OHS prosecution outcomes

Charged is: Mainline Construction (2014) Ltd.

Date charges laid: April 19, 2023

Date of alleged offence: May 3, 2021

Description: A worker was struck and fatally injured by a pipe while it was being loaded onto the back of a trailer.

Status: On January 24, 2024, a stay of proceedings was entered.

Contravention: Mainline Construction (2014) Ltd., being an employer, was charged with 3 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 develop a safe work procedure and/or practice for loading pipes onto a trailer.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker, by failing to implement a proper method of stacking pipe when loading pipe onto a trailer.
• 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: Inland Machining Services Ltd.

Date charges laid: July 19, 2021

Date of alleged offence: August 16, 2019

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. 

Status: On October 26, 2023, Inland Machining Services Ltd., being an employer, was found guilty and convicted on 13 counts of which 8 were conditionally stayed. They were fined a global penalty, based on the remaining 5 counts, of $420,000 inclusive of the 20 per cent victim fine surcharge.

On Nov 17, 2023, an appeal was filed on the conviction and sentence.

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: Maple Reinders Constructors Ltd.

Date charges laid: February 10, 2021

Date of alleged offence: March 1, 2019

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

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

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

Status: All charges were withdrawn February 9, 2022.

Charged is: Pinnacle Renewable Energy Inc.

Date charges laid: January 18, 2021

Date of alleged offence: February 11, 2019

Status:  All charges listed below were withdrawn September 14, 2022

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

Contravention: Pinnacle Renewable Energy Inc. was charged with 36 counts:

• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHS), being an employer, failed to ensure the health and safety of worker 1, a worker engaged in the work of that employer.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failed to ensure the health and safety of their worker, worker 2.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failed to ensure the health and safety of their worker, worker 3.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failed to ensure the health and safety of their worker, worker 4.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failed to ensure the health and safety of their worker, worker 5.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failed to ensure the health and safety of their workers by failing to ensure that their pellet manufacturing plant system maintenance was performed safely.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failed to ensure the health and safety of their workers by means of safe design or adaptation of their pellet manufacturing plant process and equipment.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failed to ensure the health and safety of their workers by means of appropriate and sufficient engineering controls.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failed to ensure the health and safety of their workers by failing to ensure by means of appropriate and sufficient administrative controls.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failed to ensure the health and safety of their workers by failing to ensure that all pellet manufacturing plant system components and equipment were maintained in a condition that would not compromise the health and safety of workers.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failed to ensure the health and safety of their workers by failing to ensure that all pellet manufacturing plant system components and equipment would safely perform the functions for which they were intended or designed.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failed to ensure the health and safety of their workers by failing to ensure that workers were protected from fire and/or explosion on their work site.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failed to ensure the health and safety of their workers by failing to comply with The Alberta Fire Code, 1997. The Alberta Fire Code is adopted under Section 3 of the OHS Code.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failed to ensure the health and safety of their workers by failing to comply with their Fire Safety Plan of June 2018.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failed to ensure the health and safety of their workers by means of appropriate and sufficient firefighting equipment and supplies.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failed to ensure the health and safety of their workers by means of appropriate and sufficient personal protective equipment (PPE).
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failed to ensure the health and safety of their workers by means of appropriate and sufficient firefighting supervision and training.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failed to ensure the health and safety of their workers by failing to adequately supervise or direct them in the safe performance of their work on the work site.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failed to ensure the health and safety of their workers by means of the provision of appropriate and sufficient firefighting capability.
• Section 3(2) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failed to ensure that workers were adequately trained in all matters necessary to protect their health and safety.
• Section 8(a) of the OHS Act, being an owner, failed to ensure the infrastructure and any building or premises on the land under their control, were provided and maintained in a manner that did not endanger the health and safety of workers. Pinnacle was and remains the registered “owner” of the land on which the pelleting plant is built, as defined in Section 1 OHSA 2017.
• Section 9(1)(a) of the OHS Act, being a contractor, failed to ensure the work site where an employer’s worker worked pursuant to a contract with the contractor that was under the control of the contractor, did not create a risk to the health and safety of any person. The work site was under the control of Pinnacle at all times.
• Section 9(1)(b) of the OHS Act, being a contractor, failed to ensure every work process or procedure performed at the work site by an employer’s worker pursuant to a contract with the contractor that was under the control of the contractor, did not create a risk to the health and safety of any person.
• Section 10(5)(b) of the OHS Act, being a prime contractor, failed to coordinate, organize and oversee the performance of all work at the work site to ensure that no person was exposed to hazards arising out of, or in connection with, activities at the work site.
• Section 12(1)(a) of Alberta Regulation, being an employer, failed to ensure equipment used at a work site was maintained in a condition that would not compromise the health or safety of workers using it.
• Section 12(1)(b) of Alberta Regulation, being an employer, failed to ensure equipment used at a work site would safely perform the function for which it was intended or was designed.
• Section 12(1)(d) of Alberta Regulation, being an employer, failed to ensure equipment used at a work site, was free from an obvious defect.
• Section 13(1) of Alberta Regulation, being an employer, failed to ensure if work was to be done that may endanger a worker, the work was done by a worker competent to do the work or by a worker who was working under the direct supervision of a worker who was competent to do the work.
• Section 13(3) of Alberta Regulation, being an employer, failed to ensure workers who could be required to use safety equipment or PPE were competent in the application, care, use, maintenance and limitations of that equipment.
• Section 15(1) of Alberta Regulation, being an employer, failed to ensure workers were trained in the safe operation of the equipment the workers were required to operate.
• Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, being an employer, failed to ensure that equipment, the components of their pellet manufacturing plant, were erected, installed, assembled, operated, handled, serviced, tested, adjusted, calibrated, maintained, and repaired in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications or the specifications certified by a professional engineer.
• Section 116(c) of the OHS Code, being an employer, failed to ensure that their emergency response plan (ERP) included the identification of, location of and operational procedures for emergency equipment.
• Section 116(d) of the OHS Code, being an employer, failed to ensure their ERP included the emergency response training requirements.
• Section 116(h) of the OHS Code, being an employer, failed to ensure their ERP included the first aid services required.
• Section 116(j) of the OHS Code, being an employer, failed to ensure their ERP included the designated rescue and evacuation workers.
• Section 118(1) of the OHS Code, being an employer, failed to provide workers designated under Section 117 of the OHS Code with personal protective clothing and equipment appropriate to the work site and the potential emergencies identified in the ERP.

Charged is: Deangelis Development Corporation

Date charges laid: July 17, 2020

Date of alleged offence: September 18, 2018

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

Contravention: Deangelis Development Corporation, being an employer, was charged with 11 counts:

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

Status: All charges were withdrawn November 17, 2021.

Charged is: Taurus Natural Inc.

Date charges laid: December 5, 2019

Date of alleged offence: January 30, 2018

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.

Status: All charges were dismissed March 18, 2021

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

Date charges laid: May 14, 2020

Date of alleged offence: August 18, 2018

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

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

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

Status: On March 8, 2021, there was a stay of proceedings for Grande Prairie Salvage Ltd. On April 28, 2021, there was a stay of proceedings for Superior General Partner Inc.

Charged is: Village of Dewberry

Date charges laid: May 31, 2019

Date of alleged offence: June 13, 2017

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.

Status: All charges were stayed February 22, 2021

Charged is: CWC Energy Services Corp.

Date charges laid: February 12, 2019

Date of alleged offence: December 6, 2017

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

Contravention: CWC Energy Services Corp., being an employer, was charged with 8 counts:

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

Status: All charges were stayed January 30, 2020

Charged is: O.E.M. Remanufacturing Company Inc.

Date charges laid: April 5, 2018

Date of alleged offence: May 11, 2016

Description: A worker was seriously injured when hit by a tool-holder and bit that was thrown from the vertical milling machine being worked on.

Contravention: O.E.M. Remanufacturing Company Inc., being an employer, was charged with 3 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 310(2)(e) of the OHS Code, failure to provide safeguards to protect workers from, either accidentally or through a work process, coming into contact with debris, materials or objects thrown from machinery or equipment.
• Section 310(2)(a) of the OHS Code, failure to provide safeguards to protect workers from, either accidentally or through a work process, coming into contact with moving parts of machinery or equipment.

Status: All charges withdrawn January 31, 2019.

Charged is: Beach’s Quality Drywall Ltd.

Date charges laid: March 22, 2018

Date of alleged offence: May 13, 2016

Description: A worker was feeding insulation material into the hopper of an insulation blower. When the blower auger got jammed with a bag of insulation feed, the worker stepped into the hopper to clear the jam. The auger started rotating, seriously injuring the worker’s right leg.

Contravention: Beach’s Quality Drywall Ltd., being an employer, was charged with 5 counts:

• Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the safety of a worker engaged in the work of that employer.
• Section 13(1)(a) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure where work was done that may endanger a worker, the work was done by a worker competent to do that work.
• Section 15(1) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure that its workers were trained in the safe operation of the equipment they were required to operate, a Heat Seal 5500 D Insulation Blowing Machine.
• 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 8(2) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that workers affected by the hazards identified in a hazard assessment report were informed of the hazards and of the methods used to control or eliminate the hazards.

Status: All charges withdrawn January 10, 2019.

Charged is: Aluma Systems Inc.

Date charges laid: November 30, 2017

Date of alleged offence: December 7, 2015

Description: Personnel were undertaking weatherproofing activities on an anhydrous ammonia tank at a fertilizer facility when two workers were exposed to anhydrous ammonia vapours from a broken line. One worker sustained fatal injuries as a result of the incident.

Contravention: Aluma Systems Inc., being an employer, was charged with 5 counts:

• Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 1 who was engaged in the work of that employer.
• Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of worker 2 who was engaged in the work of that employer.
• Section 3(3) of the OHS Act, being a prime contractor at a work site, failed to establish or maintain a system or process to ensure that a concrete wall panel was properly braced and/or that trench gravel backfilling was done safely.
• Section 9(1) of the OHS Code, failure to take measures to eliminate or control a hazard, having identified an existing or potential hazard to workers from an anhydrous ammonia piping system.
• Section 7(4)(c) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure a hazard assessment was repeated when a work process or operation changed.
• Section 310(2)(h) of the OHS Code, failure to provide safeguards where a worker could accidentally, or through the work process, come into contact with a hazard.

Status: All charges were stayed June 24, 2019.

Charged is: Eagle Builders LP, Eagle Builders Inc. and Bart Van Haaren

Date charges laid: October 30, 2017

Date of alleged offence: November 9, 2015

Description: While installing a line to be tied into the existing storm line, a worker was taking a measurement in the excavation when a concrete retaining wall collapsed on the worker causing serious injuries.

Contravention: Eagle Builders LP and Eagle Builders Inc., were charged with 11 counts.

• Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, being an employer, failed to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of that employer
• Section 2(1)(a)(ii) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failed to ensure the health and safety of a worker when the worker was not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site.
• Section 3(3) of the OHS Act, being a prime contractor at a work site, failed to establish or maintain a system or process to ensure that a concrete wall panel was properly braced and/or that trench gravel backfilling was done safely.
• Section 3(3) of the OHS Act, being a prime contractor at a work site, failed to ensure that an employer at the work site was made aware of the existing hazard of an unsecured concrete wall panel while trench gravel backfilling was being done.
• Section 12(1)(b) of the OHS Regulation, being an employer, failed to ensure that equipment used at a work site would safely perform the function for which it is intended or was designed.
• Section 13(1) of the OHS Regulation, being an employer, failed to ensure that work to be done that may endanger a worker, 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 is competent to do the work.
• Section 13(2) of the OHS Regulation, being an employer who developed or implemented a procedure or other measure respecting the work at a work site, failed to ensure that all workers affected by the procedure or measure were familiar with it before the work began.
• Section 15(1) of the OHS Regulation, being an employer, failed to ensure that a worker or members of the work crew were trained in the safe operation of the equipment that he was required to operate, including a concrete wall panel, brace/s, stake pin/s, gravel run and/or other ancillary equipment used at the work site.
• Section 7(5) of the OHS Code, being a prime contractor at a work site, failed to ensure that an employer on the work site was made aware of any existing or potential work site hazards that may affect that employer's workers.
• Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, being an employer, failed to ensure that equipment was operated in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications.
• Section 189 of the OHS Code, being an employer, failed to ensure that equipment was contained, restrained or protected to eliminate the potential danger to workers.

Bart VanHaaren was charged with 3 counts:

• Section 2(2)(b) (ii) of the OHS Act, being a worker engaged in an occupation, failed to co-operate with his employer for the purposes of protecting the health and safety of other workers engaged in the work of his employer.
• Section 2(2)(b)(iii) OHS Act, being a worker engaged in an occupation, failed to co-operate with his employer for the purposes of protecting the health and safety of other workers not engaged in the work of his employer but present at the work site.
• Section 189 of the OHS Code, being a worker, failed to ensure where a worker may be injured if equipment or material was dislodged or moved, that the equipment or material was restrained or protected to eliminate the potential danger.

Status: All charges were stayed July 5, 2018.

Charged is: Lockwood Resources Ltd.

Date charges laid:  January 30, 2017

Date of alleged offence:  February 10, 2015

Description: A process operator was working alone conducting well-head start up duties at a remote well-site location. The worker was using a lit propane torch to warm components when the worker opened the door to the separator shack. An immediate flash fire occurred, causing severe burn injuries to the worker's hands and face.

Contravention: Lockwood Resources Ltd. was charged with 1 count:

• Section 3(3) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, being a prime contractor, did fail to ensure, as far as it was reasonably practicable to do so, that the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the Regulations and the Adopted Code were complied with in respect of the work site.

Status: The charge was stayed December 15, 2017

Charged is: 1459885 Alberta Ltd., operating as Marathon Ventilation and Climate Control Ltd.

Date charges laid: September 1, 2016

Date of alleged offence: September 24, 2014

Description: A worker was preparing to make repairs to a rooftop makeup air unit curb assembly when it shifted and fell on the worker causing fatal injuries.

Contravention: 1459885 Alberta Ltd., operating as Marathon Ventilation was charged with 7 counts:

• Section 2 (1) (a) (i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act
• Section 7 (1) of the OHS Code
• Section 7 (2) of the OHS Code
• Section 12 (a) of the OHS Code
• Section 12 (d) of the OHS Code
• Section 189 of the OHS Code
• Section 210 (1) of the OHS Code

Climate Control Ltd. was charged with 2 counts:

• Section 2 (3) of the OHS Act
• Section 2 (4) of the OHS Act

Status: All charges were stayed against 1459885 Alberta Ltd., operating as Marathon Ventilation, and Climate Control Ltd. on January 30, 2018.

Charged is: Grey's Paper Recycling Industries Limited Partnership, Grey's Paper Recycling Industries Ltd., Grey's Paper Recycling Industries Limited Operating as Greys Recycling

Date charges laid: August 17, 2016

Date of alleged offence: September 19, 2014

Description: An operator was attempting to remove a piece of pulp debris from a paper press.  The worker suffered serious injuries when the worker's arm was caught in the rotating press.

Contravention: Grey's Paper Recycling Industries Limited Partnership, Grey's Paper Recycling Industries Ltd., and Grey's Paper Recycling Industries Limited Operating as Greys Recycling were charged jointly with 4 counts:

• Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act
• Section 310(2)(a) of the OHS Code
• Section 13(1)(a) of the OHS Regulation
• Section 15(1) of the OHS Regulation

Status: All charges were stayed January 23, 2017.

Charged is: Capital Steel Inc.

Date charges laid: May 11, 2016

Date of alleged offence: August 1, 2014

Description: A worker employed as general labourer was hand loading solid steel rod onto an outside cantilever steel storage rack. The rack collapsed/tipped over onto the worker, crushing the worker. The worker sustained fatal injuries.

Contravention: Capital Steel Inc. was charged with 2 counts

• Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to protect the health and safety of a worker.
• Section 187(2)(a) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that storage racks were designed, constructed and maintained to support the load placed on them.

Status: All charges were stayed May 16, 2017.

Charged is: Western Rock Products Ltd.

Date charges laid: April 20, 2016

Date of alleged offence: June 6, 2014

Description: A worker employed as a rock truck driver was attempting to repair the driveshaft on a bus at a quarry site. When the driveshaft was disconnected, the bus rolled down an incline, fatally crushing the worker.

Contravention: Western Rock Products Ltd. was charged with 2 counts

• Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act
• Section 9(1)(b) of the OHS Code

Status: All charges were withdrawn on October 25, 2016. There was a change in circumstances such that it was no longer in the public interest to continue the prosecution.

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

Date charges laid: January 18, 2016

Date of alleged offence: October 14, 2014

Description: Workers were attempting to replace/repair a tire on a semi-truck. A worker went under the trailer to begin work. A second worker instructed the driver to move forward without verifying the first worker’s location. The first worker was consequently run over by the semi-trailer. The worker was transported by Emergency Medical Services to the University of Alberta Hospital for serious injuries.

Contravention: Kal Tire et al were charged with 5 counts:

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

Status: Kal Tire Ltd. had a sentence imposed October 17, 2017, regarding their conviction of Section 212(1)(a) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure all hazardous energy at the work location was isolated by activating an energy-isolating device before a worker performed work on the machinery. They were fined $15,000 plus the victim fine surcharge of $2250 for a total fine of $17,250. All other charges were withdrawn against them. All charges against the other companies were withdrawn.

Appeals were filed. On May 13, 2020, the conviction was quashed. On September 14, 2020, the decision was to stay the remaining count.

Charged is: Samuel, Son & Co., Ltd/Samuel & Fils & Cie Ltee; Omega Joists Inc.

Date charges laid: December 11, 2015

Date of alleged offence: January 23, 2014

Description: A worker was walking by a rolling mill, and heard a "bearing grinding" in or around the second roller. At this time, the worker entered into the rolling mill area through an unguarded area, stepped up on the platform, and put their right hand down to "feel" which roller was making the grinding noise. The worker's gloved hand was rolled into the mill. The worker suffered serious injuries to their hand as a result of the incident.

Contravention: Samuel, Son & Co., Ltd/Samuel & Fils & Cie Ltee and Omega Joists Inc. were charged with 3 counts:

• Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act
• Section 310(2)(a) of the OHS Act
• Section 212(A), Section 212(1) of the OHS Code

Status: All charges were withdrawn September 21, 2016.

Charged is: Midwest Pipelines Inc.

Date charges laid: December 9, 2015

Date of alleged offence: December 12, 2013

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

Contravention: Midwest Pipelines Inc. were charged with 8 counts:

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

Status: A trial was held April 30, May 1-4 and 11, 2018, during which Crown abandoned Counts 2, 4 and 8. The judge delivered their decision on Jun 24, 2019, dismissing the remaining counts 1, 3, and 5-7. Crown filed an appeal July 17, 2019. On February 28, 2020, the appeal court dismissed the appeal.

Charged is: Clean Harbors Energy and Industrial Service LP; Clean Harbors Energy and Industrial Services Corp.; Clean Harbors Industrial Services Canada, Inc.; and Clean Harbors Surface Rentals, Ltd.

Date charges laid: November 20, 2015

Date of alleged offence: November 26, 2013

Description: Two workers were cleaning the interiors and exteriors of a pair of tanker trailers that were parked in the wash-bay at the Clean Harbors maintenance facility in Leduc. The trailers had most recently contained hexane. During the washing process, the tanker trailer compartments' contents drained into the open sump pit immediately below the tanker trailers. Flammable and explosive vapours from the hexane built up in the wash-bay and sump and came in contact with an ignition source in the wash-bay office immediately adjacent to the wash-bay. An explosion and fire started in the office and moved rapidly through the wash-bay, causing burns to the two workers.

Contravention: Clean Harbors Energy and Industrial Service LP; Clean Harbors Energy and Industrial Services Corp.; Clean Harbors Industrial Services Canada, Inc.; and Clean Harbors Surface Rentals, Ltd. were charged with 9 Counts as follows:

• Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act
• Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the (OHS) Act
• Section 13(1)(a) of Alberta Regulation
• Section 13(1)(b) of Alberta Regulation
• Section 13(3) of the OHS Regulation
• Section 15(3)(a) of Alberta Regulation
• Section 15(3)(a) of Alberta Regulation
• Section 165(3)(a) of the OHS Code
• Section 407 of the OHS Code

Status: All charges withdrawn June 16, 2016.

Charged is: Tartan Industrial Contractors Ltd. and LMLIC Holdings Inc.

Date charges laid: September 18, 2015

Date of alleged offence: November 12, 2013

Description: A worker was unloading an elevating platform off of a trailer. The trailer tipped over, causing the elevating platform to land on its side and the worker to receive serious injuries.

Contravention: Tartan Industrial Contractors Ltd. and LML IC Holdings Inc. were charged with 8 counts:

• Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failing to ensure the health and safety of a worker.
• Section 7(1) of the OHS Code, failing to assess a work site for hazards before work began at a new work site.
• Section 7(2) of the OHS Code, failing to prepare a report of the results of a hazard assessment (H/A) and methods used to control identified hazards.
• Section 7(4)(c) of the OHS Code, failing to ensure a H/A was repeated when a work process changed.
• Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failing to ensure equipment was handled according to the manufacturer's specifications or the specifications certified by a professional engineer.
• Section 189 of the OHS Code, failure by the employer and worker to ensure equipment was restrained to eliminate potential danger.
• Section 13(1)(a) of the OHS Regulation, failing to ensure the worker was competent to do the work when the work to be done could endanger a worker.
• Section 15(1) of the OHS Regulation, failing to ensure the worker was trained in the safe operation of the equipment the worker was required to operate.

Status: All charges stayed August 22, 2017.

Charged is: Flatiron Constructors Canada Limited

Date charges laid: August 14, 2015

Date of alleged offence: August 17, 2013

Description: A worker was backing a gravel truck with a semi-trailer end dump unit on uneven ground. When the load was approximately 60% lifted, the trailer fell over on the driver's side. No injuries were reported.

Contravention: Flatiron Constructors Canada Limited. was charged with 2 counts:

• Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, as the employer, failed to ensure the health and safety of workers engaged in the work of that employer.
• Section 3(3) of the OHS Act, as prime contractor, failed to ensure the OHS Act, regulations and code were complied with at the work site.

Status: All charges were withdrawn September 25, 2017.

Charged is: Flatiron Constructors Canada Limited

Date charges laid: June 19, 2015

Date of alleged offence: August 9, 2013

Description: A worker was in the process of unloading a semi-trailer end dump gravel truck when the end dump unit tipped over, crushing the cab of another gravel truck nearby and causing fatal injuries to the driver.

Contravention: Flatiron Constructors Canada Limited. was charged with 5 counts:

• Three Counts of Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure, as an employer, the safety of a worker engaged in the work of the employer.
• Section 2(5) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, as a contractor, that the employer complied with the OHS Act, the regulations and the adopted code in respect of the work site.
• Section 3(3) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, as prime contractor, that the OHS Act, the regulations and the adopted code were complied with in respect of the work site.

Status: Flatiron Constructors Canada Limited were found not guilty on all five counts on January 26, 2018.

Charged is: Nexen Energy ULC, formerly Nexen Inc.

Date charges laid: May 8, 2015

Date of alleged offence: May 19, 2013

Description: A nitrogen hose ruptured, releasing hydrogen gas and a fire ensued, which resulted in a Nexen Process Operator sustaining burn injuries.

Contravention: Nexen was charged with 6 counts:

• Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to protect the health and safety of a worker
• Section 12(1)(b) of OHS Alberta Regulation, failure to ensure all equipment used at a work site would safely perform the function for which it was intended or designed
• Section 12(1)(c) of the OHS Regulation, failure to ensure all equipment used at a work site was of adequate strength for its purpose
• Section 15(1) of OHS Alberta Regulation, failure to ensure a worker was trained in the safe operation of the equipment worker was required to operate
• Section 15(2) of OHS Alberta Regulation, failure to ensure the training referred to in subsection (1) included: selection of appropriate equipment, limitations of the equipment, operator's pre-use inspection, use of the equipment, operator skills required by the manufacturer's specifications for equipment, basic mechanical and maintenance requirements of equipment, loading and unloading of the equipment, and hazards specific to the operation of the equipment at the work site
• Section 12(a) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure equipment was of sufficient size, strength and design and made of suitable materials to withstand stresses imposed on it during operation

Status: On August 31, 2017 the Court granted a permanent stay of the proceedings in this matter on the basis that Nexen's right to be tried within a reasonable time had been violated. All charges were stayed.

Charged is: Blacklaw Manufacturing Inc. and BP Machine Ltd.

Date charges laid: May 1, 2015

Date of alleged offence: May 24, 2013

Description: A machinist was crushed between the turret housing and the rear door of an industrial lathe.

Contravention: Both parties are charged with 3 counts each:

• Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, R.S.A. 2000, Chapter O-2, as amended.
• Section 9(2) of the OHS Code 2009 as adopted by the OHS Code Order, Alberta Regulation 87/2009 pursuant to the OHS Act, R.S.A. 2000, Chapter 0-2, as amended.
• Section 310(2)(A) of the OHS Code 2009 as adopted by the OHS Code Order, Alberta regulation 97/2009 pursuant to the OHS Act, R.S.A. 2000, Chapter 0-2, as amended.

Status: All charges stayed on August 13, 2015.

Charged is: Swab Master Ltd.

Date charges laid: March 3, 2015

Date of alleged offence: April 23, 2013

Description: An explosion occurred while workers were preparing to clean the interior of a cargo tank mounted on a truck. The cargo tank last contained produced water and was identified by Class 3 flammable liquid placards with UN number 1267. Two workers suffered serious injuries.

Contravention: Swab Master Ltd. was charged with 5 counts:

• Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act
• Section 165(3)(a) of the OHS Code
• Section 9(1) of the OHS Code
• Section 169(2)(b)(i) of the OHS Code
• Section 169(2)(d)(i) of the OHS Code

Status: All charges were withdrawn on June 23, 2016.

Charged is: Promac Industries Ltd. and Promac Industries Limited Partnership

Date charges laid: February 6, 2015

Date of alleged offence: March 19, 2013

Description: A worker was seriously injured when the worker's left arm became entangled in a CNC (computer numeric control) lathe.

Contravention: Both parties are charged with 5 counts each:

• Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act
• Section 12(1)(a) OHS Regulation
• Section 12(1)(b) OHS Regulation
• Section 12(d) of the OHS Code
• Section 15(1) OHS Regulation

Status: All charges against Promac Industries Ltd. and Promac Industries Limited Partnership were withdrawn on December 18, 2015.

Charged is: ConocoPhillips Resources Corporation

Date charges laid: October 3, 2014

Date of alleged offence: October 7 & 8, 2012

Description:   The incident occurred when a welder was using a cutting torch on a well that was in the final stages of abandonment. An uncontrolled fire occurred and the welder sustained serious burn injuries.

Contravention: ConocoPhillips Resources Corporation, noted as the Contractor and Prime Contractor, was charged with 6 counts:

October 7, 2012

• Section 2(5) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure, as contractor directing the activities of an employer at a work site, that the employer complied with the OHS Act, the regulations and the code.
• Section 3(3) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, as prime contractor under subsection 1, that the OHS Act, regulations and adopted code were complied with in respect of the work site.
• Section 18(1) of the OHS Act, failure to notify a Director of Inspection, as prime contractor, that an injury or accident occurred at a work site
• Part 2, Section 7(5) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that an employer on the work site was made aware of any existing or potential work

October 8, 2012

• Section 2(5) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, as contractor directing the activities of an employer at a work site, that the employer complied with the OHS Act, the regulations and the code.
• Section 3(3) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, as prime contractor under subsection 1, that the OHS Act, regulations and adopted code were complied with in respect of the work site.

Status: All charges were withdrawn May 1, 2017.

Charged is: Strategic Oil & Gas Ltd.; Dale's Trucking Inc.; 1564132 Alberta Ltd.

Date charges laid: September 24, 2014

Date of alleged offence: September 28, 2012

Description: A worker was connecting sump piping from a sleeper shack on a drilling site to a septic life pump when the worker was fatally injured.

Contravention: Strategic Oil & Gas Ltd. was charged with 4 counts:

• Alberta Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act Section 3 – Prime Contractor
• Alberta OHS Act Section 2(1)(a)(i) – Obligations of Employers (to their own workers)
• Alberta OHS Act Section 2(1)(a)(ii) – Obligations of Employers (to other workers at the work site)
• Alberta OHS Code Section 7 – Hazard Assessment

Dale's Trucking Inc. was charged with 2 counts:

• Alberta OHS Act Section 2(2) – Worker Obligations
• Alberta OHS Act 2(3) – Supplier Obligations

1564132 Alberta Ltd. was charged with 3 counts

• Alberta OHS Act Section 2(1)(a)(i) – Obligations of Employers (to their own workers)
• Alberta OHS Act Section 2(1)(a)(ii) – Obligations of Employers (to other workers at the work site)
• Alberta OHS Code Section 7 – Hazard Assessment

Status: All charges stayed on April 20, 2015.

Charged is: CWC Well Services Corp.

Date charges laid: August 15, 2014

Date of alleged offence: September 9, 2012

Type: Serious Injury

Description: A worker seriously injured when the worker fell down the stairs accessing the rig floor on a service rig. The worker was attempting to avoid falling equipment.

Contravention: CWC Energy Services Corp. was charged with 3 counts:

• Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, R.S.A 2000, Chapter O-2, as amended.
• Section 7(4) of the OHS Code 2009, as adopted by the OHS Code Order, Alberta Regulation 87/2009 pursuant to the OHS Act, R.S.A. 2000, Chapter 0-2, as amended.
• Section 189 of the OHS Code 2009, as adopted by the OHS Code Order, Alberta Regulation 87/2009 pursuant to the OHS Act, R.S.A. 2000, Chapter 0-2, as amended.

Status: CWC Well Services Corp. was acquitted on all counts June 6, 2016

Charged is: United Rentals of Canada, Inc.

Date charges laid: June 26, 2014

Date of alleged offence: June 29, 2012

Description: A truck driver went to the aid of a skid steer operator when the cab door of the loader that the truck driver was operating dislodged from the door support tracks and fell on top of the loader operator. The bucket was raised at the time. As the truck driver reached in to assist the loader operator, the bucket fell, crushing the truck driver underneath the bucket and between the right bucket boom arm and the cab of the loader.

Contravention: United Rentals of Canada was charged with one count:

• Section 2(3) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act

Status: Charges were withdrawn May 25, 2016.

Charged is: Ensign Drilling Inc., Ensign Drilling Partnership, Ensign Drilling Inc., operating as Ensign Canadian Drilling, Ensign Drilling Inc. and Artisan Corporation, carrying on business under the firm name and style of Ensign Drilling Partnership and Artisan Corporation AND Encana Corporation

Date charges laid: December 17, 2013

Date of alleged offence: December 26, 2011

Description: A Leasehand and a Floorhand were on the rig floor measuring a drill pipe when the Leasehand fell down the V-door landing on the catwalk and was seriously injured.

Contravention: Ensign Drilling Inc., Ensign Drilling Partnership, Ensign Drilling Inc., operating as Ensign Canadian Drilling, Ensign Drilling Inc. and Artisan Corporation, carrying on business under the firm name and style of Ensign Drilling Partnership and Artisan Corporation were charged with 4 counts each:

• Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act
• Section 185 of the OHS Code
• Section 139(a) of the OHS Code
• Section 140(1) of the OHS Code

Encana Corporation was charged was 1 count:

• Section 2(5) of the OHS Act

Status: All charges withdrawn on April 27, 2015.

Charged is: Gasfrac Services GP Inc., Isolation Equipment Services Inc., Husky Oil Operations Limited

Date charges laid: March 6, 2013

Date of alleged offence: March 7, 2011

Description: Two workers were seriously injured, while several other workers sustained minor injuries when propane and other fluids escaped from a well bore and a flash fire occurred.

Contravention: Husky Oil Operations was charged with 9 counts:

• Section 2(1)(a)(ii) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act
• Section 2(5) of the OHS Act
• Section 3(3) of the OHS Act
• Section 7(1) of the OHS Code
• Section 7(4) of the OHS Code
• Section 162.1(1)(a) of the OHS Code
• Section 162.1(1)(b) of the OHS Code
• Section 162.1(1)(d) of the OHS Code
• Section 165(3)(a) of the OHS Code

Gasfrac Services GP Inc was charged with 7 counts:

• Section 2(1)(a)(ii) of the OHS Act
• Section 7(1) of the OHS Code
• Section 7(4) of the OHS Code
• Section 162.1(1)(a) of the OHS Code
• Section 162.1(1)(b) of the OHS Code
• Section 162.1(1)(d) of the OHS Code
• Section 165 (3)(a) of the OHS Code

Isolation Equipment Services Inc. was charged with 3 counts:

• Section 2(1)(a)(ii) of the OHS Act
• Section 7(1) of the OHS Code
• Section 7(4) of the OHS Code

Status: Charges withdrawn. Case closed March 16, 2015.

Charged is: Weatherford Canada Partnership, Weatherford Artificial Lift Systems Canada Ltd., Weatherford Canada Ltd., and Precision Energy Services ULC

Date charges laid: December 14, 2012

Date of alleged offence: January 14, 2011

Description: Workers were in the process of fishing out a logging tool string which had become stuck in a wellbore. One worker was seriously injured when a wire rope sling failed. The sling and pieces of equipment fell, striking the worker.

Contravention: Weatherford Canada Partnership, Weatherford Artificial Lift Systems Canada Ltd., Weatherford Canada Ltd. And Precision Energy Services ULC, all carrying on business under the name and style of Weatherford Canada Partnership were charged with 4 counts:

• Section 2(1)(a)(i) Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act
• Section 2(1)(a)(ii) OHS Act
• Section 13(2) OHS Regulation
• Section 9(1) OHS Code

Status: Charges were stayed on May 16, 2014.

Charged is: Precision Drilling Corporation, Precision Drilling Canada Limited Partnership, Precision Diversified Oilfield Services Corp and, Precision Diversified Oilfield Services Corp and Precision Drilling Corporation Operating as Precision Drilling, A Division of Precision Drilling Canada Limited

Date charges laid: November 16, 2012

Date of alleged offence: December 12, 2010

Description:   A worker was fatally injured on a drilling rig when the worker was struck by rotating equipment.

Contravention: Precision Drilling Corporation, Precision Drilling Canada Limited Partnership, Precision Diversified Oilfield Services Corp And, Precision Diversified Oilfield Services Corp and Precision Drilling Corporation Operating as Precision Drilling, A Division of Precision Drilling Canada Limited Partnership were charged with 2 counts:

• Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act
• Section 9(1) of the OHS Code

Status: Precision Diversified Oilfield Services was convicted on both counts in 2015. The conviction was appealed. On August 22, 2018, the Alberta Court of Appeal ordered a new trial. The Crown stayed the charges on November 16, 2018.

Charged is: Road Train Oilfield Transport Ltd.

Date charges laid: September 19, 2012

Date of alleged offence: September 24, 2010

Description: A worker received fatal injuries when, during the winching of a well testing trailer onto the 5th wheel hitch of a winch truck, the winch cable and tail chain recoiled and struck the worker.

Contravention: Road Train Oilfield Transport Ltd. is charged with 2 counts:

• Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act
• Section 310(2)(g) of the OHS Code

Status: Charges were stayed on March 25, 2013.

Charged is: Myshak Crane and Rigging Ltd, Myshak Sales and Rentals Ltd.

Date charges laid: May 4, 2012

Date of alleged offence: June 10, 2010

Description: A worker was fatally injured when a large metal cabinet fell on the worker from the rear of a tractor trailer van.

Contravention: Myshak Crane and Rigging Ltd. was charged with 2 counts:

• Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act
• Section 189 of the OHS Code

Myshak Sales and Rentals Ltd. was charged with 2 counts:

• Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act
• Section 189 of the OHS Code

Status: Both companies were acquitted on all charges after trial on November 15, 2013.

Charged is: Dibco Underground Limited

Date charges laid: May 4, 2012

Date of alleged offence: May 5, 2010

Description: A worker was seriously injured when the worker was pinned between a loaded bucket and the deck of a boom truck.

Contravention: Dibco Underground Ltd. is charged with three counts:

• Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act
• Section 70(1)(a) of the OHS Code
• Section 189 of the OHS Code

Status: Charges were stayed on November 13, 2013.

Charged is: Bayview Constructors Inc.

Date charges laid: October 14, 2011

Date of alleged offence: November 18, 2009

Description: Two workers were performing cleanup work on the second level of a school under renovation. One worker stepped back to avoid the dust being generated by the cleanup work and fell almost 4 metres through a partially covered floor opening.

Contravention: Bayview Constructors Inc. was charged with two counts:

• Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act
• Section 314(3)(a) of the OHS Code

Status: Charges were stayed on February 21, 2013.

Charged is: Encana Corporation

Date charges laid: October 1, 2010

Date of alleged offence: October 3, 2008

Description:   A worker was at a natural gas separator/compressor facility when the worker was struck on the head and fatally injured by an unsecured discharge pipe.

Contravention: Encana Corporation was charged with 5 counts:

• Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act
• Section 2(1)(a)(ii) of the OHS Act
• Section 2(5) of the OHS Act
• Section 3(3) of the OHS Act
• Section 189 of the OHS Code

Status: Charges against Encana Corporate were stayed on November 20, 2012.

Charged is: Precision Drilling Corporation

Date charges laid: July 12, 2010

Date of alleged offence: July 14, 2008

Description:   A floorhand was seriously injured when the worker was working on a slant service rig. A power tong was dislodged from the tong cart while a tubing string was being lowered into an oil well. The power tong fell and landed on the worker's leg.

Contravention: Precision Drilling Corporation was charged with 3 counts:

• Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act
• Section 774(b) of the OHS Code
• Section 189 of the OHS Code

Status: Charges against Precision Drilling Corporation were stayed on December 9, 2011.

Charged is:  Procrane Inc. Operating as Sterling Crane and Nabors Drilling Limited

Date charges laid: February 23, 2009

Date of alleged offence: February 27, 2007

Description: A load from a crane fell and fatally injured a worker.

Contravention: Procrane Inc. operating as Sterling Crane and Nabors Drilling Limited were charged with 2 counts:

• Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act
• Section 189 of the OHS Code

Nabors Drilling Limited was also charged with one additional count:

• Section 3(3) of the OHS Act

Status: Charges stayed against Nabors Drilling Ltd. in September 2010, prior to the trial. Sterling Crane found not guilty on both counts January 26, 2011.

Charged is:  936923 Alberta Ltd., 936923 Alberta Ltd. o/a Avalon Master Builder and GNH Construction Ltd.

Date charges laid: October 8, 2008

Date of alleged offence: October 12, 2006

Description: A worker fell approximately 5.80 metres through the stairwell openings and landed in the basement.

Contravention: 936923 Alberta Ltd was charged with one count:

• Section 3(3) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act

936923 Alberta Ltd o/a Avalon Master Builder was charged with 2 counts:

• Section 2(1)(a)(ii) of the OHS Act
• Section 2(5) of the OHS Act

GNH Construction Ltd was charged with 2 counts:

• Section 2(5) of the OHS Act
• Section 2(1)(a)(ii) of the OHS Act

Status: Charges stayed against Avalon Master Builder, GNH Construction and 936923 Alberta Ltd., on January 27, 2011.

Charged is: Begg Industrial

Date charges laid: May 9, 2008

Date of alleged offence: May 10, 2006

Description: A worker fell an undetermined height striking the back of the worker's head onto a wash bay concrete floor and sustained serious head injuries.

Contravention: Begg Industrial was charged with one count:

• Section 18(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act

Status: Charges Dismissed November 27, 2008.

Appeal filed December 22, 2008.

Stay of Proceedings March 13, 2009.

Charged is: Nexen Inc.

Date charges laid: April 9, 2008

Date of alleged offence: April 10, 2006

Description: A worker on a drilling rig had their left hand amputated while up in the rig's derrick.

Contravention: Nexen Inc. was charged with 2 counts:

• Section 3(3) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act
• Section 2(5) of the OHS Act

Status: Stay of Proceedings November 14, 2008.

Charged is: Precision Drilling Corporation and Celtic Exploration Ltd.

Date charges laid: August 8, 2007

Date of alleged offence: August 9, 2005

Description: A worker was fatally injured and two workers were injured by an explosion at a well site.

Contravention: Precision Drilling Corporation was charged with 5 counts:

• Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act
• Section 2(1)(a)(ii) of the OHS Act
• Section 13(2) of the OHS Regulation
• Section 7(1) of the OHS Code
• Section 163(1) of the OHS Code pursuant to the OHS Act

Celtic Exploration Ltd. was charged with one count:

• Section 3(3) of the OHS Act

Status: Stay of Proceedings September 14, 2009.

Charged is: Northern Forage

Date charges laid: January 4, 2006

Date of alleged offence: January 6, 2004

Description: Worker fell head first into a hay bale de-stacking machine.

Contravention: Northern Forage was charged with 2 counts:

• Section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act
• Section 37(1)(a) of the OHS Act

Status: Stay of Proceedings March 13, 2009