Charges under the OHS Legislation

Charged is: North West Crane Enterprises Ltd.

Date charges laid: June 14, 2024

Location of alleged offence: Clairmont

Date of alleged offence: August 22, 2022

Type: Fatality

Description: A worker was positioned under a boom that was sitting on a non-certified pipe stand when the stand collapsed causing the boom to hit the worker. The worker was fatally injured.

Contravention: North West Crane Enterprises Ltd., being an employer, was charged with 11 counts:

• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, between August 4 and August 22, 2022, both dates inclusive, failure to ensure the health and safety of workers engaged in the work of that employer.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, on or about August 22, 2022, failure to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of that employer who suffered fatal injuries when a crane boom fell on the worker.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, on or about August 22, 2022, failure to ensure the health and safety of two of their workers by permitting them to work underneath a crane boom, in circumstances where the suspended or elevated boom was a danger to them.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, on or about August 22, 2022, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by permitting the worker to work underneath a crane boom suspended and/or supported on a metal A-leg stand which was of insufficient strength and/or made of unsuitable materials to withstand the stresses imposed on it by the boom.
• Section 3(2) of the OHS Act, between August 4 and 22, 2022, both dates inclusive, failure to ensure two of their workers were adequately trained in all matters necessary to perform their work, the dismantling, repairing and rebuilding of a crane boom, in a healthy and safe manner.
• Section 3.3 of the OHS Code, between August 4 and 22, 2022, both dates inclusive, failure to ensure the performance by five workers of a duty under section 256(1) of the OHS Code where section 256(2) did not apply, that a worker must not operate powered mobile equipment, a loader, unless the worker was trained to safely operate the equipment and/or had demonstrated competency in operating the equipment to a competent worker designated by the employer and/or was familiar with the equipment’s operating instructions, contrary to section 3.3 of the OHS Code.
• Section 12(a) of the OHS Code, on or about August 22, 2022, failure to ensure equipment, a metal A-leg stand, was of sufficient size, strength and design and made of suitable materials to withstand the stresses imposed on it during its operation and to perform the function for which it was intended or designed.
• Section 12(b)(i) of the OHS Code, on or about August 22, 2022, failure to ensure equipment, a metal A-leg stand used at a work site, was maintained in a condition that would not compromise the health or safety of the two workers using or transporting it.
• Section 12(c) of the OHS Code, on or about August 22, 2022, failure to ensure limitations on the operation of equipment or any part of it, a metal A-leg stand, were not exceeded.
• Section 68 of the OHS Code, between August 4 and 22, 2022, both dates inclusive, failure to ensure the operator of a lifting device, an overhead crane, the rigger supervised by the operator and the person in charge of a lift were provided with all the information necessary to enable them to readily and accurately determine the weight of the load to be lifted, a crane boom.
• Section 189 of the OHS Code, on or about August 22, 2022, where two workers, could be injured if equipment was dislodged or moved, failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure equipment, a crane boom, was contained, restrained or protected to eliminate the potential danger.

Charged is: Eastern Irrigation District

Date charges laid: June 24, 2024

Location of alleged offence: Brooks

Date of alleged offence: October 19, 2022

Type: Fatality

Description: A diver was engaged to assess, inspect and/or complete work at the Rolling Hills Reservoir and Lake Newell reservoir gates. During the dive, the diver suffered fatal injuries.

Contravention: Eastern Irrigation District, being an employer, was charged with ten counts:

• Section 3(1)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act failure to ensure (a) the health, safety and welfare of (i) workers engaged in the work of that employer, (ii) those workers not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site where work was being carried out, and (iii) other persons at or in the vicinity of the work site whose health and safety could be affected by identifiable and controllable hazards originating from the work site by failing to ensure flow in the vicinity of a dive was stopped before the dive began.
• Section 3(2) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure a worker engaged in the work of that employer was adequately trained in all matters necessary to perform their work in a healthy and safe manner.
• Section 3(2) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure another worker engaged in the work of that employer was adequately trained in all matters necessary to perform their work in a healthy and safe manner.
• Section 3(3)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure work being done that could endanger a worker was done by a worker who was competent to do the work.
• 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.
• 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 115(1) of the OHS Code, failure to establish an emergency response plan for responding to an emergency that could require rescue or evacuation, an under-water rescue.
• Section 424(b) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure the diving operation performed by a worker at their work site met the requirements of CSA Standard CAN/CSA Z275.2-04, Occupational Safety Code for Diving Operations, contrary to section 424(b) of the OHS Code.
• Section 424(c) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure the diving operation performed by a worker at their work site met the requirements of CSA Standard CAN/CSA Z275.4-02, Competency Standard for Diving Operations, contrary to section 424(c) of the OHS Code.
• Section 437 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure the flow through the intake of a pipe, tunnel, duct or similar installation in the vicinity of a dive, was stopped and the intake mechanism was locked out before the dive began.

Charged is: HCL Site Services Ltd.

Date charges laid: June 10, 2024

Location of alleged offence: Viking

Date of alleged offence: August 19, 2022

Type: Serious Incident

Description: A worker was conducting sewer line restoration duties when there was a partial trench collapse. The worker was seriously injured.

Contravention: HCL Site Services Ltd., being an employer, was charged with 6 counts:

• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the health, safety and welfare of workers engaged in the work of that employer, by failing to ensure they were protected from the collapse of a wall of an excavation.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health, safety and welfare of a worker engaged in the work of that employer, by failing to ensure their worker was protected from the collapse of a wall of an excavation.
• Section 443(1) of the OHS Code, failure to stabilize the soil in an excavation by shoring or cutting back. 
• Section 446(2) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure a worker did not enter an excavation that did not comply with Part 32 of the OHS Code, contrary to section 446(2) of the OHS Code. 
• Section 450(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that before a worker began working in an excavation that was more than 1.5 metres deep and closer to the wall than the depth of the excavation, that the worker was protected from cave ins or sliding or rolling materials. 
• Section 453(a) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a spoil pile was piled so the leading edge of the pile was at least 1 metre away from the edge of the excavation.

Charged is: Ihawk Construction Ltd., Rajwinder Kaur, Rajwinder Singh and Utopia Construction Inc.

Date charges laid: June 4, 2024

Location of alleged offence: Calgary

Date of alleged offence: January 2, 2023

Type: Serious Incident

Description: A visitor to the work site was permitted to use a portable ladder placed next to an uncovered opening in the floor. The portable ladder slipped and toppled over, with the visitor, through the uncovered opening into the basement. The individual was seriously injured.

Contravention: Ihawk Construction Ltd. and Rajwinder Kaur, being an employer, were charged with 12 counts:

• Section 3(1)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the health, safety and welfare of workers engaged in the work of that employer, workers not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site at which that work was being carried out, and other persons at or in the vicinity of the work site, a visitor, who could be affected by hazards originating from the work site.
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health, safety and welfare of their workers, other workers present at the work site, and other persons at or in the vicinity of the work site who could be affected by hazards originating from the work site, by permitting a visitor to enter a construction site where an unsecured portable ladder was placed next to an uncovered opening in the floor.
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health, safety and welfare of their workers, other workers present at the work site, and other persons at or in the vicinity of the work site who could be affected by hazards originating from the work site, by permitting their visitor to use an unsecured portable ladder.
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health, safety and welfare of their workers, other workers present at the work site, and other persons at or in the vicinity of the work site who could be affected by hazards originating from the work site, a visitor, by permitting an opening in the floor to be uncovered without providing alternative protection.
• Section 3(1)(d)(ii) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure their  workers were supervised by a person who was familiar with the OHS Act, the regulations and the OHS Code that apply to the work performed at the work site.
• Section 3(2) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure their workers were adequately trained in all matters necessary to perform their work in a healthy and safe manner.
• Section 3(4) of the OHS Act, failure to keep readily available information related to work site hazards, controls, work practices and procedures and provide that information to the workers and the prime contractor.
• Section 3.3 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure their workers performed the duty imposed on them by the OHS Code section 136(a) to ensure a portable ladder is secured against movement, contrary to section 3.3 of the OHS Code.
• 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 140(4) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure its fall protection plan was updated when conditions affecting fall protection changed, a portable ladder was unsecured.
• Section 314(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure an opening or hole through which a worker could fall was protected by a securely attached cover designed to support an anticipated load, or guardrails and toe boards.
• Section 314(2) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure, where a person removed a cover protecting an opening or hole, that a temporary cover or other means of protection replaced it immediately.

Rajwinder Singh, being a supervisor, was charged with 1 count:

• Section 4(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to take all precautions necessary to protect the health and safety of every worker under his supervision.

Ihawk Construction Ltd., Rajwinder Kaur and Rajwinder Singh were charged with 1 count:

• Section 47(a) of the OHS Act, failure to comply with a stop work order pursuant to the OHS Act, regulations and the OHS Code.

Utopia Construction Inc., being a prime contractor, was charged with 3 counts:

• Section 10(6) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure that its name was posted in a conspicuous place at the work site.
• Section 10(7)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to establish a system or process that would ensure compliance with the OHS Act, the regulations and the OHS Code in respect of the work site, including a system or process to ensure cooperation between the employer and workers in respect to health and safety.
• Section 10(8) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure that workers employed by Ihawk Construction Ltd. performed their duty pursuant to OHS Code section 136(a), contrary to section 10(8) of the OHS Act.

Charged is: Tamarack Valley Energy Ltd., Voltegic Energy Services Ltd., Peace Pipefitting Inc., and 1282446 Alberta Ltd.

Date charges laid: May 9, 2024

Location of alleged offence: Smith

Date of alleged offence: November 12, 2022

Type: Fatality

Description: Two workers were welding on top of a tank when an explosion occurred within a tank farm. Both workers were fatally injured.

Contravention: Tamarack Valley Energy Ltd.; Voltegic Energy Services Ltd.; Peace Pipefitting Inc.; and 1282446 Alberta Ltd., being an employer, were charged with four counts:

• Section 3(1)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure (a) the health and safety of (i) workers engaged in the work of that employer, (ii) those workers not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site at which that work was being carried out, and (iii) other persons at or in the vicinity of the work site whose health and safety could be materially affected by identifiable and controllable hazards originating from the work site, by failing to ensure the health and safety of two workers in failing to ensure hot work was not conducted on a tank.
• Section 169(2)(a) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure hot work was not begun until a hot work permit was issued that indicated the nature of the hazard, the type and frequency of atmospheric testing required, the safe work procedures and precautionary measures to be taken, and the protective equipment required.
• Section 169(2)(b) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure hot work was not begun until the hot work location was cleared of combustible materials or suitably isolated from combustible materials.
• Section 169(2)(d)(i) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure 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 per cent of that substance’s lower explosive limit for gas or vapours.

Tamarack Valley Energy Ltd. and Voltegic Energy Services Ltd., being an employer, were charged with four counts:

• Section 7(1) of the OHS Code, failure to assess a work site and identify existing and potential hazards, explosion hazards, before work began at the work site or prior to the construction of a new work site.
• Section 7(4)(b) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a hazard assessment was repeated when a new work process was introduced, welding.
• Section 171.1(1) of the OHS Code, failure to comply with the requirements of CSA Standard W117.2-06, Safety in Welding, Cutting and Allied Processes, by failing to comply with clause 5.4.5 and 11.8.1, contrary to Section 171.1(1) of the OHS Code.
• Section 171.1(3) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that, before a welding or allied process was commenced, the area surrounding the operation was inspected and (a) all combustible, flammable or explosive material, dust, gas or vapour was removed or (b) alternate methods of rendering the area safe were implemented.

Tamarack Valley Energy Ltd. was charged with 12 counts:

• Section 8(1) of the OHS Act, being a contracting employer who directed the activities of an employer involved in work at a work site, failed to ensure the employer complied with the OHS Act, the Regulations and the OHS Code in respect of that work site.
• Section 8(2) of the OHS Act, being a contracting employer, failed to ensure that any employer on a work site was informed of existing or potential work site hazards that could affect workers or other persons at the work site.
• Section 10(7)(a) of the OHS Act, being a prime contractor, failed to establish a system or process to ensure compliance with the OHS Act, the Regulations and the OHS Code, in respect of the work site, including a system or process to ensure cooperation between the employer and workers regarding health and safety, by failing to implement the Tamarack Valley Energy Ltd. health and safety system at the work site after amalgamation with Deltastream Energy Corporation.
• Section 10(7)(a) of the OHS Act, being a prime contractor, failed to establish a system or process to ensure compliance with the OHS Act, the Regulations and the OHS Code, in respect of the work site, including a system or process to ensure cooperation between the employer and workers regarding health and safety, by failing to implement a system or process to ensure oil storage tanks were suitably tested prior to hot work.
• Section 10(7)(a) of the OHS Act, being a prime contractor, failed to establish a system or process to ensure compliance with the OHS Act, the Regulations and the OHS Code, in respect of the work site, including a system or process to ensure cooperation between the employer and workers regarding health and safety, by failing to implement and enforce Area Turnover Agreements.
• Section 10(7)(b) of the OHS Act, being a prime contractor, failed to designate a person in writing for the purposes of ensuring cooperation between the employer and workers in respect to health and safety and implementing a system to address the matters set out in section 13(6), contrary to section 10(7)(b) of the OHS Act.
• Section 10(7)(c) of the OHS Act, being a prime contractor, failed to conduct its own activities in such a way as to ensure that no person was exposed to hazards arising out of, or in connection with, activities at the work site, by issuing a hot work permit for welding on a tank when that tank had not been suitably cleaned for hot work and/or without adequate atmospheric testing.
• Section 10(7)(c) of the OHS Act, being a prime contractor, failed to conduct its own activities in such a way as to ensure that no person was exposed to hazards arising out of, or in connection with, activities at the work site, by failing to ensure all affected workers were aware that a tank was drained but not suitably cleaned to make it safe for hot work.
• Section 10(10) of the OHS Act, being a prime contractor, failed to ensure that the owner and any employer, supplier or service provider on a work site was informed of any existing or potential work site hazards that could affect workers or other persons at the work site, by failing to communicate to workers tasked with working around and/or on a tank that it was drained but not otherwise cleaned and was therefore unsafe for any hot work.
• Section 3(2) of the OHS Act, being an employer, failed to ensure that worker(s) engaged in the work of that employer were adequately trained in all matters necessary to perform their work in a healthy and safe manner.
• Section 115(3) of the OHS Code, being an employer, failed to ensure that an emergency response plan was current.
• Section 116 of the OHS Code being an employer, did fail to ensure that an emergency response plan included all elements required by section 116 of the OHS Code.

Voltegic Energy Services Ltd., being an employer, was charged with three counts:

• Section 3(2) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure worker(s) engaged in the work of that employer were adequately trained in all matters necessary to perform their work in a healthy and safe manner.
• 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 180(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure before workers were sent to a work site, arrangements were in place to transport injured or ill workers from the work site to the nearest health care facility.

Peace Pipefitting Inc. and 1282446 Alberta Ltd., being a supervisor, were charged with one count:

• Section 4(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to take all precautions necessary to protect the health and safety of every worker under the supervisor’s supervision, by failing to take all precautions necessary to protect the two workers by failing to ensure hot work was not conducted on a tank.

Charged is: Delta Land Co. Inc.

Date charges laid: May 9, 2024

Location of alleged offence: Lacombe County

Date of alleged offence: November 8, 2022

Type: Fatality

Description: A worker was performing maintenance on an excavator bucket pin when they were crushed between the lower excavator arm and a grounded excavator bucket.

Contravention: Delta Land Co. Inc., being an employer, was charged with 7 counts:

• Section 3(1)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act failure to ensure, by establishing, maintaining and enforcing a zone or zones excluding workers from proximity to a hazard, the safety of workers engaged in the work of that employer, workers not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site at which that work was being carried out and other persons at or in the vicinity of the work site who could be affected by hazards originating in the work site.
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by adequately assessing a work process including adequately identifying hazards, the safety of workers engaged in the work of that employer, workers not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site and other persons at or near the work site who could be affected by hazards originating in the work site.
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by adequately de-powering or de-activating equipment or machinery, an excavator or like item, the safety of workers engaged in the work of that employer, workers not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site and other persons at or near the work site who could be affected by hazards originating in the work site.
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by adequately training or maintaining the alertness of workers in the recognition of hazardous situations, the safety of workers engaged in the work of that employer, workers not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site and other persons at or near the work site who could be affected by hazards originating in the work site.
• Section 7(4) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure the hazard assessment was repeated when a new work process was introduced or when a work process or operation changed.
• Section 258(1)(a) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure if the movement of a load or the cab, counterweight or any other part of powered mobile equipment created a danger to workers, an employer must not permit a worker to remain in range of the moving load or part.
• Section 258(3) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure if a worker could be caught between a moving part of a unit of powered mobile equipment and another object, that the employer restrict entry to the area by workers or require workers to maintain a clearance distance of at least 600 mm between the powered mobile equipment and the object.

Charged is: HTK Iron Works Ltd.

Date charges laid: April 3, 2024

Location of alleged offence: Burdett

Date of alleged offence: February 1, 2023

Type: Fatality

Description: A labourer was fatally injured when a windbreak panel fell on the worker as the panel was being pushed out of the manufacturing facility with a forklift.

Contravention: HTK Iron Works Ltd., being an employer, was charged with 5 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.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by failing to protect the worker from a falling windbreak panel.
• Section 12(e) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure equipment, a forklift, was operated in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications or the specifications certified by a professional engineer.
• Section 189 of the OHS Code, where a worker could be injured if equipment or material was dislodged, moved, spilled or damaged, failed to ensure the equipment or material was contained, restrained or protected to eliminate the potential danger.
• Section 258(1)(a) of the OHS Code, where the movement of a load or the cab, counterweight or any other part of powered mobile equipment created a danger to workers, did permit a worker to remain within range of the moving load or part.

Charged is: Joy Global (Canada) Ltd. et al; NCSG Crane & Heavy Haul Services Ltd. et al; and Suncor Energy Services Inc. et al

Date charges laid: March 29, 2024

Location of alleged offence: Fort McMurray

Date of alleged offence: July 7, 2022

Type: Fatality

Description: A heavy equipment technician was conducting shovel maintenance duties when the worker was struck by a piece of equipment that was suspended from a crane and fell. The worker sustained fatal injuries.

Contravention: 

Joy Global (Canada) Ltd.; Joy Global (Canada) Ltd., operating as Komatsu; NCSG Crane & Heavy Haul Services Ltd.; Northern Crane Services Ltd.; Suncor Energy Services Inc.; Suncor Energy Oil Sands Limited Partnership; and Suncor Energy Inc, general partner of Suncor Energy Oil Sands Limited Partnership, being an employer, were charged with 7 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, who suffered fatal injuries when equipment, a pendant line, fell on the worker as they worked under a suspended load.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by failing to ensure work was not conducted under a suspended load.
• Section 3(2) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by failing to ensure workers engaged in the work of that employer, removing and/or handling components from a boom shovel, were adequately trained in all matters necessary to perform their work in a healthy and safe manner.
• Section 7(4)(b) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure a hazard assessment was repeated when a new work process was introduced, hoisting a pendant line/equalizer assembly.
• Section 69(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure work was arranged so that a load did not pass over workers.
• Section 70(1)(c) 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, failure to ensure a tag line was used.
• Section 296 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure sharp edges on load(s) to be hoisted were guarded to prevent damage to the slings or straps of the rigging. 

Joy Global (Canada) Ltd. and Joy Global (Canada) Ltd., operating as Komatsu, being an employer, were charged with 6 counts:

• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by providing and/or permitting the use of rag(s) and/or soft flexible material as softeners.
• 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 trained to select suitable softeners for use with synthetic slings.
• Section 12(e) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure equipment, a pendant cable from a 4100C BOSS Mining Shovel, was handled in accordance with specifications certified by a professional engineer or the manufacturer’s specifications, which state: “Using inadequate lifting devices or improper lifting techniques could cause the load to fall and crush, resulting in severe personal injury or death. Use lifting devices suitably rated for the weight of the component being lifted. Be certain that lifting devices are firmly attached to the component being lifted. Keep all persons clear of the area when lifting, lowering, or moving components with lifting equipment”.
• Section 12(e) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure equipment, a sling, was operated or handled in accordance with specifications certified by a professional engineer or the manufacturer’s specifications, which state: “Stand clear of lifted loads and never be under, on or near suspended loads”.
• Section 12(e) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure equipment, a sling, was operated or handled in accordance with specifications certified by a professional engineer or the manufacturer’s specifications, which state: “Protect sling from being cut or damaged by corners, protrusions, or from contact with edges that are not well rounded…using material of sufficient strength, thickness and construction to prevent damage”.
• Section 12(e) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure equipment, a sling, was operated or handled in accordance with specifications certified by a professional engineer or the manufacturer’s specifications, which state: “Connection surfaces must be smooth to avoid abrading or cutting web slings”. 

NCSG Crane & Heavy Haul Services Ltd. and Northern Crane Services Ltd., being an employer, were charged with one count:

• Section 12(e) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure equipment, a Kobelco crane, was operated or handled in accordance with specifications certified by a professional engineer or the manufacturer’s specifications, which state: “Make sure all personnel stand clear of the load as it is lifted”. 

Suncor Energy Services Inc.; Suncor Energy Oil Sands Limited Partnership; and Suncor Energy Inc, general partner of Suncor Energy Oil Sands Limited Partnership, being an employer, were charged with 4 counts:

• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by failing to provide a job procedure for handling pendant lines and equalizers.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by failing to provide adequate direction to workers tasked with removal of, and subsequent handling of, pendant lines and equalizers from the boom of a mining shovel.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by permitting an ad hoc procedure for removal and handling of components attached to the boom of a mining shovel.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by failing to ensure softeners suitable for use with synthetic slings were readily available to workers.

Charged is: Emcon Services Inc.

Date charges laid: March 23, 2024

Location of alleged offence: Acheson

Date of alleged offence: August 15, 2022

Type: Serious Incident

Description: A worker was cleaning up debris on a highway when they were struck by a vehicle. The worker was seriously injured.

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

A notice of second offence was served on this employer due to previous convictions under Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) legislation.

These are the current charges before the court:

• 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 who was struck by a motor vehicle while performing debris clearance work on a highway.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by permitting the worker to work on a highway without adequate traffic control measures in place, including use of a directional arrow board and temporary warning signage, in circumstances where traffic was a danger to the worker.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by failing to establish a safe work zone on a highway through traffic lane closure.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by failing to ensure a crash truck or other barrier, and/or a spotter or flagperson, was used to protect them in circumstances where traffic was a danger to the worker.
• Section 3(2) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure their worker was adequately trained in all matters necessary to perform their work safely, including the requirements to assess its work site on a highway and identify potential or existing hazards before the work of clearing debris from the highway began at the work site, and/or to comply with the employer’s Traffic Accommodation Strategy and/or its Safe Work Practice and Risk Assessment for Road Check and Road Kill Removal.
• Section 7(1) of the OHS Code, failure to assess its work site on a highway 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 done at its work site on a highway and the methods used to control or eliminate the hazards identified.
• Section 194(1) of the OHS Code, where vehicle traffic at a work site on a highway was dangerous to a worker on foot, failed to ensure the traffic was controlled to protect their worker.

Charged is: Steele Tech Fabrication Inc.

Date charges laid: March 4, 2024

Location of alleged offence: Barrhead

Date of alleged offence: March 17, 2022

Type: Serious Incident

Description: While a steel beam was being moved with a zoom boom, it hit a door frame and fell and landed on a worker’s foot, causing a serious injury.

Contravention: Steele Tech Fabrication Inc., being an employer, is charged with 5 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 permitting unsafe rigging procedures.
• 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 permitting him to guide a beam by hand when it was unsafe to do so.
• Section 189 of the OHS Code, failure to take all reasonable steps to ensure, where a worker may be injured if equipment or material: a beam, is dislodged, moved or spilled, that the material or equipment was contained, restrained or protected to eliminate the potential danger.
• Section 258(1)(a) of the OHS Code, in circumstances where the movement of a load, a beam, created a danger to worker(s), did permit a worker, to remain within range of the moving load.
• Section 70(1) of the OHS Code, where a worker was in danger because of the movement of a load being lifted, lowered or moved by a lifting device, to wit a beam being moved by a telehandler, did fail to ensure that the worker used a tag line to control the load.

Charged is: Savanna Drilling Corp. and Par Energy Services Inc.

Date charges laid: February 7, 2024

Location of alleged offence: Rocky Mountain House

Date of alleged offence: February 8, 2023

Type: Serious Incident

Description: A worker suffered a serious injury when their right hand contacted the gear inside a power tong while running casing into a horizontal well.

Contravention: 

Savanna Drilling Corp. and Par Energy Services Inc. were charged with 2 counts:

• Section 3(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 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act,  being an employer, failed to ensure the health and safety of their worker, by failing to prevent them from being injured while assisting with the placement of a power tong.

Par Energy Services Inc. was charged with an additional 4 counts:

• Section 6(1)(a) of the OHS Act, being a supplier, failed to ensure, any equipment the supplier supplied, a power tong, was in safe operating condition.
• Section 7(2)(c) of the OHS Act, being a service provider, failed to ensure, that no person at or in the vicinity of a work site was endangered as a result of the service provider’s activity.
• Section 12(b) of the OHS Code, being an employer, failed to ensure that equipment used at a work site, a power tong, was maintained in a condition that would not compromise the health or safety of workers using or transporting it, that it would safely perform the function for which it was intended or was designed, and that it was free from obvious defects.
• Section 12(e) of the OHS Code, being an employer, failed to ensure that equipment, a power tong, was operated, serviced, tested, maintained and repaired in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications or the specifications certified by a professional engineer.

Charged is: Reward Construction Ltd., Global Sport Resources Ltd.

Date charges laid: January 16, 2024

Location of alleged offence: Tofield

Date of alleged offence: March 31, 2022

Type: Fatality

Description: A worker was conducting rink demolition/reclamation duties when a support beam broke free and struck the worker who then fell approximately 1.5 m from a step ladder.

Contravention: Reward Construction Ltd., being a prime contractor, was charged with one count:

• Section 10(7) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to establish a system or process that will ensure compliance with this Act, the regulations and the OHS Code in respect of the work site, including a system or process to ensure cooperation between the employer and workers in respect to health and safety.

Reward Construction Ltd. and Global Sport Resources Ltd., being an employer, were charged with 6 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, who suffered injuries that caused the worker’s death when removing a beam from a structure known as a Lift Gate.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker, by failing to ensure a safe work procedure was used to handle a structure known as a Lift Gate.
• Section 7(4)(b) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a hazard assessment was repeated when a new work process was introduced, removing a cross beam from a structure known as a Lift Gate.
• Section 7(4)(c) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a hazard assessment was repeated when a work process or operation changed, from lowering a structure known as a Lift Gate to removing a beam from said structure.
• Section 189 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure, where a worker may be injured if equipment or material was dislodged or moved, a beam on a structure known as a Lift Gate, did fail to take all reasonable steps to ensure that that it was contained, restrained or protected to eliminate the potential danger.
• Section 208(1) of the OHS Code, failure to provide, appropriate equipment for lifting, lowering, pushing, pulling, carrying, handling or transporting heavy or awkward loads, structure known as a Lift Gate.

Charged is: Excel Projects Ltd.

Date charges laid: December 16, 2023

Location of alleged offence: Edson

Date of alleged offence: March 5, 2022

Type: Fatality

Description: An equipment operator was preparing a CAT D4H pipelayer sideboom for transport. While the operator was on top of the tracks at the entry to the open cab, the pipelayer drive mechanism became engaged. The operator was pulled between the moving track and side boom lower support arm resulting in fatal injuries.

Excel Projects Ltd., being an employer, was charged with 20 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, who was fatally injured by a moving sideboom pipelayer.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by failing to ensure they were suitably trained to safely perform work as the operator of equipment, a sideboom pipelayer.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by failing to ensure that they were sufficiently experienced to safely perform work as the operator of equipment, a sideboom pipelayer.
• 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 tarpaulin fitted to a sideboom pipelayer did not affect the safe operation of the sideboom pipelayer.
• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker by failing to establish, implement or enforce a safe procedure or adequate administrative procedures or practices for the safe operation of equipment,  a sideboom pipelayer.
• Section 3(2) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure a worker engaged in the work of that employer was adequately trained in all matters necessary to perform their work as an equipment operator of a sideboom pipelayer, in a healthy and safe manner.
• Section 3(3) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure that if work was to be done that could endanger a worker, the operation of a sideboom pipelayer, 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 3(4)(b) of the OHS Act, failure to keep readily available information related to work site hazards, controls, work practices and procedures and provide that information to their worker.
• Section 3.3 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure their worker performed the duty imposed on them as operator of powered mobile equipment, a sideboom pipelayer, pursuant to section 256(3)(b) of the OHS Code, contrary to section 3.3 of the OHS Code.
• Section 3.3 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure their worker performed the duty imposed on them as operator of powered mobile equipment, a sideboom pipelayer, pursuant to section 256(3)(f) of the OHS Code, contrary to section 3.3 of the OHS Code.
• Section 3.3 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure their worker performed the duty imposed on them as a person pursuant to section 263(1) of the OHS Code, contrary to section 3.3 of the OHS Code.
• Section 9(1) of the OHS Code, between March 1 and March 5, 2022 (both dates inclusive), where an existing or potential hazard to workers was identified during a hazard assessment, leaking exhaust fumes to an equipment operator, to take measures in accordance with this section to eliminate, or if elimination was not practical, control the hazard.
• Section 12(e) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure equipment, a sideboom pipelayer, was operated or handled in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications, when parking the machine, “Engage the parking brake”.
• Section 12(e) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure equipment, a sideboom pipelayer, was operated or handled in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications, when parking the machine, “Stop the engine”.
• Section 12(e) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure equipment, a sideboom pipelayer, was operated or handled in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications, when parking the machine, “Turn the start switch key to OFF and remove the key”.
• Section 119(3) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that the entrances and exits of a work area, a sideboom pipelayer, was free from materials, equipment or other obstructions, a tarpaulin, that could endanger workers or restrict their movement.
• Section 185 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a work site, a sideboom pipelayer, was kept free from materials or equipment, a tarpaulin, that could cause workers to slip or trip.
• Section 258(1)(a) of the OHS Code, where the movement of a part of powered mobile equipment, the tracks of a sideboom pipelayer, created a danger to a worker, permitted the worker to remain within range of the part.
• 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, the tracks of a sideboom pipelayer.
• Section 368 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that an operational control, a parking brake lever, on equipment, a sideboom pipelayer, was designed, located or protected to prevent unintentional activation, and, appropriately, was suitably identified to indicate the nature or function of the control.

Charged is: West Coast Scaffolding Inc.

Date charges laid: December 5, 2023

Location of alleged offence: Peace River

Date of alleged offence: June 11, 2022

Type: Fatality

Description: A scaffolder was dismantling a section of scaffold at a pulp mill when they fell. The worker was fatally injured.

Contravention: West Coast Scaffolding Inc., being an employer, was charged with 9 counts:

• Section 3(1)(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure the health, safety and welfare of a worker engaged in the work of that employer.
• Section 12(e) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure equipment, scaffolding, was erected, installed, assembled and dismantled in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications or the specifications certified by a professional engineer.
• Section 13(2)(a) of the OHS Code, failure, where manufacturer specifications were not available or did not exist, to develop procedures that were certified by a professional engineer designed to ensure the erection, installation, assembly and dismantling of scaffolding was done in a safe manner.
• Section 13(2)(a) of the OHS Code, failure, where manufacturer specifications were not available or did not exist, to develop procedures that were certified by a professional engineer designed to ensure the erection, installation, assembly and dismantling of scaffolding was done in a safe manner. -Section 139(1)(a) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that workers were protected from falling from a temporary or permanent work area where a worker could fall a vertical distance of 3 metres or more.
• Section 140(1) of the OHS Code, failure to develop procedures that complied with Part 9 in a fall protection plan for a worksite where a worker may fall 3 metres or more and the worker was not protected by guardrails.
• Section 140(4) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that the fall protection plan for the worksite was updated when conditions affecting the fall protected plan changed.
• Section 3.3 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that their worker performed the duty imposed on them pursuant to section 152.2(1) of the OHS Code, contrary to section 3.3 of the OHS Code.
• Section 331 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that metal scaffolding was erected, used, inspected, maintained and dismantled in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications or specifications certified by a professional engineer.

Charged is: TAQA Drilling Solutions, Inc.

Date charges laid: October 20, 2023

Location of alleged offence: Edmonton

Date of alleged offence: March 23, 2022

Type: Serious Incident

Description: A worker was seriously injured when they were struck by a projectile while disassembling a piece of oilfield drilling equipment.

Contravention: TAQA Drilling Solutions Inc., being an employer, was charged with 9 counts:

• Section 3(1)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure, by adequately assessing work including adequately identifying a hazard, the safety of workers engaged in the work of that employer, workers not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site where work was being carried out and other persons at or in the vicinity of the work site who may be affected by hazards originating in the work site.  
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by providing proper tools and requiring the correct use of available tools, the safety of their workers, workers not engaged in the  employer’s work and other persons at or in the vicinity of the work site who could be affected by hazards originating in the work site. 
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by ensuring their worker was not in the line of fire of an object capable of hazardous discharge, the safety of their workers, workers not engaged in the  employer’s work and other persons at or in the vicinity of the work site who could be affected by hazards originating in the work site. 
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by adequately training or maintaining the competence of their worker or workers in the recognition of hazardous situations, the safety of their workers, workers not engaged in the  employer’s work and other persons at or in the vicinity of the work site who could be affected by hazards originating in the work site. 
• Section 3(4)(b) of the OHS Act, failure to keep readily available information related to work site hazards, controls, work practices and procedures and provide that information by adequately placing such materials in the hands of their workers while they are conducting the work.
• Section 8(1) of the OHS Code, failure to involve affected workers in the hazard assessment and in the control or elimination of hazards identified.
• Section 12(b)(ii)  of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that equipment used at a work site would safely perform the function for which it was intended or was designed. 
• Section 212(1)(b)  of the OHS Code, failure to ensure where machinery, equipment or powered mobile equipment was to be serviced, repaired, tested, adjusted or inspected, or if any other work was to be performed on it, the control of hazardous energy that the machinery, equipment or powered mobile equipment was otherwise rendered inoperative in a manner that prevented its unintended activation and provided equal or greater protection than the protection afforded under clause (a), contrary to s. 212(1)(b) of the OHS Code. 
• Section 310(2)(e)  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 objects thrown from machinery or equipment.

Charged is: Graham Construction and Engineering LP, a Limited Partnership; Graham Construction and Engineering Inc.; Graham Construction and Engineering LP, A Limited Partnership, through its general partner, Graham Construction and Engineering Inc. and Jeff Gross

Date charges laid: October 3, 2023

Location of alleged offence: Calgary

Date of alleged offence: December 10, 2021

Type: Serious Incident

Description: A worker was completing roof work, removed plywood covering an opening, intending on accessing a work area concealed by the covering. As the cover was removed, the worker fell through the opening, falling a distance of 4.5 metres (m). The worker was seriously injured.

Contravention: Jeffrey Ryan Gross, being a work site superintendent, was charged with 5 counts:

• Section 4(a)(i) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to take all precautions necessary to protect the health and safety of a worker under their supervision.
• Section 4(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to take all precautions necessary to protect the health and safety of the worker by failing to ensure that a temporary cover used to protect an opening or hole, had a warning or marking clearly indicating the nature of the hazard posted near or fixed to the cover, in accordance with section 314(3) of the OHS Code, contrary to section 4(a)(i) of the OHS Act.
• Section 4(a)(i) of the OHS Act, failure to take all precautions necessary to protect the health and safety of the worker by failing to ensure that a fall protection plan for a work site where a worker may fall 3 metres or more and the worker was not protected by guardrails, was in place in accordance with section 140(1) of the OHS Code, contrary to section 4(a)(i) of the OHS Act.
• Section 4(a)(ii) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, that the worker worked in a manner and in accordance with the requirements of the OHS Act, the Regulations and the OHS Code.
• Section 4(b) of the OHS Act, failure to advise the worker, of all known or reasonably foreseeable hazards to health and safety in the area where he was performing work.

and further that:

• Graham Construction and Engineering LP, a Limited Partnership; Graham Construction and Engineering LP, A Limited Partnership, through its general partner, Graham Construction and Engineering Inc.; Graham Construction and Engineering Inc. were charged both as the prime contractor and the employer with 7 counts:
• Section 10(7)(a) of the OHS Act, being the prime contractor, failure to establish a system or process to ensure compliance with the OHS Act, Regulations and the OHS Code in respect of the work site, by failing to require, implement and/or enforce the existence of a fall protection plan in accordance with section 140(1) of the OHS Code, in respect of a work site where a worker may fall 3 metres or more and the worker was not protected by guardrails, contrary to section 10(7)(a) of the OHS Act.
• Section 10(7)(a) of the OHS Act, being the prime contractor, failure to establish a system or process to ensure compliance with the OHS Act, Regulations and the OHS Code in respect of the work site, by failing to ensure that a temporary cover used to protect an opening or hole, had a warning or marking clearly indicating the nature of the hazard posted near or fixed to the cover, in accordance with the section 314(3) of the OHS Code, contrary to section 10(7)(a) of the of the OHS Act.
• Section 139(1)(a) of the OHS Code, being the employer, failure to ensure that workers were protected from falling from a temporary or permanent work area where a worker could fall a vertical distance of 3 metres or more.
• Section 140(1) of the OHS Code, being the employer, failure to develop procedures that complied with part 9 in a fall protection plan for a work site where a worker could fall 3 metres or more and the worker was not protected by guardrails.
• Section 140(3) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that the fall protection plan was available at the work site and reviewed with workers before work with a risk of falling began.
• Section 141(3) of the OHS Code, being the employer, failure to ensure that a worker was made aware of the fall hazards particular to that worksite and the steps taken to eliminate or control those hazards.
• Section 314(3) or the OHS Code, being the employer, failure to ensure that a temporary cover used to protect an opening or hole, had a warning or marking clearly indicating the nature of the hazard posted near or fixed to the cover.

Charged is: Glenmore Fabricators Ltd.

Date charges laid: July 26, 2023

Location of alleged offence: Calgary

Date of alleged offence: August 16, 2021

Type: Fatality

Description: A worker was moving a steel beam using an overhead crane when it released from rigging, striking and pinning the worker. The worker sustained fatal injury.

Contravention: Glenmore Fabricators Ltd., being an employer, was charged with 11 counts:

• Section 3(1)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure, by adequately training or maintaining competence in their worker, the safety of workers engaged in the work of that employer, workers not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site at which that work was being carried out and other persons at or in the vicinity of the work site who could be affected by hazards originating in the work site.
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by maintaining a work area in a condition where clutter, congestion, or the placement of objects would not interfere with work safety, the safety of their workers, other workers present at the work site and other persons at or near the work site who could be affected by hazards originating in the work site.
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by controlling the use of an item used in the work, clamps, the safety of their workers, other workers present at the work site and other persons at or near the work site who could be affected by hazards originating in the work site.
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by preventing the moving of a load where it might strike a worker, the safety of their workers, other workers present at the work site and other persons at or near the work site who could be affected by hazards originating in the work site.
• Section 13(2) of the OHS Code, where this code required anything to be done in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications and they were not available or did not exist,  failed to develop and comply with procedures that were certified by a professional engineer as designed to ensure that a 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 61 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that all major structural, mechanical, and electrical components, clamps, were permanently and legibly identified as being component parts of a specific make and model of lifting device.
• Section 61 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that a lifting device was operated by a competent worker authorized by the employer to operate the equipment.
• Section 189 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure, by maintaining a work area in a condition where clutter, congestion, or the placement of objects would not interfere with work safety, that equipment or material was contained, restrained, or protected to eliminate a potential danger if a worker could be injured if equipment or material was dislodged, moved, spilled, or damaged.
• Section 189 of the OHS Code, failure to ensure, by preventing the moving of a load where it might strike a worker, that equipment or material was contained, restrained, or protected to eliminate a potential danger if a worker could be injured if equipment or material was dislodged, moved, spilled, or damaged.
• Section 297(2) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure, that below-the-hook lifting devices other than slings, clamps, met the requirements of ASME Standard B30.20-2006.
• Section 70(1)(c) 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 that a tag line was used when it allowed worker separation from a load.

Charged is: Canadian Natural Resources Limited and O'Reilly Oilfield Services Ltd

Date charges laid: June 16, 2023

Location of alleged offence: Valleyview

Date of alleged offence: July 7, 2021

Type: Serious Incident

Description: A work crew was discontinuing a well site using a portable flare stack to burn off excess gas. A disruption in the line sent fluid into the line and caused a fire.  A worker positioned near the flare stack sustained serious burn injuries.

Contravention: Canadian Natural Resources Limited, being an employer, was charged with the following counts:

• Section 3(1)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure, by adequately training and supervising their workers, the safety of workers engaged in the work of that employer, workers not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site at which that work was being carried out and other persons at or in the vicinity of the work site who could be affected by hazards originating in the work site.
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by adequately selecting or supervising the selection of a portable flare knock-out and associated equipment, the safety of their workers, other workers and other persons in the vicinity of the work site who could be affected by hazards originating in the work site.
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by adequately controlling a portable flare knock-out and associated equipment, the safety of their workers, other workers and other persons in the vicinity of the work site who could be affected by hazards originating in the work site.
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by adequately maintaining, refurbishing, cleaning, emptying, and servicing a portable flare knock-out and associated equipment, the safety of their workers, other workers and other persons in the vicinity of the work site who could be affected by hazards originating in the work site.
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by minimizing exposure to a hazard, a flare stack, the safety of their workers, other workers and other persons in the vicinity of the work site who could be affected by hazards originating in the work site.
• Section 12(d) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that 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 13(2) of the OHS Code, where the OHS Code requires anything to be done in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications and they were not available or did not exist, did fail to (a) develop and comply with procedures that are certified by a professional engineer as designed to ensure the thing was done in a safe manner, or (b) have the equipment certified as safe to operate by a professional engineer at least every 12 calendar months.
• Section 12(1) of the Alberta Regulation, failure to ensure that all equipment used at a work site, a portable flare knock-out, was (a) maintained in a condition that would not compromise the health or safety of workers using or transporting it, (b) would safely perform the function for which it was intended, and (d) was free from obvious defects

O’Reilly Oilfield Services Ltd, being a supervisor, was charged with the following counts:

• Section 4(a)(ii) of the OHS Act, failure to take all precautions, by adequately selecting or assisting the selection of a portable flare knock-out and associated equipment, necessary to protect the health and safety of every worker under the supervisor’s supervision.
• Section 4(a)(ii) of the OHS Act, failure to take all precautions,  by adequately controlling use of a portable flare knock-out and associated equipment, necessary to protect the health and safety of every worker under the supervisor’s supervision.
• Section 4(a)(ii) of the OHS Act, failure to take all precautions,  by ensuring adequate maintenance, refurbishment, cleaning, emptying, and servicing of a portable flare knock-out and associated equipment, necessary to protect the health and safety of every worker under the supervisor’s supervision.
• Section 4(a)(ii) of the OHS Act, failure to take all precautions,  by minimizing exposure to a hazard, a flare stack, necessary to protect the health and safety of every worker under the supervisor’s supervision.

Canadian Natural Resources Limited, being a prime contractor, was charged with the following counts:

• Section 10(5)(b) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by coordinating, organizing, and overseeing the performance of all work at the work site by adequately training and supervising workers, that no person was exposed to hazards arising out of, or in connection with, activities at the work site.
• Section 10(5)(b) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by coordinating, organizing, and overseeing the performance of all work at the work site by adequately selecting or supervising the selection of a portable flare knock-out and associated equipment, that no person, was exposed to hazards arising out of, or in connection with, activities at the work site.
• Section 10(5)(b) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by coordinating, organizing, and overseeing the performance of all work at the work site by adequately controlling a portable flare knock-out and associated equipment, that no person was exposed to hazards arising out of, or in connection with, activities at the work site.
• Section 10(5)(b) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by coordinating, organizing, and overseeing the performance of all work at the work site by adequately maintaining, refurbishing, cleaning, emptying, and servicing a portable flare knock-out and associated equipment, that no person was exposed to hazards arising out of, or in connection with, activities at the work site.
• Section 10(5)(b) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by coordinating, organizing, and overseeing the performance of all work at the work site by minimizing exposure to a hazard, a flare stack, that no person was exposed to hazards arising out of, or in connection with, activities at the work site.

Canadian Natural Resources Limited and O’Reilly Oilfield Services Ltd, being an employer, were charged with the following counts:

• Section 15(1) of the Alberta Regulation, failure to ensure that workers were trained in the safe operation of the equipment they were required to operate.
• Section 763(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that derrick, mast or self-contained snubbing unit guy lines were installed in accordance with (a) the manufacturer’s specifications, or (b) API recommended practice RP 4G, “recommended practice for maintenance and use of drilling well servicing structures (2004)”.

Charged is: Blue Collar Silviculture Ltd.

Date charges laid: May 19, 2022

Location of alleged offence: County of Mackenzie

Date of alleged offence: July 2, 2020

Type: Fatality

Description: A tree planter was struck and fatally injured by a falling tree.

Contravention: Blue Collar Silviculture Ltd. was charged, being an employer, with 8 counts:

• Section 3(1)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act, failure to ensure, by adequately warning or communicating a warning or alert of changes in the circumstances of work which could present a hazard to a worker, the safety of workers engaged in the work of that employer, workers not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site at which that work was being carried out and other persons at or in the vicinity of the work site who could be affected by hazards originating in the work site.
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by adequately establishing or maintaining or enforcing a zone or zones excluding workers from a hazardous place, the safety of workers engaged in the work of that employer, workers not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site at which that work was being carried out and other persons at or in the vicinity of the work site who could be affected by hazards originating in the work site, Worker 1.
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by adequately assessing a workplace prior to the commencement of work including adequately identifying hazardous or dangerous trees, the safety of workers engaged in the work of that employer, workers not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site at which that work was being carried out and other persons at or in the vicinity of the work site who could be affected by hazards originating in the work site, Worker 1.
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by adequately establishing or executing a shutdown procedure, evacuation procedure, or similar procedure, the safety of workers engaged in the work of that employer, workers not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site at which that work was being carried out and other persons at or in the vicinity of the work site who could be affected by hazards originating in the work site, Worker 1.
• Section 3(1)(a) of the OHS Act, failure to ensure, by adequately training or maintaining the alertness of a worker or workers, Worker 1 or Worker 2, in the recognition of hazardous situations, the safety of workers engaged in the work of that employer, workers not engaged in the work of that employer but present at the work site at which that work was being carried out and other persons at or in the vicinity of the work site who could be affected by hazards originating in the work site, Worker 1.
• Section 9(1) of the OHS Code, failure to eliminate a hazard, or if elimination was not possible, control a hazard, if an existing or potential hazard was identified during a hazard assessment.
• Section 189 of the OHS Code, failure to take all reasonable steps, falling of a tree or establishing a no-work zone, to ensure equipment or material was contained, restrained, or protected to eliminate a hazard, or if elimination was not possible, control a hazard, if a worker could be injured if equipment or material was dislodged, moved, spilled, or damaged.
• Section 318(1) of the OHS Code, failure to ensure that workers in a work area where there could be falling objects were protected from the falling objects by an overhead safeguard.