TRW Canada Ltd., a large automotive supplier with head offices in Toronto, was fined $60,000 on October 15, 2010, after pleading guilty for a violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act that caused an injury to a worker.

On May 6, 2009, at the company’s machine shop in St. Catharines, a worker was unloading parts from a threading machine. The worker got entangled with the end of the part being machined and sustained injuries in one arm.

A Ministry of Labour investigation determined that the machine which the injured worker was operating was not equipped with, and guarded by, a guard or other device to prevent access to the hazard.

TRW Canada Ltd. pleaded guilty to failing to ensure that the measures and procedures prescribed by Occupational Health and Safety Act were carried out.

The fine was imposed by Justice of the Peace D. Cowan. In addition to the fine, the court 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.

The law(s) broken,

TRW Canada Ltd. was guilty of violating section 26 of the Ontario ‘Industrial’ regulation 851 which states,

“A machine shall be shielded or guarded so that the product, material being processed or waste stock will not endanger the safety of any worker.”

My opinion,

The Ontario ‘Industrial’ regulation 851 includes many sections on Machine Guarding, beginning with section 24. In fact, the above scenario easily could have used section 24 instead of 26. Either one would have sufficed.

All companies MUST ensure that they read the appropriate sections of the sector regulations prior to any worker starting to work. (that includes machine guarding) Could you imagine the horror of anyone buying a table saw from Home Depot and finding out that the guards are not included in the packaging?

I believe TRW Canada Ltd. could have also been charged with section 25 (2h) and section 27 (2c). The sections are the same and appropriate for many violations in the workplace, and they state,

“The employer or supervisor must take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of a worker.”

I think you, the reader, may agree with me here.

Health and safety in the workplace is a really a fundamental change in attitude by all levels in a workplace. It is a change in mindset and it needs to be supported by upper management. Safety does not have to be a costly thing. Only after an accident does it get costly. The MOL has to come in and clean up the mess because the company didn’t know their responsibilities under the law.

Remember – In Ontario, “ALL Accidents are Preventable”

‘Work’ and ‘Play’ safe.

Daniel L. Beal
VP & Senior Trainer
HRSGroup Inc.

April 28th, the National Day of Mourning, is a time for Canadians to remember those who have died at work, but the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) says with fatality rates on the rise, it is also a time to realize the need for change.

Data from the Association of Workers’ Compensation Boards of Canada shows that worker fatalities have been increasing since 1993, when there were a total of 758 fatalities across the country, to 1,014 last year — almost three people every day. There have been more than 16,000 worker fatalities since 1993.

“It’s an unfortunate reality that occupational fatalities have not gone down, they’ve gone up, which stands in stark contrast to every other developed nation we tend to compare ourselves to,” says Andrea Peart, national representative of the CLC’s health and safety department.

With the passing of Bill C-45 — the Westray Bill — in 2004, Canada has some of the strongest health and safety laws in the world, Peart argues, but the country does not use them enough.

“We passed legislation in parliament to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to hold employers who fail to take steps to protect the lives of their employees criminally liable,” she says. “If provinces and territories are using the Westray legislation as intended, we could make significant inroads in protecting workers health and safety and, to be frank, we could save lives.”

So far, only Ontario and Quebec have laid charges under the provisions created by the bill, and only Quebec has successfully convicted.

“Being the 20th anniversary of the Westray mining disaster, we’re doing a lot of work within a political landscape of being tough on crime,” she says, referring to the 1992 coal mining explosion in Plymouth, Nova Scotia where 26 miners were killed after methane gas ignited. “If we’re going to be tough on crime, we’ve got to be tough on corporate crime as well,” Peart says, adding that she has met police officers who were unaware of the effects of the bill.

“They’re eager to have the training and the tools they need to ensure occupational fatalities are investigated and work in collaboration with the relevant ministry of labour, as the system is intended.”

Before next year’s National Day of Mourning, Peart says the CLC’s goal is to have a special prosecutor trained in corporate criminal negligence and appointed in every province and territory, pointing out that the same thing has been done with drunk driving, drugs and gangs.

The National Day of Mourning was started 28 years ago in Sudbury, Ontario by United Steelworkers members and launched by the CLC. It has since grown to be recognized in over 80 countries around the world.

“The reality is it really is a local event where people mourn the lives of specific people who are no longer with us, but even at the local level they know it is not unique to their community,” says Peart, adding that there is a proposal to have the day recognized by the United Nations as an official day that would have the organization call on all member states to mark it.

Ceremonies will be held by health and safety authorities across the country and the Canadian flag on Parliament Hill will be lowered to half mast, along with a ceremony at 12:30 pm and a minute of silence.

A statement from the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety notes “it is as much a day to remember the dead as it is a call to protect the living.”

My opinion,

HRS Group Inc. is a long time customer of the OH&S Canada magazine and for good reason. here are many many articles that deal with today’s issues and the OH&S Canada magazine leads the way. They report articles that are felt right across Canada. I am glad to have them on our side.

It is a shame that Bill C-45, (now section 217.1 of the Canadian criminal code) is not used more than it is. Education would go a long way as well as a full commitment from the provinces to deal harshly with occupational injuries and deaths. I hope that day is coming soon.

Remember – In Ontario, “ALL Accidents are Preventable”

‘Work’ and ‘Play’ safe.

Daniel L. Beal
VP & Senior Trainer
HRSGroup Inc.

Essar Steel Algoma Inc. was fined $300,000 for a violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) that caused a worker’s death. The company was fined another $25,000 for a different OHSA violation after a worker was injured in a separate incident.

On July 31, 2008, at the company’s steel mill in Sault Ste Marie, a worker was doing routine maintenance on a truck. As the worker was checking the battery, it exploded, splattering liquid in the worker’s face. The worker attempted to use the emergency eyewash fountain, but it was not working.
Essar Steel Algoma Inc. pleaded guilty to failing to maintain an eyewash fountain and deluge shower in good condition.

In a separate incident at the mill on October 30, 2008, three workers were doing a pre-start check on a conveyor system used to pile rocks. The maintenance team believed the system was empty, but toward the end of the check material appeared on the conveyor above one of the workers. The material, weighing over 125 kilograms, fell onto the worker, killing him.

Essar Steel Algoma Inc. pleaded guilty to failing to ensure appropriate overhead guarding was in place to prevent falling material from injuring a worker.
The fines were imposed by Justice of the Peace Patricia Tennant. In addition to the fines, the court 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.

The law(s) broken,

Essar Steel Algoma Inc. was found guilty of violating section 25, subsection 1(b) which states,

“An employer shall ensure that the measures and procedures prescribed are carried out in the workplace.”

Essar Steel Algoma Inc. was also found guilty of violating section 34(b) of the Ontario ‘Industrial’ regulation 851 which states,
“Guards shall be provided beneath conveyors from which falling material, including broken conveyor parts, may be a hazard to any worker.”

My opinion,

Conveyor guarding has been around for a very long time. Suppliers/manufacturers always include safety features of their tools and components and it is up to the employer to utilize what they have studied and put it into practice. The proper corrective action plane would be to do a walk-around prior to starting the maintenance procedure. The lockout and tagout procedure should not be deemed completed until the entire area was scanned for debris.

The battery issue could have been taken care of if the JHSC, if they had one, would have included the eyewash station in the monthly inspection. The yearly inspection by the senior managers could have included this type of concern as well. Either way, corrective action could have been taken and the injury could have been prevented.

Remember – In Ontario, “ALL Accidents are Preventable”

‘Work’ and ‘Play’ safe.

Daniel L. Beal
VP & Senior Trainer
HRSGroup Inc.

By way of reminder, Bill C-45 amended the Criminal Code to create new duties and possible criminal liability for individuals and organizations, which include corporations. Because of the complexity of these Criminal Code requirements, and the amount of time that has been passed since they became law in March 2004, answers to key questions about Bill C-45 amendments are set out below, as follows.

By way of reminder, Bill C-45 amended the Criminal Code to create new duties and possible criminal liability for individuals and organizations, which include corporations. Because of the complexity of these Criminal Code requirements, and the amount of time that has been passed since they became law in March 2004, answers to key questions about Bill C-45 amendments are set out below, as follows:

Is the new Criminal Code duty different from OH&S duties to take all reasonable precautions or all reasonable care? How?

The new duty found in section 217.1 of the Criminal Code requires that “everyone who undertakes, or has the authority to direct how another person does work or performs a task, is under a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm to that person, or any other person, arising from that work or task”. “Everyone” includes individuals, organizations as broadly defined, and corporations.

This duty parallels traditional OH&S standards, but also expands on the matters contained in most OH&S statutes. The duty applies to any individual with authority to direct another person in the performance of work, while OH&S legislation generally imposes duties on employers, supervisors, constructors, owners, directors and officers. The Criminal Code may apply more widely to anyone who “undertakes” to direct work, including lead hands and working forepersons.

The Criminal Code duty also requires that reasonable steps be taken to prevent bodily harm to any person, which would include the public or volunteers who may enter the workplace or be affected by workplace activities.

Does violation of the Criminal Code duty mean we are guilty of criminal negligence?

Breach of the Criminal Code duty does not necessarily mean that an organization or individual is guilty of criminal negligence. In order for a breach of the duty of care to amount to criminal negligence, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt in court that the breach of the duty occurred in a “wanton or reckless” manner.

Section 219 of the Criminal Code states that, “Everyone is criminally negligent who (a) in doing anything, or (b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do, shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.” The provisions of Section 219 broadly state that for the purposes of the criminal negligence section, Section 219 of the Criminal Code, “duty” means a duty imposed by law.

Criminal cases have found that for criminal negligence to occur, a breach of a duty must represent a “marked” and significant departure from the standard of a reasonably prudent person in the circumstances. There must be more than mere failure to meet an OH&S or Criminal Code standard through inadvertence. There must be evidence of behaviour which shows complete disregard for, or indifference to the duty. As one court put it, there must be a finding of a “devil-may-care” attitude that shows a criminal standard has been met.

Wasn’t Bill C-45 all about creating criminal liability for directors and officers?

Not exactly. While the Westray inquiry which concluded in 1997 recommended that Canada “amend or introduce legislation to ensure that corporate executives and directors are held properly accountable for workplace safety and the wrongful and negligent acts of their corporations,” ultimately Bill C-45 created a mechanism which allowed corporations to be more readily convicted of criminal negligence. The Criminal Code continues to allow individual charges of criminal negligence, which could include charges against a supervisor, or director or officer, for breach of a duty in a wanton or reckless manner, but that was not the primary focus of the Bill C-45 amendments when they were passed and came into force in 2004.

Does Bill C-45 create both corporate and individual criminal liability?

Yes, it does both. The provisions create new criminal duties and liabilities for both individuals and organizations (which are defined to include corporations). Both individuals and organizations can now be convicted of criminal negligence for failure to perform the duty, when it occurs in a manner that shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of others.

What is necessary for an organization (including a corporation) to be convicted under the Criminal Code of criminal negligence?

The process for convicting an organization of criminal negligence in the workplace safety context involves two steps. First, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the actions of a single representative (employee, partner, contractor, agent of the organization) breached the Criminal Code duty in a wanton or reckless way. This could involve reckless ignoring of safety rules or physical protective devices where the potential result is serious harm or death.

Second, after the breach of duty is established, the Crown must then show that a senior officer with operational or executive authority, or as drafters put it, someone with “real clout” who is responsible for the part of the organization involved in the breach, either failed to act or insulated themselves from obtaining the knowledge to act. The Crown has to prove a marked departure from what would reasonably be expected of a senior officer with obligations to protect workers and the public.

What are the potential liabilities under the Criminal Code provisions as amended by Bill C-45?

For individuals, the maximum penalty for criminal negligence causing death is life imprisonment, and the maximum penalty for criminal negligence causing bodily harm is ten years’ imprisonment. However, individuals are subject to a range of Criminal Code sentencing options from absolute discharge, to probation, to life in prison, depending on the specific circumstances of the contravention.

Organizations, including corporations, are subject to different penalties depending on how the Crown proceeds. Where the Crown proceeds by summary conviction (the least serious manner of proceeding), the maximum fine is $100,000 for an organization.

Where the Crown proceeds by indictment (the most serious manner of proceeding), there is no limit on the amount of the fine for the corporation or organization.

Organizations may also be placed on probation and the terms of a probationary order can include such matters as: requiring the organization to make restitution, financial or otherwise, relating to the offence; requiring the organization to report to the court or the public on implementation of remedial steps; requiring the appointment of a senior officer to be responsible for implementing remedial procedures; requiring the organization to disclose its conviction to the public.

Probation orders including these types of terms are available in addition to monetary penalties.

My opinion,

The teeth of the legislation are dull or missing. There have been only a few charges laid and, if my research is correct, only one conviction for the legislation. (one can bet it wasn’t Alberta) To my knowledge, the only conviction under 217.1 of the Canadian criminal code comes from Quebec. WELL DONE!

There are also rumblings in the Canadian government that there may be a new officer that will spread himself/herself across Canada to add new teeth to the legislation and attempt to educate and encourage the provinces to start using 217.1.

20 years after Westray, the need to re-evaluate all current legislation is as important today as it was in 1992, and, as Cheryl Edward re-stated in 2008. The Canadian government invested much time and energy to create the legislation, it is now incumbent on the rest of us to make it work.

Remember – In Ontario, “ALL Accidents are Preventable”

‘Work’ and ‘Play’ safe.

Daniel L. Beal
VP & Senior Trainer
HRSGroup Inc.

Bunge Canada Holdings of Halifax, N.S., has pleaded guilty to one count under the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act for failing to ensure that a worker did not work within 4.6 metres of an exposed energized conductor. The company was fined $42,000 in Nipawin Provincial Court on Jan. 25, 2011.

The charge relates to an incident that occurred on Aug. 13, 2009, at a Bunge site in Nipawin. A worker, who was inspecting a railcar, was injured as a result of receiving an electric shock while attempting to remove foreign material located below a power line.

OHS conducts approximately 4,500 work site inspections annually to ensure standards are known and enforced, according to a Labour Relations and Workplace Safety news release.

In fiscal 2011-12, there have been 34 convictions for non-compliance of OHS regulations and more than $146,000 in fines, the release said.

My opinion,

Ontario has a section of the OHSA that covers the following term, M.S.A.D.

(Minimum safe approach distance) which states,

Voltage Rating of Conductor & Minimum Distance

750 V to 150,000V—3 metres (almost 10 feet)
Over 150,000V to 250,000V—4.5 metres (about 14.76 feet)
Over 250,000V—6 metres (19.7 feet)

I also did the math and am very confused. The report reads like a testimonial for excellence for the Saskatchewan government’s somewhat hard-line approach when dealing with occupational health and safety violations. Hmmm… 34 convictions covering more than $146,000 in fines; works out to be around $4,294 per conviction. For many companies that would be the approximate cost for the yearly coffee run. In Ontario, we have a personal minimum of $25,000 with a possibility of a year in jail. The corporate fine can reach $500,000 per contravention conviction.

My blog posts show numerous fines well over the $42,000 personal fine levied at the Bunge Canada Holdings of Halifax. In fact, many of the separate fines in Ontario are larger than the yearly total for the province of Saskatchewan. Someone in the Saskatchewan government needs to review the HRS Group blog post, written on November 22, 2011 discussing the Ford Corporation forklift fines of over $1,000,000. It might be quite the reality check for them. Maybe.

Remember – In Ontario, “ALL Accidents are Preventable”

‘Work’ and ‘Play’ safe.

Daniel L. Beal
VP & Senior Trainer
HRSGroup Inc.

Fripes Export Ltd., a large used clothing procurement, grading and re-distribution business, located in Toronto, was fined $50,000 on October 13, 2010, for a violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act that caused an injury to a worker.

On October 29, 2009, an electrical contractor working for Fripes Export Ltd. was directing a worker operating a fork lift. The electrical contractor walked backwards into the path of a bale of clothing being ejected from a bailing press. The bail of clothing rolled into the electrical contractor, causing injuries to the electrical contractor’s lower limbs.

Fripes Export Ltd. pleaded guilty to failing to ensure that the lifting, carrying or moving of clothing bales did not endanger the safety of any worker.

The fine was imposed by Justice of the Peace G. Sunit John. In addition to the fine, the court 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.

The law(s) broken,

Fripes Export Ltd. was found guilty of violating section 45(a) of the Ontario ‘Industrial’ regulation 851/90 which states,

“Materials articles or things required to be lifted, carried or moved, shall be lifted, carried or moved in such a way and with such precautions and safeguards, including protective clothing, guards or other precautions as will ensure that the lifting, carrying or moving of the material, articles or things does not endanger the safety of any worker.”

My opinion,

Here we find another case of an employer not reviewing a process and ensuring that all safety precautions are in place prior to the operation. It happens so often I have become immune to the information.

I have stated, over and over again, that health and safety policies and procedures needs to be designed and applied at the planning stage to become proactive instead of reactive. Does this sound familiar? It sure does! Why do employers not encourage health and safety throughout their organization? It would be simpler to do so than to develop a terrible reputation as a health and safety high risk company, and be forever on the radar of the MOL. It does not have to be this way. If the Health & Safety Coordinator receives a total commitment from the top of the organization, then the proper attitude filters down to the grass roots level. The same message applies to all levels and the company can move forward with little interference from outside sources (MOL, WSIB etc.) and increase productivity as well.

I am finishing up a 2 year program on health and safety. The information is very useful and I use the information in my every day training programs. The information is current today as it was before and there is always something to learn and improve upon. I am working towards my CHSEP designation and will also write the CRSP exam as well. The better the education, the better one can serve one’s customers. As members of the CSSE, and Angela having the CHSC designation already, ethics play a large part of the day-to-day running of the business.

Please check other blog posts as well as our on-line courses. We have also hired someone to fine tune our other programs and should be ready to place another 20+ awareness and competency course on-line ready for your review.

Any questions you may have on health and safety can be received by Rose at our information desk at infor@hrsgroup.com. It will be passed on to Angela, and myself, and we will investigate and get the information to you as soon as possible.

Remember – In Ontario, “ALL Accidents are Preventable”

‘Work’ and ‘Play’ safe.
Daniel L. Beal
VP & Senior Trainer
HRSGroup Inc.

JGB Developments Inc., carrying on business as JGB Roofing, of St. Catharines, was fined $30,000 on September 17 for violations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

On November 7, 2008, three workers were repairing a residential roof on Oromond St. S. in Thorold. A Ministry of Labour inspector visited the project in response to a complaint. After investigation, the inspector found that the workers were not wearing proper fall protection or head protection. Also, a ladder to the roof did not extend far enough past the roof’s surface and it had a damaged rung. Furthermore, a wooden plank being used as a work platform had a crack along its length and it overhung its support too much at one end.

JGB Developments Inc. was found guilty after trial to failing to ensure that:

• workers were adequately protected by fall protection
• workers were wearing the personal protective equipment necessary to protect them from possible hazards
• the ladder extended at least 900 millimeters past the roof’s surface
• the ladder was free from defective or loose rungs
• the wooden plank used as a work platform was free of any defects and it did not overhang its support by more than 300 millimeters

The fine was imposed by Justice of the Peace Dan La Caprara. In addition to the fine, the court 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.

The law(s) broken,

There are quite a few to chat about.

JGB Developments Inc. was found guilty of violating section 26.1(2) of the Ontario ‘Construction’ regulation 213/91 which states,

“If it is not reasonably possible to install a guardrail system as that subsection requires, a worker shall be protected by at least one of the following methods of fall protection:

1) a travel restraint system that meets the requirement of section 26.4,
2) a fall restricting system that meets the requirements of section 26.5,
3) a fall arrest system, other than a fall restricting system designed for use in wood pole climbing, that meets the requirements of section 26.6.

JGB Developments Inc. was also found guilty of violating section 21(1) of the Ontario ‘Construction’ regulation 213/91 which states,

“A worker shall wear such protective clothing and use such personal protective equipment or devices as are necessary to protect the worker against the hazards to which the worker may be exposed.”

JGB Developments Inc. was found guilty of violating section 80 (a) of the Ontario ‘Construction’ regulation 213/91 which states,

“A ladder shall extend at the upper level at least 900 mm (36”) above the landing or floor.”

JGB Developments Inc. was found guilty of violating section 78, 2(a) of the Ontario ‘Construction’ regulation 213/91 which states,

“A ladder shall be free from defective or loose rungs.”

JGB Developments Inc. was found guilty of violating section 135(2) of the Ontario ‘Construction’ regulation 213/91 which states,

“A scaffold platform or other work platform made of sawn lumber planks shall have planks of number 1 grade spruce that do not have any defects affecting their load-carrying capacity, and

a) that bear a legible grade identification stamp or are permanently identified as being number 1 grade spruce;
b) that are at least forty-eight mm thick by 248 mm wide (2”x 10”)
c) that are arranged so that their span does not exceed 2.1 metres (82.7 inches or 2.3 yards)
d) that overhang their supports by not less than 150 mm (6”) and not more than 300 mm (12”) ; and
e) that are cleated or otherwise secured against slipping.

My opinion,

Do you know how many people have been trained in proper scaffold construction methods? Section 131 of the Ontario ‘Construction’ regulation 213/91 states,

“Only a competent worker shall supervise the erection, alteration and dismantling of a scaffold.”

As a trainer in health and safety, I do ask my students, especially during ‘Fall Protection’ classes, if they have ever been on a scaffold and then I ask if they have ever received training to erect one. Do you know how many have stated YES? NONE!!! I was wondering how many have been asked at a construction site, by a MOL inspector, to show credentials to be able to build a scaffold. Ensure that you, as an employer, and your people, have completely read section’s 125 to 142 of the Ontario ‘Construction’ regulation 213/91 and take an instruction class to assure competency. BE PREPARED!

I would also suggest that one take a class in ‘Fall Protection’ to cover all the bases. The MOL is vigilant about protecting workers against falls in the workplace so ‘Fall Protection’ training, along with a regular refresher is necessary.

Remember – In Ontario, “ALL Accidents are Preventable”

‘Work’ and ‘Play’ safe.

Daniel L. Beal
VP & Senior Trainer
HRSGroup Inc.

Maple Leaf Structural Limited, now operating as Structform International Limited, of Toronto, was fined $150,000 on October 4, 2010, for a violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act that caused a worker’s death.

On May 12, 2008, Maple Leaf Structural Limited was a subcontractor doing concrete framework at a building project at 825 Bay St. in Toronto. At the request of the constructor, Maple Leaf workers began moving an outrigger platform from the 23rd story to the 22nd story of the north tower of the project. As the crane operator moved the platform away from the 23rd floor, a worker on that story noticed a piece of cast-iron pipe rolling towards the edge of the building. The worker was unable to grab the pipe before it fell. The falling pipe struck and killed a worker crossing a mezzanine twenty floors below.

A Ministry of Labour investigation found that the mezzanine was not secured or taped off while the platform was being moved overhead. There was also no overhead protection in that location and no signage or person warning workers of the overhead hazard.

Maple Leaf Structural Limited pleaded guilty to failing to ensure an outrigger platform was moved in a manner that did not endanger a worker.

The fine was imposed by Judge Robert Bigelow. In addition to the fine, the court 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.

The law(s) broken,

Maple Leaf Structural Limited was found guilty of violating section 37(1) of the Ontario ‘Construction regulation 213/91 which states,

“Material or equipment at a project shall be stored and moved in a manner that does not endanger a worker.”

My opinion,

It is really too bad that a simple task like this was not thought out completely before the attempt. My sympathies go to the family. Another death in the workplace in a province that takes the safety of every worker very serious and a top priority!

Will it ever stop? I think not but the MOL has been vigilant in striving to improve the workplace. Maybe Maple Leaf Structural Limited should acquire a copy of the OHSA and the Construction regulation just for a little light reading and begin adding health and safety to the daily agenda. Please help all of us by reading the appropriate copy of the OHSA and sector regulation. It will go a long way in improving the workplace if one is acquainted with the governing laws.

Our workers deserve so much more.

Remember – In Ontario, “ALL Accidents are Preventable”

‘Work’ and ‘Play’ safe.

Daniel L. Beal
VP & Senior Trainer
HRSGroup Inc.

Excerpt from the OH&S Canada Magazine
________________________________________
Testicular cancer and lung cancer in non-smokers have been added to British Columbia’s list of diseases presumed to be related to work as a firefighter.

The provincial government has moved forward with the additions to the Firefighters Occupational Disease Regulation under the Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA). A worker with at least 20 years employment as a firefighter who is disabled on or after May 27, 2008 from testicular cancer will be covered. Subject to another amendment, non-smoking firefighters who develop lung cancer will also be included, again retroactive to May 27, notes Rob Norris, a spokesperson for British Columbia’s Ministry of Labour and Citizens’ Services.

Cases of workers affected by testicular or lung cancer before that date will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Just when the changes relating to lung cancer will take effect or how long a worker must be a non-smoker or a firefighter for coverage to apply is not yet known, Norris says. He expects the parameters will be in line with those in other jurisdictions. Saskatchewan and Manitoba, for example, provide coverage after 15 years of employment as a firefighter.

Presumptive legislation — for full-time, part-time, volunteer and paid on-call firefighters — relates to primary site cancers. “If you have pancreatic cancer and it later becomes testicular cancer, it wouldn’t be primary site,” Norris says.

“The onus will now be on WorkSafeBC or the employer to bring forward proof to establish why a disabled firefighter should not be eligible for compensation, rather than placing the burden of proof on a sick firefighter,” the ministry notes.

Al Leier, president of the British Columbia Professional Fire Fighters Association, says officials are pleased firefighters will now be able to “concentrate on their health and not on having to prove that it was their work that caused their illness.”

The addition of testicular and lung cancers follow seven primary site cancers already listed, effective April 11, 2005: leukemia (covered after five years of employment), non- Hodgkin’s lymphoma (20 years), bladder cancer (15 years), brain cancer (10 years), colorectal cancer (20 years), kidney cancer (20 years) and ureter cancer (15 years).

Firefighters in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Nova Scotia have presumptive legislation. The first five provinces also cover heart injury within 24 hours of exposure, while Alberta and Nova Scotia cover colon cancer after 20 years on the job.

Remember – In Ontario, “ALL Accidents are Preventable”

‘Work’ and ‘Play’ safe.

Daniel L. Beal
VP & Senior Trainer
HRSGroup Inc.

Workers’ Memorial Day was started by the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) in 1984, and the Canadian Labour Congress officially declared it an annual day of remembrance in 1985 on April 28. In December 1990, this day became a national observance with the passing of the Workers Mourning Day Act, so that on April 28, 1991, it was officially the National Day of Mourning for persons killed or injured in the workplace; making April 28, an official Workers’ Mourning Day.

Since its inception, the observance has spread to over 80 countries around the world, but is known is most other countries as the Workers’ Memorial Day. The date 28 April was picked because on that day in 1914, the Workers Compensation Act received its third reading. In 2001 the International Labour Organization first observed World Day for Safety and Health at Work on this day.

Typically the Canadian flag on Parliament Hill is flown at half-mast, and workers and employees observe this day in various ways including lighting candles, donning ribbons and black armbands, and observing moments of silence. The purpose of Day of Mourning is twofold- to remember and honour those lives lost or injured and to renew the commitment to improving health and safety in the workplace – to prevent further deaths, injuries and diseases from work.

Please join HRS Group in observing this special day and say a prayer for those who died on the job, during the past year.

Daniel L. Beal
VP and Senior Trainer
HRS Group Inc.