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

When charges are withdrawn, stayed, appealed or the work site party is found not guilty, the outcomes are posted at Prosecution outcomes and the pending charges are removed from this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

Charges

  • 2019

    Charged is: 336239 Alberta Ltd. operating as (o/a) Dave’s Diesel Repair; 336239 Alberta Ltd.; Dave’s Diesel Repair

    Date charges laid: December 9, 2019

    Location of alleged offence: Edmonton

    Date of alleged offence: December 19, 2017

    Type: Fatality

    Description: A worker was overcome by carbon monoxide gas while in the upstairs change/lunch rooms. A suspected mechanical fault of the boiler exhaust system in the mechanical room leading to carbon monoxide being introduced into the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system.

    Contravention: 336239 Alberta Ltd. o/a Dave’s Diesel Repair; 336239 Alberta Ltd.; Dave’s Diesel Repair, as employers, were charged with 14 counts:

    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of these employers by failing to ensure that their worker was protected from exposure to carbon monoxide poisoning.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by failing to ensure that the worker was protected from exposure to carbon monoxide poisoning caused by a leak from a gas-fired boiler system.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by failing to ensure that equipment, a gas-fired boiler system (boiler system), would safely perform the function for which it was intended or designed.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by failing to ensure the boiler system was maintained in a condition that would not compromise the health or safety of workers using it.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by failing to ensure that the exhaust vent piping and joints of the boiler system were inspected for carbon monoxide leakage.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by failing to ensure that the exhaust vent piping, joints and piping supports of the boiler system were inspected.
    • Section 12(1)(b) of Alberta OHS Regulation, failure to ensure equipment used at the work site, the boiler system, would safely perform the function for which it was intended or was designed.
    • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that the boiler system was serviced, maintained or repaired in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications contained in the maintenance manual, which stated, “Warning”, illustrated by a safety alert symbol, and “Have this boiler serviced/inspected by a qualified service technician annually. Failure to adhere to the guidelines on this page can result in… severe personal injury or death.”
    • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that the boiler system was serviced, repaired or maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications contained in the maintenance manual, which stated, “Inspect…exhaust piping thoroughly to ensure all joints are well secured, airtight…and comply with the instructions provided in this manual”.
    • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that the boiler system was serviced, repaired or maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications contained in the maintenance manual, which stated, “All joints …must be sealed completely to prevent leakage of flue products in to living space. Failure to do so could result in carbon monoxide leakage….severe personal injury or death”.
    • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that the boiler system was serviced, repaired or maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications contained in the maintenance manual, which stated, “All vent pipes must be properly supported….”
    • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that the boiler system was serviced, repaired or maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications contained in the maintenance manual, which stated, “Periodic maintenance should be performed once a year by a qualified service technician to assure that all the equipment is operating safely” and “Warning”, illustrated by a safety alert symbol, and “Before each heating season a trained and qualified service technician should perform the inspections as per the boiler inspection and maintenance schedule in the back of the manual. Failure to do so could result in death or serious injury”.
    • Section 16(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure the exposure of workers to a substance listed in Table 2 of Schedule 1 to the OHS Code, carbon monoxide, was kept as low as reasonably achievable.
    • Section 16(2) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure the exposure of workers to a substance listed in Table 2 of Schedule 1 to the OHS Code, carbon monoxide, did not exceed its occupational exposure limits (OEL).

    Charged is: Taurus Natural Inc.

    Date charges laid: December 5, 2019

    Location of alleged offence: Cardston

    Date of alleged offence: January 30, 2018

    Type: Fatality

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

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

    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker (worker 1) engaged in the work of that employer by failing to sufficiently and adequately train the worker to safely work in the Scott Equipment Batch Mixer Model SRM5412 (mixer).
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 1 by failing to ensure that they were competent to work in the mixer.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 1 by failing to adequately supervise and/or direct them.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 1 by instructing or permitting them to work in a place where a hazard to them would not be dealt with in a timely way.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 1 by failing to create and/or enforce adequate administrative procedures or safeguards to avoid hazards.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 1 by failing protect them from the movement of an object which could constitute a hazard to them.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 1 by failing to have one or more other person(s) present while the worker was in the mixer.
    • Section 15(1) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that a worker (worker 2), was trained in the safe operation of the equipment worker 2 was required to operate.
    • Section 15(1) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that worker 1 was trained in the safe operation of the equipment worker 1 was required to operate.
    • Section 13(1)(a) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that where work was done that may endanger a worker, that work was done by a worker who was competent to do that work.
    • Section 7(1) of the OHS Code, failure to assess its worksite and identify existing or potential hazards before work began at the work site.
    • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that equipment was operated, handled and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications or the specifications certified by a professional engineer.
    • Section 44(1) of the OHS Code, failure to have a written code of practice governing the practices and procedures to be followed when workers entered and worked in a confined space.
    • Section 45(a) of the OHS Code, failure to appoint a competent person to identify and assess hazards that worker 1 was likely to be exposed to while in a confined or restricted space.
    • Section 46(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that worker 1, assigned duties related to confined space or restricted space entry, was trained by a competent person.
    • Section 46(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that worker 2, assigned duties related to confined space or restricted space entry, was trained by a competent person.
    • Section 47(2) of the OHS Code, failure to establish an entry permit system for a confined space, the mixer.
    • Section 49(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that worker 1, within a confined space, was protected against the release of hazardous energy that caused their death.
    • Section 49(3) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure any hazardous energy in a restricted space was controlled in accordance with Part 15.
    • Section 55(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that worker 1 did not enter or remain in a confined space or a restricted space unless an effective rescue could be carried out.
    • Section 56(1) of the OHS Code, failure to designate a competent worker to be in communication with a worker in the confined space or restricted space.
    • Section 189 of the OHS Code, failure to take all reasonable steps to ensure, where a worker maybe injured if equipment or material was dislodged, moved or spilled, that the material or equipment was contained, restrained or protected to eliminate the potential danger.
    • Section 212(1)(a) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure, if machinery, equipment or powered mobile equipment was to be serviced, repaired, tested, adjusted  or inspected, that no worker performed such work on the machinery, equipment or powered mobile equipment, until it had come to a complete stop and all hazardous energy at the location at which the work was to be carried out was isolated by activation of an energy-isolating device and the energy-isolating device was secured in accordance with section 214, 215 or 215.1 as designated by the employer or the machinery, equipment or powered mobile equipment was otherwise rendered inoperative in a manner that prevented its accidental activation and provided equal or greater protection than the protection afforded under Section 212(1)(a) of the OHS Code.
    • Section 214(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that once all energy-isolating devices had been activated to control hazardous energy in accordance with section 212(1) of the OHS Code, that worker 2, involved in work at a location requiring control of hazardous energy, secured the energy isolating device with a personal lock.

    Charged is: Howell's Excavating Ltd.

    Date charges laid: November 18, 2019

    Location of alleged offence: Innisfail

    Date of alleged offence: March 28, 2018

    Type: Serious Incident

    Description: A crew was removing trees from a residential property with a chainsaw and an excavator. The tree being felled “bounced” when it hit the ground and struck the chainsaw operator. The chainsaw operator was taken to the Red Deer hospital with serious injuries.

    Contravention: Howell’s Excavating Ltd. was charged with four counts:

    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of that employer, by using an excavator in conjunction with a chainsaw to fell a tree.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of that employer, by failing to ensure that the worker was adequately trained to safely operate a chainsaw.
    • Section 15(1) of the Alberta Regulation, failure to ensure that a worker was trained in the safe operation of the equipment they were required to operate, an Echo CS0530 chainsaw.
    • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that equipment, an Echo CS-530 chainsaw, was operated in accordance with the specification of a professional engineer or with the manufacture’s specifications, which stated: “Felling Extreme ‘Leaners’: Do not assume that the lean makes notching for directional control unnecessary. The notch is needed, but should not be as deep as the standard 1/3 diameter notch. Before back cutting, make some notches through the sapwood on both sides of the truck to relieve some of the stress, which causes splitting. Stay on the alert for possible splitting, because a splitting tree is dangerous”.

    Charged is: Vesta Energy Corp.; Vesta Energy Ltd.

    Date charges laid: October 28, 2019

    Location of alleged offence: Rural Municipality of Lacombe County

    Date of alleged offence: November 2, 2017

    Type: Serious Incident

    Description: A waterline was pressurized by a compressor to move a pig in the hose in order to remove an ice blockage that had formed. The pig came out at the open end of a coupling with force causing the hose to swing violently. A worker onsite sustained serious injuries when struck by the hose.

    Contravention: Vesta Energy Corp. and Vesta Energy Ltd., being employers, were charged with 19 counts:

    • Section 2(1)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of workers engaged in the work of those employers or present at the worksite at which the work was being carried out, by properly training them in regards to pigging or water-line operations.
    • Section 2(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of workers at the worksite by properly supervising workers.
    • Section 2(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of workers at the worksite, by failing to require or enforce the use of sufficient and proper equipment such as pig catchers, y-joints or whip checks.
    • Section 2(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of workers at the worksite by assessing and addressing hazards.
    • Section 2(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of workers at the worksite by designing a safe work procedure and educating workers in such procedure prior to the commencement of work.
    • Section 2(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of workers at the worksite by an engineering control or other restraint on energy, force, or movement.
    • Section 2(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of workers at the worksite by an effective and enforced administrative control.
    • Section 13(1) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that if work was to be done that could endanger a worker, worker 1, that this worker was competent to do the work, or that this worker was under the direct supervision of a worker who was competent to do the work.
    • Section 15(1) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that a worker, worker 2, was trained in the safe operation of the equipment the worker was required to operate.
    • Section 15(1) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that a worker, worker 3, was trained in the safe operation of the equipment the worker was required to operate.
    • Section 15(1) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that a worker, worker 4, was trained in the safe operation of the equipment the worker was required to operate.
    • Section 13(4) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that if a regulation or adopted code, Section 15(5) of the OHS Regulation, imposed a duty on worker 2, the worker performed that duty.
    • Section 13(4) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that if a regulation or adopted code, Section 15(5) of the OHS Regulation, imposed a duty on worker 3, the worker performed that duty.
    • 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 9(2) of the OHS Code, failure to eliminate or control a hazard through the use of an engineering control.
    • Section 188(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a hose or piping and its connections operating under pressure were restrained, if workers could be injured by the movement, should it fail or if it was disconnected.
    • Section 189 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure equipment or material was contained, restrained or protected to eliminate the potential danger if a worker could be injured if equipment or material was dislodged, moved, spilled or damaged.
    • Section 215.5(2) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure there were no workers at the end of the pipe or in the immediate vicinity of the pigcatcher if the pipe or pigcatcher were under pressure during the operation.
    • 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 debris, material or thrown objects from machinery or equipment, material being fed into or removed from process machinery or equipment, machinery or equipment which could be hazardous due to its operation, or any other hazard.

    Charged is: Summit Transport & Hauling Ltd.

    Date charges laid: September 16, 2019

    Location of alleged offence: Grande Gache

    Date of alleged offence: November 6, 2017

    Type: Serious Incident

    Description: A shop worker turned on a grinder causing the ignition of a flammable substance in the sump/floor drain. This led to an explosion that seriously injured workers and damaged the building and equipment.

    Contravention: Summit Transport & Hauling Ltd., being an employer, was charged with 10 counts:

    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker, worker 1, who was engaged in the work of the employer.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker, worker 2.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker, worker 3.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker, worker 4.
    • Section 7(1) of the OHS Code, failure to assess their work site and identify existing or potential hazards before work began at the work site.
    • Section 169(1)(b) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that hot work was done in accordance with Section 169(2) and (3).
    • Section 169(2) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that hot work was not begun until a hot work permit was issued in accordance with Section 169(2)(a).
    • Section 169(2)(b) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that hot work was not begun until the hot work location was cleared of, or suitably isolated from, combustible materials.
    • Section 169(2)(c) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that hot work was not begun until procedures were implemented to ensure continuous safe performance of the hot work.
    • Section 169(2)(d)(i) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that hot work was not begun until testing showed that the atmosphere did not contain a flammable substance, in a mixture with air, in an amount exceeding 20% of that substance’s lower explosive limit for gas or vapours.

    Charged is: Candesto Enterprises Corp.; Candesto Enterprises Inc.; Candesto North Inc.; and Safe Roads Alberta Ltd.

    Date charges laid: September 6, 2019

    Location of alleged offence: Airdrie

    Date of alleged offence: September 12, 2017

    Type: Fatality

    Description: A track hoe operator was positioning concrete road barriers with two workers assisting on a trailer deck. The workers were in the process of removing a road barrier from the trailer when the load was struck by a passing vehicle. The load reversed direction striking one of the workers, causing fatal injury.

    Contravention: Candesto Enterprises Corp.; Candesto Enterprises Inc.; Candesto North Inc.; and Safe Roads Alberta Ltd., being the employer, were charged with 15 counts:

    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of that employer, by failing to have an adequate safe work procedure.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker, by failing to require the use of tag lines.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker, by failing to adequately train employees.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker, by failing to adequately supervise work or stop work if it could not be adequately supervised.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker, by failing to provide adequate illumination and/or lines of sight.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker, by failing to provide adequate equipment.
    • Section 13(1) of OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that if work was to be done that may endanger a worker, 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 189 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure, where a worker may be injured if equipment or material was dislodged, moved or spilled, that the material or equipment was contained, restrained or protected to eliminate the potential danger.
    • Section 9(2) of the OHS Code, failure to eliminate or control a hazard, pinch point(s), through the use of engineering controls.
    • Section 61 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure all major structural, mechanical and electrical components of a lifting device were permanently and legibly identified as being components of a specific make and model of lifting device.
    • Section 70(1) of the OHS Code, where workers were in danger because of the movement of a load being lifted, lowered, or moved by a lifting device, failed to ensure a worker used a tag line of sufficient length to control the load, the tag line to be used in a way that prevented the load from striking the worker controlling the tag line, and that the tag line was used when it allowed worker separation from the load.
    • Section 73(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that structural repairs or modifications to components of a lifting device were made only under the direction and control of a professional engineer and certified by a professional engineer to confirm that the workmanship and quality of materials used had restored the components to not less than their original capacity.
    • Section 186(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that lighting at the work site was sufficient to enable work to be done in safety.
    • Section 292.1(1)(c) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a rigging component, non-rotating hoist lines, were rated relative to their ultimate breaking strength in accordance of a safety factor of 5 to 1.
    • Section 303(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a hook had a safety latch, housing, or shackle if the hook could cause injury if it was dislodged while in use.

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

    Date charges laid: September 5, 2019

    Location of alleged offence: Grimshaw

    Date of alleged offence: October 16, 2017

    Type: Fatality

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

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

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

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

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

    Charged is: Lafarge Canada Inc.

    Date charges laid: August 23, 2019

    Location of alleged offence: Edmonton

    Date of alleged offence: November 25, 2017

    Type: Fatality

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

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

    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, failure to protect the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of that employer, by failing to ensure concrete panels were properly placed on storage racks.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to protect the health and safety of their worker by failing to ensure storage racks used to hold concrete panels were placed in a suitable location.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to protect the health and safety of their worker by failing to develop a safe procedure for placing concrete panels on storage racks.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to protect the health and safety of their worker by failing to implement a safe procedure for placing concrete panels on storage racks.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to protect the health and safety of their worker by failing to ensure that storage racks used to hold concrete panels were free of snow and/or ice.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to protect the health and safety of their worker by failing to ensure that storage racks used to hold concrete panels were placed on clean, dry concrete or a suitable level surface.
    • Section 12(1) (a) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure equipment used at a work site, storage racks, were maintained in a condition that would not compromise the health and safety of workers using it.
    • Section 187(2) (a) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure racks used to store materials or equipment were maintained to support the load placed on them.
    • Section 189 of the OHS Code, failure to take all reasonable steps to ensure, where a worker could be injured if equipment or material was dislodged, moved or spilled, that the material or equipment was contained, restrained or protected to eliminate the potential danger.

    Charged is: Aecon Transportation West Ltd.

    Date charges laid: August 14, 2019

    Location of alleged offence: Duchess

    Date of alleged offence: August 21, 2017

    Type: Serious Incident

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

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

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

    Charged is: Weatherford Canada Ltd.

    Date charges laid: July 22, 2019

    Location of alleged offence: Lloydminster

    Date of alleged offence: August 4, 2017

    Type: Serious Incident

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

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

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

    Charged is: Element Technical Services Inc.

    Date charges laid: July 17, 2019

    Location of alleged offence: Veteran

    Date of alleged offence: August 3, 2017

    Type: Fatality

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

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

    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, failure to protect the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of that employer by failing to ensure that there was adequate and/or detailed written safe work procedures for pressure testing equipment known as BOPS.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to protect a worker by failing to identify hazards with performing pressure testing.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to protect a worker by failing to monitor the compliance with developed or implemented procedures for pressure testing equipment known as blowout preventers (BOP’s).
    • Section 13(1)(a) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure where work was done that could endanger a worker, that work was done by a worker who was competent to do the work.
    • Section 13(2) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure, after developing or implementing a procedure or other measure respecting the work at a work site, that all workers who were affected by the procedure or measure were familiar with it before the work began.
    • Section 15(1) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure its worker was trained in the safe operation of the equipment they were required to operate, equipment known as BOP’s.
    • Section 15(1) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure its worker was trained in the safe operation of the equipment they were required to operate, equipment known as a test bar.
    • Section 310(2)(a) of the OHS Code, failure to provide safeguards if a worker could accidentally , or through the work process , come into contact with moving parts of machinery or equipment, equipment known as a test bar.

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

    Date charges laid: June 11, 2019

    Location of alleged offence: Red Deer

    Date of alleged offence: August 18, 2017

    Type: Serious Incident

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

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

    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 1, engaged in the work of the employers, by failing to train the workers to review MSDS and the purpose and significance of the information on the MSDS.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety worker 1 by failing to develop procedures for safely storing, using and/or handling the product named Clear Dressing.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety worker 1 by failing to develop procedures for safely storing, using and/or handling the product named Annihilator.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety worker 1 by failing to develop procedures to be followed in case of an emergency involving the product named Clear Dressing.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety worker 1 by failing to develop procedures to be followed in case of an emergency involving the product named Annihilator.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 2, engaged in the work of the employers, by failing to train the workers to review MSDS and the purpose and significance of the information on the MSDS.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 2, a worker engaged in the work of that employer, by failing to develop procedures for safely storing, using and/or handling the product named Clear Dressing.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 2, a worker engaged in the work of that employer, by failing to develop procedures for safely storing, using and/or handling the product named Annihilator.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 2, a worker engaged in the work of that employer, by failing to develop procedures to be followed in case of an emergency involving the product named Clear Dressing.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 2, a worker engaged in the work of that employer, by failing to develop procedures to be followed in case of an emergency involving the product named Annihilator.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(ii) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 2, not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site, by failing to train the workers to review MSDS and the purpose and significance of the information on the MSDS.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(ii) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety worker 2, not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site, by failing to develop procedures for safely storing, using and/or handling the product named Clear Dressing.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(ii) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety worker 2, not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site,  by failing to develop procedures for safely storing, using and/or handling the product named Annihilator.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(ii) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety worker 2, not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site, by failing to develop procedures to be followed in case of an emergency involving the product named Clear Dressing.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(ii) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety worker 2, not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site, by failing to develop procedures to be followed in case of an emergency involving the product named Annihilator.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 3, a worker engaged in the work of that employer, by failing to train the workers to review MSDS and the purpose and significance of the information on the MSDS.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 3, a worker engaged in the work of that employer, by failing to develop procedures for safely storing, using and/or handling the product named Clear Dressing.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 3, a worker engaged in the work of that employer, by failing to develop procedures for safely storing, using and/or handling the product named Annihilator.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 3, a worker engaged in the work of that employer, by failing to develop procedures to be followed in case of an emergency involving the product named Clear Dressing.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 3, a worker engaged in the work of that employer, by failing to develop procedures to be followed in case of an emergency involving the product named Annihilator.
    • Section 13(1)(a) of Alberta Regulation, failure to ensure that where work was done that may endanger a worker, that work was done by a worker that was competent to do that work.
    • Section 15(3)(a) of Alberta Regulation, where a worker could be exposed to a harmful substance at a work site, failed to establish procedures that minimized the workers’ exposure to the harmful substance.
    • Section 7(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Code, failure to assess their worksite and identify existing or potential hazards before work began at the work site.
    • Section 115(1) of the OHS Code, failure to establish an emergency response plan for responding to an emergency that could require rescue or evacuation.
    • Section 181(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure the number of first aiders at a work site and their qualifications and training complied with schedule 2, tables 5, 6 or 7.
    • Section 407 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure the material safety data sheet (MSDS) required by this part was readily available at a work site to workers who could be exposed to a controlled product and to the joint work site health and safety committee if there was one.

    Charged is: Village of Dewberry

    Date charges laid: May 31, 2019

    Location of alleged offence: Dewberry

    Date of alleged offence: June 13, 2017

    Type: Fatality

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

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

    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of that employer.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to protect worker health and safety by failing to ensure their worker was adequately trained to safely maintain a Massey Ferguson riding lawnmower.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to protect worker health and safety by failing to ensure their worker maintained the Massey Ferguson riding lawnmower according to the manufacturer' s specifications.
    • Section 13(1) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure where work was done that may endanger a worker, that the work was done by a worker that was competent to do that work or by a worker who was working under the direct supervision of a worker who was competent to do the work.
    • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that the Massey Ferguson riding lawnmower was serviced, maintained, repaired, or dismantled in accordance with the specifications of a professional engineer or with the manufacturer's specifications.
    • Section 261 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that if elevated parts of powered mobile equipment were being maintained or repaired by workers, the parts and the powered mobile equipment were securely blocked in place and could not move accidentally.
    • Section 394(1) of the OHS Code, failure to provide an effective communication system for their worker when they were working alone.

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

    Date charges laid: May 13, 2019

    Location of alleged offence: Lethbridge

    Date of alleged offence: May 15, 2017

    Type: Serious Incident

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

    Contravention: Triple M Housing Ltd.; Triple M Housing Ltd. operating as (o/a) Triple M Housing; Triple M Housing; Triple M Modular Limited Partnership; Triple M Holdings (II) Limited Partnership; Triple M Housing (GP) II Ltd.; Triple M Holdings (GP) Parent Ltd.; Triple M Modular Limited Partnership o/a Triple M Housing; Triple M Modular Limited Partnership, a Limited Partnership, by its General Partner Triple M Housing (GP) II Ltd.; Triple M Holdings (II) Limited Partnership o/a Triple M Housing; Triple M Holdings (II) Limited Partnership, a Limited Partnership, by its General Partner Triple M Holdings (GP) Parent Ltd., being employers, were charged with 13 counts:

    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of that employer, by failing to enforce the use of spotters when operating the crane system.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of that employer, by failing to provide instruction on where stands should have been placed.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of that employer, by failing to ensure that stands or other objects were not placed by the guard railing located at the mezzanine level.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of that employer, by failing to ensure that the worker did not work in the potential fall path of objects from the mezzanine level above the work area.
    • Section 7(4) of the OHS Code, failure to assess their work site and identify existing or potential hazards when a new work process was introduced or a work process or operation changed at the work site.
    • Section 65(3)(a) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that date and time were entered into the logbook when any work was performed on the lifting device.
    • Section 65(3)(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that inspections, including examinations, checks and tests, that were performed, including those specified in the manufacturer’s specifications, were entered into the logbook.
    • Section 65(3)(e) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that repairs or modifications performed were entered into the logbook.
    • Section 65(3)(f) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a record of a certification under Section 73 of the OHS Code was entered into the logbook.
    • Section 65(3)(g) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure any matter or incident that may affect the safe operation of the lifting device was entered into the logbook.
    • Section 94 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that the bridge, jib, monorail, gantry or overhead travelling crane met the safety requirements of CSA Standard CAN/CSA-B167-96 (R2007), safety standard for maintenance and inspection of overhead cranes, gantry cranes, monorails, hoists and trolleys.
    • Section 189 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure, where a worker may be injured if equipment or material was dislodged, moved or spilled, that the material or equipment was contained, restrained or protected to eliminate the potential danger.
    • Section 318(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that workers in a work area where there may be falling objects were protected from the falling objects by an overhead safeguard.

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

    Date charges laid: April 3, 2019

    Location of alleged offence: Calgary

    Date of alleged offence: April 23, 2017

    Type: Serious Injuries

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

    Contravention: Enmax Power Services Corporation; Enmax Corporation; and Enmax Power Corporation, being employers, were charged with 9 counts:

    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of that employer.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a second worker engaged in the work of that employer.
    • Section 12(1)(a) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure all equipment used at a work site was maintained in a condition that would not compromise the health or safety of workers using it.
    • Section 12(1)(b) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that all equipment used at a work site would safely perform the function for which it was intended or designed.
    • Section 12(1)(d) of the OHS Regulation, fail to ensure that all equipment used at a work site was free from obvious defects.
    • Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure equipment and supplies were erected, installed, assembled, started, operated, handled, stored, serviced, tested, adjusted, calibrated, maintained, repaired and dismantled in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications or the specifications certified by a professional engineer.
    • Section 346(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that workers were not travelling in a basket, bucket, platform or any other elevated or aerial device that was moving on a road or work site if road conditions, traffic, overhead wires, cables or other obstructions created a danger to the workers.
    • Section 347(5) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a telescopic aerial device, aerial ladder, articulating aerial device, vertical tower, material-lifting aerial device or a combination of any of them, when mounted on a motor vehicle, whether operated manually or using power, met the requirements of CSA standard CAN/CSA-C225-00 (R2005), vehicle-mounted aerial devices.
    • Section 13(4) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure their workers followed Section 346(2) of the OHS Code imposing the duty on the workers not to travel in a basket, bucket, platform or other elevated or aerial device that was moving on a road or work site if road conditions, traffic, overhead wires, cables or other obstructions create a danger to the person.
  • 2018

    Charged is: GP Reload Inc.

    Date charges laid: December 19, 2018

    Location of alleged offence: Grande Prairie

    Date of alleged offence: February 1, 2017

    Type: Fatality

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

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

    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failed to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of that employer, by failing to ensure that lumber was not unloaded from a trailer when the worker was in the immediate vicinity of the trailer.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failed to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of that employer, by failing to ensure that another worker complied with manufacturer specifications, which stated: “Keep bystanders clear at all times.  Keep bystanders away from raised booms, attachments, and unsupported loads.  Avoid swinging or raising booms, attachments, or loads over or near personnel.  Use barricades or a signal person to keep vehicles and pedestrians away.  Use a signal person if moving machine in congested areas or where visibility is restricted.  Always keep signal person in view.  Coordinate hand signals before starting machine”.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failed to ensure the health and safety of a worker not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site, by failing to ensure that lumber was not unloaded from a trailer when the worker was in the immediate vicinity of the trailer.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failed to ensure the health and safety of a worker not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site,  by failing to ensure that another worker complied with manufacturer specifications, which stated: “Keep bystanders clear at all times.  Keep bystanders away from raised booms, attachments, and unsupported loads.  Avoid swinging or raising booms, attachments, or loads over or near personnel.  Use barricades or a signal person to keep vehicles and pedestrians away.  Use a signal person if moving machine in congested areas or where visibility is restricted.  Always keep signal person in view.  Coordinate hand signals before starting machine”.
    • Section 7(1) of the OHS Code, failed to assess its work site and identify existing and potential hazards before work began.
    • Section 7(2) of the OHS Code, failed to prepare a report of the result of a hazard assessment and the methods used to control or eliminate the hazards identified.
    • Section 189 of the OHS Code, failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure, where a worker could be injured if material was dislodged or moved, that the material was restrained to eliminate the potential danger.
    • Section 258(a) of the OHS Code, in circumstances where the movement of a load, specifically lumber, created a danger to worker(s), did permit a worker to remain within range of a moving load.

    Charged is:

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

    Date charges laid: December 14, 2018

    Location of alleged offence: Edmonton

    Date of alleged offence: December 29, 2016

    Type: Fatality

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

    Contravention: 1733233 Alberta Ltd.; Jasper Auto Parts (1965) Ltd.; 1733233 Alberta Ltd. o/a Jasper Auto Parts; and Jasper Auto Parts (1965) Ltd. o/a Jasper Auto Parts, as employers, were charged with 17 counts:

    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of these employers, by failing to adequately supervise and/or direct the worker.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of these employers, by instructing or permitting the worker to work in a place where a hazard to the worker would either not be seen or not be dealt with in a timely way.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of these employers, by using or permitting the use of dangerous or inappropriate equipment.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of these employers, by failing to create or enforce adequate administrative procedures or safeguards to avoid hazards.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of these employers, by failing to require the worker  to work in an appropriate place.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of these employers, by failing to sufficiently and/or adequately train the worker.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of these employers, by failing to protect the worker from the movement of an object which could constitute a hazard to the worker.
    • Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of these employers, by failing to have one or more other person(s) present.
    • Section 15(1) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that a worker was trained in the safe operation of the equipment the worker was required to operate.
    • Section 7(1) of the OHS Code, failure to assess a work site and identify existing and potential hazards before work began at the work site or prior to the construction of a new work site.
    • Section 112 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a vehicle hoist installed on or after July 1, 2009 met the requirements of ANSI standard ANSI/ALI ALCTV- 2006, American National Standard for automotive lifts- safety requirements for construction, testing and validation or ANSI standard ANSI/ALI ALOIM - 2000, automotive lifts - safety requirements for operation, inspection and maintenance.
    • Section 13(4) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure the performance by a worker of a duty under Section 113 of the OHS Code that the worker must not be under a suspended load unless the load was supported by a vehicle hoist designed for that purpose, or stands or blocks, other than jacks, that were designed, constructed and maintained to support the load and placed on firm foundations.
    • Section 15 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that where the OHS Code  requires equipment to be approved by a named organization, an employer must use best efforts to ensure that the seal, stamp, logo or similar identifying mark of that organization was on the equipment and legible.
    • Section 13(2) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that where the OHS Code requires anything to be done in accordance with manufacturer's specifications and they are not available or do not exist, an employer must develop and comply with procedures that were certified by a professional engineer as designed to ensure the thing was done in a safe manner, or had the equipment certified as safe to operate by a professional engineer at least every 12 calendar months.
    • Section 69(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that the work was arranged so that a load did not pass over workers.
    • Section 189 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that if a worker could be injured if equipment or material was dislodged, moved, spilled, or damaged, both the employer and the worker ensured the equipment or material was contained, restrained or protected to eliminate the potential danger.
    • Section 318(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that workers in a work area where there may be falling objects were protected from the falling objects by an overhead safeguard.

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