Table of contents

Updates to parts of the Occupational Health and Safety Code (OHS Code) take effect on March 31, 2023. Visit the OHS publications portal for more information or read the news release.

Charges pending

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When charges are withdrawn, stayed, appealed or the work site party is found not guilty, the outcomes are posted at Prosecution outcomes and the pending charges are removed from this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

  • 2022

    Charged is: Finning International Inc.

    Date charges laid: December 15, 2022

    Location of alleged offence: Edmonton

    Date of alleged offence: March 31, 2021

    Type: Fatality

    Description: Two workers, employed by Finning International Inc., were attempting to remove a counterweight from an excavator for maintenance work. While removing the last of six bolts, the counterweight fell onto the workers resulting in a fatality and a serious injury.

    Contravention: Finning International Inc., being an employer, was charged with five 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 implement, enforce and/or monitor the use of information as set out in a safety letter.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a second worker engaged in the work of that employer, by failing to implement, enforce and/or monitor the use of information as set out in a safety letter.
    • Section 13(2) of the OHS Regulation, being an employer who implemented a procedure respecting the work at a work site, failed to ensure all workers who are affected by the procedure were familiar with it before the work began.
    • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure equipment, a counterweight, was serviced, tested, adjusted, calibrated, maintained, repaired and dismantled in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications or the specifications certified by a professional engineer. 
    • Section 189 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that if a worker could be injured if equipment or material was dislodged, moved, spilled or damaged, that all reasonable steps were taken to ensure the equipment or material was contained, restrained or protected to eliminate the potential danger.

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

    Date charges laid: November 16, 2022

    Location of alleged offence: County of Newell

    Date of alleged offence: July 23, 2021

    Type: Fatality

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

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

    • Section 3(1)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the safety of workers engaged in the work of that employer, by means of ensuring that no worker clear, clean, or work in proximity to any device including a conveyor which was capable of movement.
    • Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the safety of workers engaged in the work of that employer, by means of adequately supervising their worker or stopping work if their worker could not be adequately supervised.
    • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that equipment and supplies were erected, installed, assembled, started, operated, handled, stored, serviced, tested, adjusted, calibrated, maintained, repaired and dismantled in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications or the specifications certified by a professional engineer.
    • Section 46(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a worker assigned duties related to confined space or restricted space entry was trained by a competent person in recognizing hazards associated with working in confined spaces or restricted spaces and performing the worker’s duties in a safe and healthy manner.
    • Section 47(3) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that before a worker entered a confined space, an entry permit was properly completed, signed by a competent person and a copy kept readily available.
    • Section 48(1)(f) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a communication system was established that was readily available to workers in a confined space or a restricted space and was appropriate to the hazards.
    • Section 55(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a worker did not enter or remain in a confined space or a restricted space unless an effective rescue could be carried out.
    • Section 56(1) of the OHS Code, failure to designate a competent worker to be in communication with a worker in the confined space or restricted space for every confined space or restricted space entry.
    • Section 57 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a safe means of entry and exit was available to all workers required to work in a confined space or a restricted space and to all rescue personnel attending to the workers.
    • Section 119(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that every worker could enter a work area safely and leave a work area safely at all times.
    • Section 212(1) of the OHS Code, where machinery, equipment or powered mobile equipment was to be serviced, repaired, tested, adjusted or inspected, did fail to ensure that no worker performed such work on the machinery, equipment or powered mobile equipment until it had come to a complete stop and (a) all hazardous energy at the location at which the work was to be carried out was isolated by activation of an energy-isolating device and the energy-isolating device was secured in accordance with Section 214, 215, or 215.1 as designated by the employer, or (b) the machinery, equipment or powered mobile equipment was otherwise rendered inoperative in a manner that prevented its accidental activation and provided equal or greater protection than the protection afforded under (a).
    • Section 310(2) of the OHS Code, failure to provide safeguards if a worker could accidentally, or through the work process, come into contact with moving parts of machinery or equipment, material being fed into or removed from process machinery or equipment, machinery or equipment that could be hazardous due to its operation, or any other hazard.
    • Section 316 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that if a worker could access materials in hoppers, bins or chutes, that the hoppers, bins or chutes had horizontal bars, screens or equally effective safeguards that prevented a worker from falling into the hoppers, bins or chutes.
    • Section 366 of the OHS Code, failure to install a positive means to prevent the activation of equipment if a worker was required, during the course of the work process, to feed material into the machine or a part of the worker’s body was within the danger zone of the machine.
    • Section 13(4) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that if a Regulation or Adopted Code, Section 372(2) of the OHS Code, imposed a duty on a worker, the worker’s employer was to ensure that the worker performed that duty.

    Charged is: Calgary Pallet Inc.

    Date charges laid: November 15, 2022

    Location of alleged offence: Calgary

    Date of alleged offence: November 4, 2021

    Type: Serious Incident

    Description: A worker was removing cut pieces of lumber from an operating pallet notcher when they got their hand caught in one of the cutting heads on the unit.  The worker was seriously injured.

    Contravention: Calgary Pallet Inc., being an employer, was charged with three counts:

    • Section 3(2)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure that a worker was adequately trained in all matters necessary to protect their health and safety before they began performing a work activity.
    • Section 13(1) of the OHS Regulation, where work was to be done that could endanger a worker, did fail to ensure that the work was done  by a worker who was competent to do the work or working under the direct supervision of a worker who was competent to do the work.
    • Section 13(2) of the OHS Regulation, being an employer who developed a procedure or other measure respecting the work at a work site, failed to ensure that a worker affected by the procedure or measure was familiar with it before the work was begun.

    Charged is: Christina River Construction Ltd.; Christina River Enterprises (1987) Ltd; Fort McMurray First Nation Group of Companies Ltd., previously known as Christina River Enterprises GP Inc.; Suncor Energy Services Inc.; Suncor Energy Inc.

    Date charges laid: November 1, 2022

    Location of alleged offence: Fort McMurray

    Date of alleged offence: January 13, 2021

    Type: Serious Fatality

    Description: A worker was fatally injured when the bulldozer the worker was operating broke through the ice on a tailings pond.

    Contravention: Christina River Construction Ltd.; Christina River Enterprises (1987) Ltd; and Fort McMurray First Nation Group of Companies Ltd., previously known as Christina River Enterprises GP Inc., being an employer, were charged with nine counts:

    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of that employer,  by permitting the worker to operate a John Deere Dozer on ice when it was unsafe to do so.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by permitting and/or directing the worker to operate a John Deere Dozer on ice that was too thin to support the load of the John Deere Dozer.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker, by permitting and/or directing the worker to operate a John Deere Dozer on ice, an area of a tailings pond known as Drill Site GL 084 on Pond 8B, when available ice measurements showed that the minimum ice thickness was not 17 inches, as required by Suncor’s “Pond 8B Drill site Construction Safe Work Plan”.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker, by failing to ensure that adequate ice measurements were taken to ensure it was safe to access the ice.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker, by failing to ensure ground penetrating radar was used for ice profiling prior to permitting John Deere Dozers to operate on ice.
    • 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 wore a personal floatation device when operating a John Deere Dozer on ice on a tailings pond.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker, by failing to ensure a safety plan was in place that directed dozer operator(s) to not to wear a seatbelt and to keep the cab door of their dozer unlatched when operating on ice.
    • Section 195(1) of the OHS Code, where a worker, was to work on ice and the water beneath the ice was more than 1 metre deep at any point, did fail to ensure that the ice would support the load to be placed on it.
    • Section 195(2) of the OHS Code, where a worker, was to work on ice and the water beneath the ice was more than 1 metre deep at any point, did fail to test the ice before work began and as often during the work as was necessary to ensure the safety of workers. 

    Suncor Energy Services Inc. and Suncor Energy Inc. were charged with 19 counts:

    • Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure  (a)  the health and safety of (i) workers engaged in the work of that employer, (ii) those workers not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site at which that work was being carried out, and (iii) other persons at or in the vicinity of the work site who may be affected by hazards originating from the work site, by permitting worker(s) to operate equipment on a frozen tailings pond known as Pond 8B, when it was unsafe to do so.
    • Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure  (a)  the health and safety of (i) workers engaged in the work of that employer, (ii) workers not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site and (iii) other persons at or in the vicinity of the work site who may be affected by work site hazards, by permitting a worker to operate a John Deere Dozer on a tailings pond known as Pond 8B when it was unsafe to do so.
    • Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure  (a)  the health and safety of (i) workers engaged in the work of that employer, (ii) workers not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site and (iii) other persons at or in the vicinity of the work site who may be affected by work site hazards, by permitting a worker to operate a John Deere Dozer on ice, an area of a tailings pond, known as Drill Site GL 084 on Pond 8B, when available ice measurements showed that the minimum ice thickness was not 17 inches, as required by Suncor’s “Pond 8B Drill site Construction Safe Work Plan”.
    • Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure  (a)  the health and safety of (i) workers engaged in the work of that employer, (ii) workers not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site and (iii) other persons at or in the vicinity of the work site who may be affected by work site hazards, by failing to ensure that adequate ice measurements were taken to ensure it was safe to access the ice.
    • Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure  (a)  the health and safety of (i) workers engaged in the work of that employer, (ii) workers not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site and (iii) other persons at or in the vicinity of the work site who may be affected by work site hazards, by failing to ensure ground penetrating radar was used for ice profiling prior to permitting John Deere Dozers to operate on ice.
    • Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure  (a)  the health and safety of (i) workers engaged in the work of that employer, (ii) workers not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site and (iii) other persons at or in the vicinity of the work site who may be affected by work site hazards, by failing to require workers at risk of drowning to wear a personal floatation device.
    • Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure  (a)  the health and safety of (i) workers engaged in the work of that employer, (ii) workers not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site and (iii) other persons at or in the vicinity of the work site who may be affected by work site hazards, by failing to ensure a safety plan was in place that directed dozer operator(s) to not wear a seatbelt and to keep the cab door of their dozer unlatched when operating on ice.
    • Section 10(5)(b) of the OHS Act, being a prime contractor, failure to coordinate, organize and oversee the performance of all work at the work site to ensure that no person was exposed to hazards arising out of, or in connection with, activities at the work site, by permitting worker(s) operating John Deere Dozers to access a tailings pond known as Pond 8B when it was unsafe to do so.
    • Section 10(5)(b) of the OHS Act, being a prime contractor, failure to ensure that no person was exposed to hazards arising out of, or in connection with, activities at the work site, by permitting John Deere Dozer operation on an area of a tailings pond known as Drill Site GL 084, Pond 8B  when available ice measurements showed that the minimum ice thickness was not 17 inches, as required by Suncor’s “Pond 8B Drill site Construction Safe Work Plan”.
    • Section 10(5)(b) of the OHS Act, being a prime contractor, failure to ensure that no person was exposed to hazards arising out of, or in connection with, activities at the work site by failing to ensure that adequate ice measurements were taken to ensure it was safe to access the ice.
    • Section 10(5)(b) of the OHS Act, being a prime contractor, failure to ensure that no person was exposed to hazards arising out of, or in connection with, activities at the work site by failing to ensure ground penetrating radar was used for ice profiling prior to permitting John Deere Dozers to operate on ice.
    • Section 10(5)(b) of the OHS Act, being a prime contractor, failure to ensure that no person was exposed to hazards arising out of, or in connection with, activities at the work site by failing to ensure that a safety plan was in place requiring workers at risk of drowning to wear a personal floatation device.
    • Section 10(5)(b) of the OHS Act, being a prime contractor, failure to ensure that no person was exposed to hazards arising out of, or in connection with, activities at the work site by failing to ensure a safety plan was in place that directed dozer operators to  not wear a seatbelt and to keep the cab door of their dozer unlatched when operating on ice.
    • Section 10(5)(b) of the OHS Act, being a prime contractor, failure to ensure that no person was exposed to hazards arising out of, or in connection with, activities at the work site by developing a safe work plan, “Pond 8B Drill site Construction Safe Work Plan” that underestimated the weight of equipment referred to as “dozers” and failed to account for the weight of snow, when calculating required ice thickness for safe access.
    • Section 10(5)(b) of the OHS Act, being a prime contractor, failure to ensure that no person was exposed to hazards arising out of, or in connection with, activities at the work site by failing to ensure that the work site, a tailing pond known as Pond 8B, was under the control of an ice engineer or other individual who was competent to determine how to safely work on ice and to implement safe working on ice procedures.
    • Section 10(5)(b) of the OHS Act, being a prime contractor, failure to ensure that no person was exposed to hazards arising out of, or in connection with, activities at the work site by permitting work to proceed on Drill site GL 084 contrary to the 2021 MLM Winter Geology Drilling Program, which states: “any locations with greater than 1 m of standing water will be deferred for safety reasons”.
    • Section 10(5)(g) of the OHS Act, being a prime contractor, failure to comply with the OHS Act, the Regulations and the OHS Code, by failing to comply with Section 195 of the OHS Code contrary to Section 10(5)(g) of the OHS Act.
    • Section 195(1) of the OHS Code, being an employer where a worker was to work on ice and the water beneath the ice was more than 1 metre deep at any point, did fail to ensure that the ice would support the load to be placed on it.
    • Section 195(2) of the OHS Code, being an employer where a worker was to work on ice and the water beneath the ice was more than 1 metre deep at any point, did fail to test the ice before work began and as often during the work as necessary to ensure the safety of workers.

    Charged is: Great Northern Plumbing Inc.

    Date charges laid: July 5, 2022

    Location of alleged offence: Calgary

    Date of alleged offence: August 10, 2020

    Type: Serious Incident

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

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

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

    Charged is: Roberts Roofing 2017 Inc.; Vincent Roberts

    Date charges laid: June 7, 2022

    Location of alleged offence: Edmonton

    Date of alleged offence: August 21, 2020

    Type: Fatality

    Description: A roofer was working on a residential roof when they fell off, resulting in fatal injuries.

    Contravention: Roberts Roofing 2017 Inc. and Vincent Roberts, being an employer, were charged with eight counts:

    • Section 3(1)(b) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure their workers were aware of their rights and duties under this act, the regulations and OHS Code and of any health and safety issues arising from the work being conducted at the work site.
    • Section 13(1) 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 that 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 the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure workers who could be required to use safety equipment or personal protective equipment were competent in the application, care, use, maintenance and limitations of that equipment.
    • Section 139(1)(a) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure workers were protected from falling at a temporary work area where the workers could fall a vertical distance of 3 metres or more.
    • Section 140(1) of the OHS Code, failure to develop procedures that complied with Part 9 in a fall protection plan for a work site where workers could fall 3 metres or more and the workers were not protected by guardrails.
    • Section 141(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure workers were trained in the safe use of the fall protection system before allowing the workers to work in an area where a fall protection system must be used.
    • Section 141(3) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure workers were made aware of the fall hazards particular to that work site and the steps taken to eliminate or control those hazards.
    • 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.

    Charged is: Blue Collar Silviculture Ltd.

    Date charges laid: May 19, 2022

    Location of alleged offence: County of Mackenzie

    Date of alleged offence: July 2, 2020

    Type: Fatality

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

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

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

    Charged is: Brewster Inc.

    Date charges laid: May 10, 2022

    Location of alleged offence: Jasper

    Date of alleged offence: July 18, 2020

    Type: Serious Incident

    Description: On July 18, 2020, a bus rolled over on an off road tour at the Columbia Icefield that resulted in the bus driver being seriously injured and causing deaths and injuries to passengers.

    Contravention: Brewster Inc. was charged, being 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 of a worker engaged in the work of that employer, by failing to mandate seat belt usage.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by failing to maintain seatbelts.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(iii) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of other persons, the passengers, on the ice explorer at or in the vicinity of the work site who could be affected by hazards originating from the work site of that employer, by failing to control the hazard of the grade of the slope of the lateral moraine.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(iii) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of passenger 1 at or in the vicinity of the work site who could be affected by hazards originating from the work site of that employer, by failing to control the hazard of the grade of the slope of the lateral moraine.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(iii) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of passenger 2 at or in the vicinity of the work site who could be affected by hazards originating from the work site of that employer, by failing to control the hazard of the grade of the slope of the lateral moraine.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(iii) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of passenger 3 at or in the vicinity of the work site who could be affected by hazards originating from the work site of that employer, by failing to control the hazard of the grade of the slope of the lateral moraine.
    • 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 was designed.
    • Section 12(1)(d) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that all equipment used at a work site was free from obvious defects.

     

    Charged is: Emcon Services Inc.

    Date charges laid: March 8, 2022

    Location of alleged offence: Mannville

    Date of alleged offence: December 16, 2020

    Type: Serious Incident

    Description: Three workers were struck by a vehicle when conducting pot hole repairs on Highway 16.

    Contravention: Emcon Services Inc. was charged, as an employer, with four 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, who were struck by a car when working on a highway.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their workers by permitting them to work on a highway without a crash truck in circumstances where traffic was dangerous to them.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their workers by failing to ensure they used a crash truck as a method of protection.
    • Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their workers by failing to protect workers from collision(s) by providing a barrier.

    Charged is: Emcon Services Inc.

    Date charges laid: January 20, 2022

    Location of alleged offence: Vegreville

    Date of alleged offence: October 6, 2020

    Type: Serious Incident

    Description: Two Emcon operators were conducting machine service duties. One worker become lodged into a slow moving conveyor, causing a significant arm injury requiring hospitalization.

    Contravention: Emcon Services Inc. 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 of a worker, engaged in the work of that employer, by permitting the worker to work near moving parts of a sand mixing machine when it was unsafe to do so.
    • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure equipment, an Elrus sand mixing machine, was operated, handled, serviced, maintained, or repaired, in accordance with the specifications of a professional engineer or with the manufacturer's specifications, which stated "lockout and test all energy sources before attempting any maintenance”.
    • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure an Elrus sand mixing machine, was operated, handled, serviced, maintained, or repaired, in accordance with the specifications of a professional engineer or with the manufacturer's specifications, which stated "maintain a safe distance from equipment during operation at all times".
    • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure an Elrus sand mixing machine, was operated, handled, serviced, maintained, or repaired, in accordance with the specifications of a professional engineer or with the manufacturer's specifications, which stated "keep clear of head and tail pulleys and rollers while conveyor is in operation".
    • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure an Elrus sand mixing machine, was operated, handled, serviced, maintained, or repaired, in accordance with the specifications of a professional engineer or with the manufacturer's specifications, which stated "do not: remove obstruction or attempt any maintenance while engine is running".
    • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure an Elrus sand mixing machine, was operated, handled, serviced, maintained, or repaired, in accordance with the specifications of a professional engineer or with the manufacturer's specifications, which stated "do not: stand within a 15 metre (50 foot) radius of the machine when it is in operation”.
    • 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) contrary to Section 212(1) of the OHS Code.
    • Section 310(2)(a) of the OHS Code, failure to provide safeguards if a worker could accidently, or through the work process, come into contact with moving parts of machinery or equipment.
  • 2021

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

    Date charges laid: October 20, 2021

    Location of alleged offence: Edmonton

    Date of alleged offence: October 27, 2020

    Type: Fatality

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

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

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

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

    Date charges laid: September 27, 2021

    Location of alleged offence: Airdrie

    Date of alleged offence: October 2, 2019

    Type: Fatality

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

    Contravention: Volker Stevin Contracting Ltd. was charged, as an employer, with 26 counts:

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

    Michael Joseph O’Neill was charged with 4 counts:

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

    Donald Neustaedter was charged with 3 counts:

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

    Charged is: Inland Machining Services Ltd.

    Date charges laid: July 19, 2021

    Location of alleged offence: Calgary

    Date of alleged offence: August 16, 2019

    Type: Fatality

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

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

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

    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.

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.