An Alberta court has more than tripled the fine issued against an employer last year in connection with a deadly work-related accident, concluding the lower court imposed an “unfit” sentence.

Justice Sterling Sanderman of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta fined the employer, Independent Automatic Sprinkler Ltd., $350,000 under the Occupational Health and Safety Act — dwarfing the $100,000 penalty ordered by a lower court judge last August.

In his April 30 ruling, Justice Sanderman notes the fine “was demonstrably unfit” and that the circumstances of the accident warrant a higher penalty. “A fine of $100,000 does not recognize the seriousness of the consequences of the degree of negligence,” he writes.

On May 15, 2005, four employees were helping to construct a gymnasium facility in Grande Prairie, Alberta. The team included two journeyman pipefitters tasked with installing a fire suppression sprinkler system at the ceiling level of a stairwell in the gym.

The pipefitters used a material lift — a set of forks and a series of sections that raise the forks when a hand crank is used — instead of a man lift that had been used to raise them to the ceiling elsewhere in the facility. Justice Sanderman points out, however, that the material “lift was never designed nor intended for hoisting or lifting people.”

The ruling notes one worker, Albin Trahan, placed a wooden pallet on the lift’s forks, covered the pallet with two pieces of strand board and then positioned a ladder on top so he could climb the more than eight metres to install the sprinkler. Another worker, Elmer Stroshin, was standing on the pallet to steady the ladder, which was resting against the stairwell wall.

As Trahan “climbed the ladder, the material lift began to tip and the step ladder moved away from the wall,” resulting in both workers falling “with catastrophic results,” Justice Sanderman writes. Trahan sustained fatal injuries when his head struck a guardrail; Stroshin hit a piece of metal protruding from the guardrail and fell to a lower landing, suffering paralysis of the legs and “lower trunk below the chest.”

The Crown argued the sentence of the trial judge was “a substantial and marked departure” from penalties customarily imposed for similar incidents. Justice Sanderman agreed, pointing out the trial judge made “specific findings in relation to the forseeability of someone falling.”

My opinion,

Everyone knows I have been critical about the workplace accident prevention standards for the province of Alberta’s and their true intentions and credibility concerning their workforce. I have made my views known time and time again.

There are times, however, that I must alter my conception when I find something out of the ordinary and congratulate Alberta for doing the right thing. (Not often, but there are times)

Listed above we find that a lower court ruling and subsequent fine was not sufficient with the circumstances. FINALLY! I have always agreed with stiff fines to deter this type of disregard for the employees. The Ministry of Labour, for the Province of Ontario, would never have allowed the company to get away with what amounts to a slap on the wrist.

Deterrence, that is the name of the game. The employer MUST understand that the responsibility of the safety of the employee lies with them. Only then will employees work in a climate of relative safety and the need for review of inadequate rulings and fines made unnecessary.

Good for you, Alberta. I do hope that a review of many of your other issues, such as the Mitchell Tanner accident, will be reviewed, overturned and possible larger fines or new investigations implemented. That particular incident still upsets me to this day. If the readership does not know of the Mitchell Tanner accident, please review the very first blog written by the author. I was angry at the outcome and have been driven since to get the word out about the great need for worker health and safety. Everything from Bill C-45 to today’s issues will be discussed.

On behalf of myself and the company of HRSGroup Inc., I had to congratulate Alberta for correcting a monumental error at the lower court level. Maybe the need to toughen up the lower court judges is needed. Now THAT would be one hell of a permanent corrective action plan, now wouldn’t it?

Remember – In Ontario and all places across Canada, including Alberta, “ALL Accidents are Preventable”

‘Work’ and ‘Play’ safe.

Daniel L. Beal
VP & Senior Trainer
HRSGroup Inc.

Paris Holdings (2113467 Ontario Inc.) and Sergerie Mechanical (1633777 Ontario Inc.), both Cornwall-based companies, were fined $60,000 and $50,000 respectively on July 14, 2010, for violations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act that caused injuries to a worker. Supervisor Tim Sergerie was fined $6,000 for a related offense.

On August 22, 2008, five workers at a demolition project at 800 Second Street West in Cornwall were removing corrugated metal decking and insulation from a storage building roof at a former paper mill. One of the workers stepped where the metal decking had already been removed and fell 8.5 metres (28 feet) to the ground below. The worker was seriously injured.

Ministry of Labour investigators found that the workers were wearing safety harnesses but the harnesses were not connected to safety lines securely attached to anchor points on the roof.

Paris Holdings and Sergerie Mechanical pleaded guilty to failing to ensure that workers were adequately protected from falling.

On August 25, 2008 Ministry of Labour investigators returned to the scene to find that four secured safety ropes had been added to the scene despite orders that the scene not be disturbed.
Supervisor Tim Sergerie pleaded guilty to interfering with and disturbing the scene of a critical injury without the permission of a Ministry of Labour inspector.

The fines were imposed by Justice of the Peace Louise E. Rozon. 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,

Paris Holdings and Sergerie Mechanical were found guilty of violating section 26.1 (2) of the ‘Construction’ regulation 213/91 which states,

“Despite subsection (1) if it is not reasonably possible to install a guardrail system as that subsection requires, a worker shall be adequately protected by at least one of the following methods of fall protection:

1. A travel restraint system that meets the requirements 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
4. A safety net that meets the requirements of section 26.8.

Supervisor Tim Sergerie was found guilty of violating section 51(2) of the OHSA which states,

“Where a person is killed or is critically injured at a workplace, no person shall, excerpt for the purpose of,

a) Saving life or relieving human suffering
b) Maintaining an essential public utility service or a public transportation system, or
c) Preventing unnecessary damage to equipment or other property,

interferes with, disturb, destroy, alter or carry away any wreckage, article or thing at the scene of or connected with the occurrence until permission to do so has been given by the inspector.”

My opinion,

If the reader is not fully aware by now, Fall Protection is the #1 killer on a construction site. It begins with companies like these two that refuse to understand the 3 basic factors in competency under the OHSA which are;

1) Has the knowledge, training, experience to organize the work,
2) Is familiar with the ACT and the regulations that apply, and
3) Is also familiar with the hazards associated with the training

The employer MUST recognize ALL the fall hazards in the workplace and ensure that controls are in place PRIOR to any employee entering a work area. Here we find 2 companies in non-compliance as well as a supervisor trying to end run the MOL concerning disturbance of the accident scene. How stupid can one get? Tim Sergerie tried to cover up the fact that he had no idea about his responsibilities and an employee was critically hurt. SHAME!!!

It is hard enough to teach the working world all about health and safety and the hardest people to teach are the owners/supervisors.

My suggestion to both companies is to review my 7 part series on Fall Protection which were posted around the August/September 2011 time frame. Only then will they fully understand the intent of the legislation and, hopefully, will have a safer workplace for people to work in.

I am continually surprised how many Fall Protection accidents happen. They are the #1 incident in all of the 4 sectors.

The MOL sure has their work cut out for them, especially the ‘Construction’ inspectors.

Remember – In Ontario, “ALL Accidents are Preventable”

‘Work’ and ‘Play’ safe.

Daniel L. Beal
VP & Senior Trainer
HRSGroup Inc.

Furfari Paving Co. Ltd., a Toronto-based company, was fined $110,000 on July 13, 2010, for a violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act after a worker was killed.

On July 30, 2008, two workers employed by Furfari were operating an asphalt road milling machine, otherwise known as a “grinder,” to remove the top layer of asphalt from a section of Dixie Rd. between Eglinton Ave. and Matheson Blvd. in Mississauga. Other machines were in use nearby, including a pavement cutter operated by a third worker, who was cutting and sealing cracks in the wake of the grinder. The two workers finished removing the top layer of asphalt and operated the grinder in reverse. When they stopped, they saw that the third worker had been caught underneath the grinder and crushed.

Ministry of Labour investigators found that the driver of the grinder had an obstructed view while using the controls, and that the operators of the grinder were not assisted by a signaller.

Furfari Paving Co. Ltd. pleaded guilty to failing to ensure that the operator of a vehicle was assisted by a signaller when his or her view of the path of travel was obstructed.

The fines were imposed by Justice of the Peace Michael Barnes. 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,

The Furfari Paving Company Ltd. was found guilty of violating section 104(3) of the Ontario ‘Construction’ regulation 213/91 which states,

“Operators of vehicles, machines and equipment shall be assisted by signallers if either of the following applies:

1. The operator’s view of the intended path of travel is obstructed.
2. A person could be endangered by the vehicle, machine or equipment or by its load.

My opinion,

Furfari Paving Company needed to review either the previous passage of the ‘Construction’ regulation OR at least looked at the manufacturer’s manual for the asphalt road milling machine. The intent of any manufacturer is to encourage the safe application of their products by adding a section of most manuals titled, “Safety features and safety application.” This type of machine would most certainly include such information and it is incumbent on the vehicle owners to review the safety highlights of the manufacturer prior to any of their employees using the machines. In a nutshell, the employer shall do everything reasonable in the circumstance for the protection of the worker. (Sounds like section 25, subsection 2(h) of the ACT, does it not?)

In closing, I need to reaffirm my position that all employers understand that the health and safety of any and all of their workers has to be the employer’s TOP priority. Any position other than that is totally unacceptable. Now the reader understands my need to continue to add more and more health and safety postings on my blog. Someone has to tell the worker’s side of the story. This worker did not have a chance to voice his/her opinion.

The MOL works very hard on the worker’s behalf. I believe it is my job, and that of others in the health and safety field, to aid the MOL in this endeavour.

Remember – In Ontario, “ALL Accidents are Preventable”

‘Work’ and ‘Play’ safe.

Daniel L. Beal
VP & Senior Trainer
HRSGroup Inc.

The grocery store operator Metro Ontario Inc. was fined $100,000 on July 9, 2010, for a violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act that caused an injury to a worker.

On January 18, 2009, a worker at the company’s location in North Bay was using a band saw to cut beef in the meat department. The worker’s hand slipped towards the moving blade, and the blade partially amputated some of the worker’s fingers.

A Ministry of Labour investigation found that the machine’s blade was improperly guarded.

Metro Ontario Inc. pleaded guilty to failing to ensure the saw was equipped with and guarded by a guard that prevented access to its moving blade.

The fine was imposed by Justice of the Peace Ruby Beck. 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,

Metro Ontario Inc. was found guilty of violating section 24 of the Ontario regulation 851 which states,

“When a machine or prime mover or transmission equipment has an exposed moving part that may endanger the safety of any worker, the machine or prime mover or transmission equipment shall be equipped with and guarded by a guard or other device that prevents access to the moving part.”

My opinion,

This is my second blog posting that deals with Metro Ontario Inc. The first was posted on August 2, 2011 and dealt with a dock leveller issue in the Etobicoke store and this one is a little farther north in North Bay. Either way, Metro Ontario Inc. seems to be piling up the convictions. The corporate image does not seem to care much for the employee and I wonder how many of the others are experiencing other safety issues.

I promise to keep my eyes and ears open and to prepare another blog if Metro Ontario Inc. is involved. It feels necessary and I would not want any I know working for them; at least until they improve their image by promoting health and safety in the workplace. Maybe twice on the Ontario ‘Newsroom’ website will make them understand that the MOL is very serious when it comes to health and safety. If not, then the $155,000 in total fines will provide some incentive.

Remember – In Ontario, “ALL Accidents are Preventable”

‘Work’ and ‘Play’ safe.

Daniel L. Beal
VP & Senior Trainer
HRSGroup Inc.

Kone Inc., an elevator and escalator manufacturer, was fined $90,000 on July 7, 2010, for a violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act that caused an injury to a worker.

On September 11, 2008, a worker was fixing the circuit board for an elevator at the University of Western Ontario. The worker was on a ladder in the pit and shaft area of the elevator while the elevator’s power was still on. The worker was not using rubber gloves, mats, shields or other equipment to protect against electrical shock. The worker touched the back of the circuit board, received an electrical shock, and fell to the concrete floor of the pit. The worker suffered wrist and facial fractures.

Kone Inc. pleaded guilty to failing to ensure the worker used rubber gloves, mats, shields and other protective equipment and procedures adequate to ensure protection from electrical shock and burns.

The fine was imposed by Justice of the Peace Robert Gay. 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,

Konc Inc. was found guilty for a violation of section 42.1(2) of the ‘Industrial’ regulation 851 which states,

“The worker shall use rubber gloves, mats, shields and other protective equipment and procedures adequate to ensure protection from electrical shock and burns while performing the work.”

My opinion,

Can you believe that someone would be allowed not to be insulated around energized equipment? I find it very hard to believe. A worker needs to have all the protective equipment, all the protective training to ensure the safety of the worker. Do you believe Konc Inc. had their employee’s safety in mind?

The employer needs to review section 25 of the ACT, in its entirety, before the worker attends a work site. The day will come when all employers understand their responsibilities and ensure the workers will be at the top of the priority list instead of the bottom.

The supervisor should be fully versed in section 27 of the OHSA. Again, the section is there to instruct the supervisor about the expected supervisory requirements about health and safety in the workplace. If only the supervisor was aware of his/her responsibility under the ACT. The worker would have been protected and the accident would have been a potential incidental ‘Near Miss’ instead. Due Diligence is always the order of the day.

Remember – In Ontario, “ALL Accidents are Preventable”

‘Work’ and ‘Play’ safe.

Daniel L. Beal
VP & Senior Trainer
HRSGroup Inc.

Abitibi Consolidated Company of Canada, owner and operator of a paper mill in Fort Frances, was fined $125,000 on July 9, 2010, for a violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act that caused injuries to two workers and a student.

On August 20, 2008, two electricians at the paper mill were changing the power box for part of a paper machine. The power to the box was locked out. The power to the cabinet containing the box was not shut off or locked out. As the electricians removed the power box, they noticed a cable inside the cabinet that needed to be moved. One of them reached into the cabinet with a tool to remove a clamp holding the cable in place. The tool made electrical contact with a live conductor inside the cabinet and this created an arc flash. This caused another arc flash from the live conductors overhead.

The two electricians suffered first, second and third degree burns. A student who was watching them suffered first degree burns.

Abitibi Consolidated Company of Canada pleaded guilty to failing to ensure that a tool was not used near a live electrical installation to prevent electrical contact with a live conductor.

The fine was imposed by Justice of the Peace Patricia Clydesdale-Cornell. 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.

Abitibi Consolidated Company of Canada is currently under the protection of the Companies Creditors Arrangement Act. The fine was stayed pending the completion of that matter.

The law(s) broken,

Abitibi Consolidated Company of Canada was found guilty of violating section 43 of the Industrial regulation 851, which states,

“Tools and other equipment that are capable of conducting electricity and endangering the safety of any worker shall not be used in such proximity to any live electrical installation or equipment that they might make electrical contact with the live conductor.”

My opinion,

Here we find another company using what they believe a true lockout and tagout procedure. In all cases, the proper procedure SHOULD have located all secondary power sources and had them isolated prior any work being done. Abitibi needed to have identified the secondary power source, make the secondary source known to the workers prior to entry (preferably at a toolbox pre-meeting). The electricians should have been given lockout and tagout training long before this accident.

LOTO discusses the following;

1) The people going into the area
2) The work being done in the area
3) The time and location of the entry, and
4) Suggested time of completion

A good company would have had a set of instructions (possibly laminated) situated at a conspicuous location where more than one power source to a machine or device has been identified. The worker needs to see this type of management safety support and, I wager, one or both of the electricians hurt in this accident would have been excellent choices to help development the program.

I wager the MOL made it mandatory that the LOTO program and training be updated. No worker should have been hurt. LOTO does identify all power sources and ensures that no work is done prior to total isolation.

By the way, why was the student near enough to watch? Was it an apprentice? If so, does anyone out there get a warm fuzzy for his/her future safety?

Remember – In Ontario, “ALL Accidents are Preventable”

‘Work’ and ‘Play’ safe.

Daniel L. Beal
VP & Senior Trainer
HRSGroup Inc.

Bondfield Construction Company Limited and BMC Masonry (2032686 Ontario Limited), both of Concord, yesterday were fined $75,000 and $50,000 respectively for violations under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) after a worker was injured.

On November 29, 2007, an electrician subcontracted by BMC received chest and pelvis injuries after being pinned under a wall that collapsed at a construction project at 90 Greenwood Rd., Stouffville. The electrician was walking next to the concrete block wall when a strong wind suddenly blew it over.

A Ministry of Labour investigation found that a BMC employee had removed the wall’s temporary bracing earlier that day.

Constructor Bondfield Construction Company Limited and employer BMC Masonry pleaded guilty to failing to ensure that the wall was designed and constructed to resist the wind and adequately braced to prevent it from collapsing.

The fines were imposed by Justice of the Peace Tina Rotondi-Molinari. 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,

Bondfield Construction Company Limited was found guilty of violating section 31 (1) of Ontario regulation 213/91 which states,

“Every part of a project, including a temporary structure, shall be designed and constructed to support or resist all loads and forces to which it is likely to be subjected without exceeding the allowable unit stress for each material used, and shall be adequately braced to prevent any movement that may affect its stability or cause its failure or collapse.”

My opinion,

This seems simple doesn’t it? Building a structure and then removing the temporary bracing long before the supporting walls were built and attached. How stupid can one get? The design was not adequate and the removal of the bracing goes far beyond stupid. A worker, once again, gets hurt due to the idiotic actions of an employer.

The construction sector is one of the most complex sectors with the largest regulation (213/91) there is. The mining sector is not too far behind but the construction sector has been worked on and worked on to add more and more sections to cover most scenarios that can be imagined. It is funny how this type of incident was figured out before and the section added.

I do hope Bondfield completes a permanent corrective action plan that would be acceptable to the MOL so that future events like this one will not happen. One can only hope!

Remember – In Ontario, “ALL Accidents are Preventable”

‘Work’ and ‘Play’ safe.

Daniel L. Beal
VP & Senior Trainer
HRSGroup Inc.

Tri City Materials Ltd., a company that works with aggregates, was fined $60,000 on July 6, 2010, for a violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act that caused an injury to a worker.

On December 30, 2008, a worker was cleaning out a trailer that acted as a hopper for various materials. The truck attached to the trailer was left running because the hopper’s chute needed a source of power to remain open. During the cleaning process, another worker turned off the truck. This immediately closed the hopper’s chute gate, which caught first the worker’s leg.

A Ministry of Labour investigation found that the company’s procedure for safely cleaning the trailer required that it be locked out with its chute gate manually wedged open. The worker was not made familiar with this procedure or the hazards associated with cleaning out the trailer.

Tri City Materials Ltd. pleaded guilty to failing to acquaint the worker with the hazards associated with cleaning out the trailer.

The fine was imposed by Justice of the Peace Robert Gay. 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,

Tri City Materials Ltd. was found guilty of violating section 25 of the OHSA, subsection 2(d) which states,

“An employer shall acquaint a worker or a person in authority over a worker with any hazard in the work and in the handling, storage, use, disposal and transport of any article, device, equipment or a biological, chemical or physical agent.”

My opinion,

The majority of the time, this section seems to deal with WHMIS issues more than any other but this time it is not the case. The ‘hazards associated with cleaning out the trailer’ was the issue.

The company was in possession of a proper procedure for this type of operation but failed to notify the supervisor or the operator of the safe application.

Again, we see another company keeping all the safe handling procedures to themselves, and another worker was injured. There was no need for this ever to happen.

I do hope that any company dealing the same way understand that the MOL feels the employers are first, and foremost, the first line of defense to protect the worker. Section 25 of the OHSA makes sure that the employer is always the first one at the top of the suspect list.

Remember – In Ontario, “ALL Accidents are Preventable”

‘Work’ and ‘Play’ safe.

Daniel L. Beal
VP & Senior Trainer
HRSGroup Inc.

Rosati Construction Inc. of Windsor and supervisor Matteo Romano were fined $60,000 and $3,000 respectively on May 20 for violations under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) after a worker was injured.

Keller Roofing & Sheet Metal Inc. of Exeter and supervisor Joseph Gower were also fined $60,000 and $3,000 respectively on March 25 in the same matter.

On July 29, 2008, a Keller worker was injured after falling through an opening in a roof at a construction project at 4025 White Oak Rd., London. The worker fell about six metres onto a gravel pile.

A Ministry of Labour investigation found that the worker had no fall protection after plywood used to cover the opening had been removed.

Constructor Rosati Construction Inc., employer Keller Roofing & Sheet Metal Inc. and supervisors Matteo Romano and Joseph Gower pleaded guilty to failing to ensure that the worker was adequately protected from falling while the plywood covering was removed temporarily from the opening in the roof.

The fines were imposed by Justice of the Peace Robert Gay. 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

The constructor, Rosati Construction Inc. out of Windsor and Keller Roofing, along with the supervisors from both companies, was charged with violating section 26.3(3) which states,

“The guardrail system or protective covering required under subsection (1) or (2) may be removed temporarily to perform work in or around the opening if a worker is adequately protected and signs are posted in accordance with subsections 44(1) and (2).”

Fall Protection, what is it all about? ‘Fall Protection’ covers the recognition of all fall hazards and ensure that all workers are adequately protected. Fall Protection is divided into two categories;

1) Fall Prevention
2) Fall Arrest

‘Fall Prevention’ covers all kinds of things such as;

a) Guardrails
b) Floor covers

When ‘Fall Prevention’ is not feasible then ‘Fall Arrest’ is required. ‘Fall Arrest’ covers such things as;

1) Body harnesses
2) Retractables or ‘Fall Limiters’
3) Shock-absorbing lanyards
4) Lifelines and rope grabs for ‘Fall Restraint’ systems

HRS Group Inc., created a 7 part miniseries concerning the Ontario ‘construction’ regulation 213/91 version of ‘Fall Protection’. Please read the appropriate blog postings that cover ‘Fall Protection’ and incorporate the information into your companies ‘Fall Protection’ program.

It is too bad that Rosati Construction Inc. and Keller Roofing failed the employee and didn’t ensure his safety. A safe workplace is a productive workplace.

The MOL is working diligently to ensure that ALL workplaces are safe places. Companies not understanding their responsibilities drive the costs of healthcare sky high and we all are affected by the increases. I do hope my blogs do not fall on deaf ears and people take away any information I have created to help them with the health and safety policies in their particular workplace.

Health and safety in the workplace is not just a phrase but a frame of mind. If all employers would incorporate safety into the planning stages of the business, it is a proven fact that the company would be more productive as injuries would be down and lost time disruptions would be at a minimum, and productivity would be very manageable.

Remember – In Ontario, “ALL Accidents are Preventable”

‘Work’ and ‘Play’ safe.

Daniel L. Beal
VP & Senior Trainer
HRSGroup Inc.

The Town of New Glasgow in Nova Scotia must pay $25,000 and various other penalties following a trench collapse two years ago that claimed the life of a worker.

In a decision released April 8, Justice Jamie Campbell of the Provincial Court of Nova Scotia ordered the municipality to pay the fine no later than June 30. Among the additional sanctions, which total $85,000, are the following:

• develop an integrated safety manual and support material (including minimum safety policies for all town departments) and provide the information to all municipal units in the province ($35,000);
• undertake a public information campaign that directly addresses the specific impact of workplace safety on families ($15,000);
• move forward with approved health and safety training for all town staff ($15,000); and,
• pay for quarterly audits, to be done by an independent safety consultant, of all town safety programs ($5,000).

The sentence follows the death of Michael Bonvie on October 26, 2006. Bonvie had 20 years of trenching experience, but had been on the job site in question for only four days when the deadly collapse occurred. He and another worker were standing inside a trench, measuring 11 feet deep and about seven feet wide, when it collapsed.

My opinion,

The OHSA for Ontario has section of the ‘Construction’ regulation 213/91 that covers aspects of digging and working around a trench. (sections 234-242) It is my opinion that all employers review these particular sections to better understand the responsibilities and to better protect their workers. Life is too short. Find out what the government has in place for safety and apply it.

Sometimes I get tired of writing posting after posting about these types of things but someone has to do it. It might as well be me.

Remember – In Ontario, “ALL Accidents are Preventable”

‘Work’ and ‘Play’ safe.

Daniel L. Beal
VP & Senior Trainer
HRSGroup Inc.