling; Precision Drilling Canada Limited Partnership, a Partnership, through its’ general partner Precision Diversified Oilfield Services Corp.; Precision Diversified Oilfield Services Corp., being the employer, were charged with:

    • Section 12(1)(c) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that equipment used at a work site, a chain, was of adequate strength for its purpose.

    And further that:

    Precision Drilling Corporation; Precision Drilling Canada Limited Partnership, a Partnership; Precision Drilling Canada Limited Partnership, a Partnership, carrying on business under the firm name and style of Precision Drilling; Precision Drilling Canada Limited Partnership, a Partnership, through its’ general partner Precision Diversified Oilfield Services Corp.; Precision Diversified Oilfield Services Corp.; Vanoco Consulting Ltd.; Codeco-Vanoco Engineering Inc.; Vanoco Supervision Ltd.; and Whitecap Resources Inc., being the employer, were charged with:

    • Section 13(4) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that if a regulation or adopted code, Section 256(1) of the OHS Code, imposed a duty on a worker, to worker 2 or worker 3, the worker’s employer was to ensure that the worker performed that duty.
    • Section 13(4) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that if a regulation or adopted code, Section 256(3) of the OHS Code, imposed a duty on a worker, worker 2 or worker 3, the worker’s employer was to ensure that the worker performed that duty.
    • Section 258(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that if the movement of a load or the cab, counterweight or any other part of powered mobile equipment created a danger to workers, the employer not permit a worker to remain within range of the moving load or part.
    • Section 258(3) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that if a worker could be caught between a moving part of a unit of powered mobile equipment and another object, the employer must restrict entry to the area by workers, or require workers to maintain a clearance distance of at least 600 millimetres between the powered mobile equipment and the object.
    • Section 13(1) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that if work was to be done that could endanger a worker, the work was done by a worker who was competent to do the work.
    • 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 189 of the OHS Code, failure to take all reasonable steps to ensure that equipment or material was contained, restrained or protected to eliminate the potential danger if a worker could be injured if equipment or material, a bulldozer or similar item, was dislodged, moved, spilled or damaged.
    • Section 13(4) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that if a regulation or adopted code, Section 367(2) of the OHS Code, imposed a duty on a worker, worker 3, the worker’s employer was to ensure that the worker performed that duty.
    • Section 368 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that an operational control on equipment, a bulldozer or similar item, was designed, located or protected to prevent unintentional activation and if appropriate was suitably identified to indicate the nature or function of the control.

    Charged is: Hank’s Feedmill Service Ltd.

    Date charges laid: February 26, 2021

    Location of alleged offence: Picture Butte

    Date of alleged offence: March 15, 2019

    Type: Fatality

    Description: A delivery driver employed by Transport Madric (inter-provincial trucking company) was dropping off materials. A Hank’s Feedmill Service Ltd. forklift operator was unloading the materials when a pipe rolled off the trailer and fatally injured the delivery driver.

    Contravention: Hank’s Feedmill Service Ltd. was charged, as an employer, with 23 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, engaged in the work of that employer.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure as far as it was reasonably practicable to do so the health and safety of worker 1 by failing to ensure that a pipe was not dislodged from a trailer when the worker was in the immediate vicinity of the trailer.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 1 by failing to develop, implement and monitor the implementation of a safe work practice or safe job procedure for the task of unloading materials.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 1 by failing to adequately supervise or direct another worker, worker 2, in the safe performance of their work in unloading materials.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 1 by failing to adequately supervise or direct worker 1 while worker 2 was unloading materials.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 1 by failing to ensure that worker 2 was adequately trained in the task of safely unloading materials from a trailer.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 1 by failing to ensure that an adequate hazard assessment for the task of unloading materials was performed on the work site.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 1 by failing to ensure that the employer and worker 2 complied with manufacturer specifications of a telehandler: “the operator of the machine must not operate the machine until this manual has been read, training is accomplished and operation of the machine has been completed under the supervision of an experienced and qualified operator.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 1 by failing to ensure that the employer and worker 2 complied with manufacturer specifications of a telehandler: “keep others away while operating”.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(ii) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 1, a worker not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(ii) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 1, a worker not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site, by failing to ensure that a pipe was not dislodged from a trailer when worker 1 was in the immediate vicinity of the trailer.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(ii) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 1, a worker not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site, by failing to develop, implement and monitor the implementation of a safe work practice or safe job procedure for the task of unloading materials.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(ii) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 1, a worker not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site, by failing to adequately supervise or direct worker 2 in the safe performance of their work in unloading materials.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(ii) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 1, a worker not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site, by failing to adequately supervise or direct worker 1 while worker 2 was unloading materials.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(ii) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 1, a worker not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site, by failing to ensure that worker 2 was adequately trained in the task of safely unloading materials from a trailer.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(ii) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 1, a worker not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site, by failing to ensure that an adequate hazard assessment for the task of unloading materials was performed on the work site.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(ii) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 1, a worker not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site, by failing to ensure that the employer and worker 2 complied with manufacturer specifications of a telehandler: “the operator of the machine must not operate the machine until this manual has been read, training is accomplished and operation of the machine has been completed under the supervision of an experienced and qualified operator”.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(ii) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 1, a worker not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site, by failing to ensure that the employer and worker 2 complied with manufacturer specifications of a telehandler: “keep others away while operating”.
    • Section 7(2) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that, where Section 12(d) of the OHS Code refers to manufacturer’s specifications, and during the period of time that the matters referred to in the specifications of a telehandler were in use, a legible copy of the specifications was readily available to a worker, worker 2.
    • Section 13(1) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that if work, unloading of materials, was to be done that could endanger a worker, worker 1, 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 15(1) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that a worker, worker 2, was trained in the safe operation of equipment, a telehandler, the worker was required to operate.
    • Section 189 of the OHS Code, failure to take all reasonable steps to ensure where a worker, worker 1, could be injured if material was dislodged or moved, that the material was restrained to eliminate the potential danger.
    • Section 258(1)(a) of the OHS Code, in circumstances where the movement of a load, a pipe, created a danger to worker(s), did permit a worker, worker 1, to remain within range of the moving load.

    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% 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: 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: 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.

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

Was this page helpful?

All fields are required unless otherwise indicated.

Your submissions are monitored by our web team and are used to help improve the experience on Alberta.ca. If you require a response, please go to our Contact page.

You will not receive a reply. Submissions that include telephone numbers, addresses, or emails will be removed.