Contractor safety program ontario

Pre-Bid Projects. Click here for free access to Conceptual and Planning stage projects from across Canada. Recent Comments January 13, Email Name. Associations January 13, Projects January 13, Learn about the different sectors that fall under the responsibility of the Construction Health and Safety Program. Construction is a dynamic industry made up of several primary sectors, each with subsectors.

Individual activities are diverse with workplaces and workforces that change constantly. In a typical project, there can be multiple employers and up to 10 different trades and trade unions on site. These multiple-employer and multiple-union workplaces are quite different from those in other industries. The construction sector covers both large and small firms and includes unionized and non-unionized workplaces. The workforce includes contractors, sub-contractors, both part-time and temporary workers, family members and business owners.

Most construction contractors in Ontario are small- to mid-size employers. Many construction employers have fewer than eight employees. He has control over what contractors and subcontractors will be permitted to work and continue working upon the project.

In planning the pr oject and deciding whether he will undertake it, and how it will be organized, he can consider the dimensions and logistics of the project and, drawing upon his own expertise and knowledge… he can make a reasonable assessment of what would be requisite to ensure compliance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act and Regulations upon the project. The existence of a party such as a prime contractor as part of the legislative scheme for contracting adds to the confusion surrounding contracting, since some employers or workplace owners naturally, but incorrectly, assume that if another specifically named workplace party the constructor or prime contractor has responsibility, then they have none.

However, the existence of a prime contractor does not eliminate any of the responsibility that a workplace owner may have when it contracts directly for the services of workers. The existence of a prime contractor should be regarded as a unique opportunity that exists in most health and safety legislation in only limited and specific circumstances.

For example, this concept is only applicable for contracting activities involving construction projects in provinces such as Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia and in the Yukon. This is an important caveat: If the owner exercises any control and responsibility along with the prime contractor, then the owner remains liable, no matter what the contract between the owner and prime contractor states.

A last important aspect of the legal reality pertaining to contracting is the concurrent nature of responsibilities of all of the workplace parties, and the discretion of government officials who enforce the legislation. While the specific legislative scheme and thus the specific manner in which the party could be prosecuted varies from province to province, this concept applies to all jurisdictions.

If so, the owner will likely not face any consequences, responsibility having been successfully and properly contracted to a prime contractor. The frustrations of business owners and managers in deciphering and managing the legal backdrop of express or implied responsibilities must always be contrasted against the stark consequences when clear policies and procedures are not in place.

The reality that contract workers are regularly critically or fatally injured drives the policy of broad definitions and provisions requiring that employers and work site owners take responsibility for the safety of all workers for whose services they contract.

Consider the fatal accident involving Duc Nguyen, an employee of Chemidyne Corporation. An Alberta employer in the business of slaughtering and processing beef, Cargill Ltd. Nguyen had been employed by Chemidyne for approximately five months. He was assigned to clean a chain carrying hooks from the killing floor of Cargill.

To perform his work he had to access a mezzanine level, which the court heard was a restricted area. There were two open and unguarded drive shafts at the mezzanine level. Nguyen stood in front of the unguarded drive shaft to reach and clean hooks, wearing a loose-fitting apron, and was fatally injured after becoming entangled in the machinery. Regina v. Cargill Ltd. Mumby worked for a company known as Georgia Pacific Inc.

Because of his expertise and experience, Mumby did no other work but maintenance of Georgia Pacific equipment. Mumby was performing work on a piece of equipment consisting of two screw augers driven by two separate motors. The power source to only one of the motors was locked out. A control room operator in another area of the building, unaware that maintenance was being carried out by a contractor, started the machine, and Mumby was pulled into the auger and killed.

Evidence showed that this assumption could not be proven… Overall, the evidence presented by witnesses indicated that Robert Mumby was aware of the safety regulations but for some reason did not lock out the machine properly. His co-worker was unaware of the safety regulations and therefore did not recognize that incorrect procedure had been followed and, finally, the control room operator started up the machinery since he was unaware that maintenance was currently being carried out.

Too frequently, the only strategy consists of complete reliance on a letter or contractual provision, signed by the contractor, stating that the contractor is fully responsible and liable under health and safety provisions. These are not effective or legally sufficient control strategies.

Yet there exists a tendency, from the smallest to the most significant and sophisticated employers across Canada, to attempt to control contractor safety through the use of these pieces of paper. There are numerous cases in which corporations have been conv icted and their programs found deficient but, unbelievable as it may seem, there is an almost complete lack of specific legal guidance on contractor liability available in any case decided in Canada.

In the few cases that have specifically commented upon this matter, the comments are very general. In a decision involving Regina v. Al Silverberg , c. These few decided cases confirm that to meet long-standing requirements for contractor activities, sufficient steps must be taken to demonstrate to a court that due diligence has been exercised to avoid contraventions.

Whether these steps are followed by a prime contractor or similar party with overall control of a work site, or whether these steps are exercised by an employer contracting for services, a proper contractor safety program must consider the factors raised in due diligence court cases.

Such non-specific steps are not held to amount to due diligence in any case involving a safety system for direct hires, and they are equally insufficient as an operating system to ensure that legislative requirements are met. The leading case from which all decisions on due diligence flow, Regina v. Sault Ste. Marie 85 DLR 3d SCC stated expressly that the defence of due diligence required establishing a system and ensuring that the system is operating effectively.