Report from the government of Ontario’s ‘Newsroom’
A worker, employed by General Motors of Canada of St. Catharines, Ontario, an auto manufacturer, was injured when a CNC machine moved after the worker had entered to perform a maintenance task. The company failed, as an employer, to take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of a worker, contrary to section 25(2)(h) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
Report from the OH&S Canada magazine (Winter 2024)
Jeff Gooch, a construction site foreman, has been acquitted of criminal negligence causing the death of one of his workers by the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia.
Created by Norm Keith is an OH&S Lawyer and published July 30, 2024
Report published – OH&S Canada magazine (Fall 2024)
After four decades of advising and representing management and employers in occupational health and safety law matters across the country, I have significant experience with effective safety programs. That being said, it’s not usually the length of the safety policy or the program documents that determine the best program. Rather, employers who invest in a simple, practical, and effective safety program consistently get the best results. They generally have the least number of incidents, worker injuries and fatalities. Based on my experience, I have come up with a straightforward set of recommendations for employers to consider in this article.
Report from the government of Ontario’s ‘Newsroom’
A worker, employed by Limen Group Construction of Toronto, Ontario, was fatally injured by a falling concrete block. The company failed, as an employer, to ensure that the measures and procedures prescribed by section 172(1) of Ontario Regulation 213 were carried out at a workplace, contrary to section 25(1)(c) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. It also failed to take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of a worker, contrary to section 25(2)(h) of the Act. The two supervisors failed to take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of a worker, contrary to section 27(2)(c) of the Act.