Blog Post #178 – Richmond North Property Corp. Fined $37,500 for Asbestos Violation

Blog Post #178 – Richmond North Property Corp. Fined $37,500 for Asbestos Violation

Excerpt from the Government of Ontario’s ‘Newsroom’

Richmond North Property Corp. pleaded guilty and was fined $37,500 on December 14, 2009, for asbestos violations under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA).

During the summer of 2007, the company was renovating a building it owned on Richmond St. N. in London. On August 16, 2007, the Ministry of Labour found that asbestos was present at the project. An investigation revealed the company had failed to advise its workers of the asbestos. Workers also did not know where the asbestos-containing material was or whether the asbestos was friable. If a substance is friable, it is easily broken down, making it possible to inhale.

Richmond North Property Corp. pleaded guilty to failing to:

– advise workers of asbestos-containing material;
– provide workers with the location of asbestos-containing material; and
– advise workers whether asbestos-containing material was friable or non-friable.

The fine was imposed by Justice of the Peace Stewart Taylor. In addition to the fine, the court also imposed a 25-per-cent victim fine surcharge, as required by the Provincial Offences Act. The surcharge is credited to a special provincial government fund to assist victims of crime.

My opinion

The law(s) in contravention:

Richmond North Property Corporation was found guilty of violating section 5 (2) of the Ontario regulation 278/05, ‘Asbestos’ on Construction Projects and in Buildings and Repair Operations’ which states,

“The constructor or employer shall advise a worker and provide him or her with the following information:

1. The location of all material described in clause 1(a)
2. For each location, whether the material is friable or non-friable
3. In the case of sprayed-on friable material, for each location,
I. If the material is known to be asbestos-containing material, the type of asbestos, if known, or
II. In any other case, a statement that the material will be treated as though it contained a type of asbestos other than ‘chrysotile’.

Any time a designated substance is found on a job sight, there are many safeguards that MUST be put in place prior to the workforce entering the area.

This year we have repealed the following:

1) 835/90 — Acrylonitrile
2) 836/90 — Arsenic
3) 837/90 — Asbestos
4) 839/90 — Benzene
5) 840/90 — Coke Oven Emissions
6) 841/90 — Ethylene Oxide
7) 842/90 — Isocyanates
8) 843/90 — Lead
9) 844/90 — Mercury
10) 845/90 — Silica
11) 846/90 — Vinyl Chloride

I have listed the 11 designated substances of which asbestos has two different regulations. 278/05 has NOT been repealed and stays in force.

Ontario regulation 491/09 came into force July 1, 2010 and amends regulation 833, Control for Exposure to Biological or Chemical Agents, by introducing new definitions and requirements for PPE in the absences of “Engineering Controls.” Furthermore, the amendment revises the exposure limits or information listings for 23 substances, adds exposure limits for two new substances (butenes and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and withdraws specific exposure limits for 11 substances.

In today’s civilized world, there are many regulations covering a large amount of health and safety concerns. It is always the responsibility of the employer to seek out the regulations, to initiate proper controls so that the workers are never at risk.

Remember — In Ontario, “ALL Accidents are Preventable”

‘Work’ and ‘Play’ safe.

Daniel L. Beal
CHSEP – Foundation Level
VP & Senior Trainer
HRS Group Inc.

Dan
Share

25 Comments

  1. Annette

    You do make a compelling case.

  2. Philip

    I wonder what comes next!

  3. Sharon Woodhouse

    In that case, this kind of question should not be made lightly.

  4. Brittany

    I wanted to thank you for all the great information you are providing.

  5. Kurt

    If your work was any better I could not stand it.

  6. Earl

    So you are back giving good material.

  7. Marsha

    Nicely done!

  8. Celinda

    The subject matter is great.

  9. Chauncey

    Also, we need to determine what else is out there for health and safety.

  10. Sarah

    I want more of the same.

  11. Britney

    Hi to all, since I am truly keen of reading this website’s post.

  12. Gladys

    It’s actually a great and useful piece of info.

  13. Natalie

    Do you need more website traffic?

  14. Maria

    We have decided to open up our own blog post.

  15. Deborah

    I got what you intend, appreciate it for posting!

  16. Quincy

    I am so grateful for your blog post.

  17. Trudy Cadle

    I am glad to be one of several visitors to this outstanding site!

  18. Wallace

    I really needed this!

  19. Christian

    Terrific work!

  20. Ashley

    I wanted to thank you for all the great information you are providing!

  21. Francis

    With having so much content do you ever run into any issues of plagiarism or copyright infringement?

    1. Dan

      Not so far!

  22. Carlos

    I was curious if you ever considered changing the layout of your website?

  23. Mary Jo

    Again, awesome weblog!

  24. Arielle

    Hello, everything is going perfectly here.

Post a comment