HomeMy WebLinkAboutWD-37-92 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
REPORT
Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE File#
Date: APRIL 6, 1992 Res. #
Report#:_ WLL-_33_-_9_2_ File #: -AD.55_._U By-Law By-Law
Subject: OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT & W.H.M.I.S.
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and
Administration Committee recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report WD-37-92 be received; and
2 . THAT Council pass the By-laws attached to Report WD-37-92 .
----------------------------------------------------------------
REPORT
1.0 ATTACHMENTS
No. 1: Proposed By-law to Adopt a Safety Policy and Safety
Program
No. 2 : Proposed By-law to Appoint Safety Committees
No. 3 : Some Recent Court Cases
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2 . 1 Ontario's health and safety standards for the workplace are
increasingly complex. The legislative structure has been
dramatically transformed with the addition of a Workplace
Hazardous Materials Information System (W.H.M. I .S. ) across
Canada and a new smoking in the workplace law in Ontario.
Further amendments to the provincial legislation have been
enacted, some of which came into force August 15, 1990, the
/2
REPORT NO. : WD-37-92 PAGE 2
the balance January 1, 1990. The purpose of this report is
to inform Council about the legislation and make
recommendations to have a program in.place to effectively deal
with the responsibilities placed on Council and staff by the
legislation.
3.0 REVIEW AND COMMENT
3 . 1 The Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSAI
The OHSA clearly sets out the rights and responsibilities of
employers, workers and other workplace parties (constructors,
supervisors, owners and suppliers) .
The OHSA is based on the principle that workplace hazards can
best be dealt with through communication and co-operation
between employers and workers . Fundamental to the operation
of the Act is what is called the internal responsibility
system - the concept that employers and workers must strive
to develop strategies to identify hazards and develop
strategies to protect workers. Within the internal
responsibility system, workplace safety is monitored by
workers and employers through the creation of joint health and
safety committees and the appointment of safety
representatives, as required, and by regular workplace
inspections by the Ministry of Labour.
The Act empowers the Lieutenant Governor in Council to impose
on the workplace parties, by regulation, specific duties
relating to particular kinds of workplaces . Pursuant to that
power, regulations have been made for three sectors -
industrial establishments (Regulation 692) , construction
projects (Regulation 691) and mines and mining plants
(Regulation 694) - prescribing in detail safety practices that
must be adhered to by the majority of workplaces in Ontario.
f A
REPORT NO. : WD-37-92 PAGE 3
3 .2 The W.H.M. I .S. Amendments
Amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act that came
into force on October 31, 1988, were designed to implement the
cross-Canada workplace Hazardous Materials Information System
(W.H.M. I .S. ) in Ontario. Sometimes called workers ' right to
know legislation, these amendments gave employers and
suppliers duties related to hazardous materials and physical
agents . Employers must now make and maintain an inventory of
any such substances in the workplace, ensure that proper
labels and material safety data sheets (M.S.D.S. ) are placed
on all such substances and their containers, and provide
instruction and training for workers who may be exposed to
them in the workplace.
3 . 3 The 1990 Amendments (formerly Bill 208)
On June 21, 1990, an Act containing far reaching amendments
to the OHSA was given royal assent. Most of the new
provisions came into force on either August 15, 1990, or
January 1, 1991. These provisions promise profound change
for the occupational health and safety system in Ontario.
A key provision of the legislation, proclaimed in force on
August 15, 1990, creates a Workplace Health and Safety Agency.
Composed of members from labour and management, the agency has
I
administrative responsibilities related to health and safety
education. It also has formidable powers, including complete
control over funding to health and safety associations and the
ability to report "problem" employers to the Workers ' i
Compensation Board.
The 1990 amendments enhance the powers and rights of workers,
health and safety committees and inspectors, while increasing
the statutory obligations of employers. "Certified" members
of health and safety committees will be given the authority
i
. . . /4
X0 11
REPORT NO. : WD-37-92 PAGE 4
to issue stop work directives and inspectors receive greater
enforcement powers .
To encourage a collaborative approach to health and safety
issues, the requirements for, and the powers of, joint health
and safety committees are expanded. Moreover, the amendments
impose duties on officers and directors of corporations to
ensure that their corporations comply with the Act. Officers
and directors are now subject to fines of up to $25,000 and
corporations up to $500,000 for contravention of the Act, the
i
regulations, or orders made under them Sections relating to
corporate fines were proclaimed in force effective August 15,
1990. The sections relating to officers, and directors,
obligations were effective January 7, 1991
3 .4 Duties and Responsibilities
The Occupational Health and Safety Act places duties on the
employer, the Supervisor and the worker. Following is a
summary of these duties:
Duties of the Employer
1. To provide a safe work place.
2 . To comply with regulations .
3 . To provide information and to educate workers .
4 . To appoint a competent supervisor.
5 . To assist Safety Committee or Representative.
6 . To not employ minors .
7 . To take every possible precaution.
8 . To post a copy of the Act.
9 . To establish an occupational health service.
10 . To perform duty respecting the use of agents .
11. To provide medical examination.
12 . To provide workers with written instructions .
13 . To perform duties regarding hazardous materials .
. . . /5
I
L
i
REPORT NO. : WD-37-92 PAGE 5
14 . To prepare an Occupational Health & Safety Policy.
15. To provide the Safety Committee or Representative
with certain information.
16 . To carry out training programs for workers,
supervisors and committee members .
17 . To establish a medical surveillance program as
prescribed.
Duties and Responsibilities of the Supervisor
1. To ensure workers comply with the Ontario Health
and Safety Act and Regulations .
2 . To ensure workers use equipment, devices and
clothing.
3 . To advise workers of danger.
4 . To provide written instructions .
5 . To take every precaution reasonable.
6 . To ensure that employees are fluent in procedures
and instructions .
Duties of the Worker
1. To comply with the Act and Regulations.
2 . To report .defects, contraventions and hazards.
3 . To undergo medical examination.
4 . Not to make protective devices ineffective.
5 . Not to operate machine or devices in a dangerous
manner.
6 . Not to play in the workplace.
3 .5 Safety Policy
Section 25, Subsection (2) ( j ) of the Occupational Health and
Safety Act requires the employer to "prepare and review at
least annually a written occupational health and safety policy
and develop and maintain a program to implement that policy" .
i
. . . /6
I
i
REPORT NO. : WD-37-92 PAGE 6
Recommendation No. 1:
That the Safety Policy attached as Schedule 'A' to the
proposed by-law (Attachment No. 1) be approved by Council.
3 . 6 Safety Program
On April 1, 1986, Municipalities in Ontario jointly with the
Workers ' Compensation Board, through its Occupational Health
and Safety Education Authority, launched the Municipal Health
and Safety Program. This new program came about after
consultation with representatives from Municipal Associations
and Accident Prevention Associations in Ontario.
The Municipal Health and Safety Program is designed to assist
municipalities in reducing their occupational injuries and
associated worker's compensation costs through health and
safety education and training programs, as well as relevant
Workers ' Compensation Board statistical data on costs and
injury experience. These services will respond to the
specific needs of municipalities on an individual or group
basis . The program is directed by a twelve person Advisory
Committee consisting of representatives from Municipal
Associations and four (4) from the Education Authority
including three (3) from the Accident Prevention Associations .
Ken Fisher, who has many years experience in the Occupational
Health and Safety Field, was the Program Co-ordinator of the
Municipal Health and Safety Program. As part of his task, Mr.
Fisher made several recommendations which he believes each
Municipality should implement as a starting point of an
effective accident prevention program.
Mr. Fisher's recommendations are contained in the "Safety
Program" which is attached as Schedule "B" to the proposed
By-law.
I
I
. . . /7
L
REPORT NO. : WD-37-92 PAGE 7
Recommendation No. 2:
That the Safety Program attached as Schedule "B" to the
proposed By-law (Attachment No. 1) be approved by Council.
3. 7 Joint Health and Safety Committees
The Act . requires employers to establish a Joint Health and
Safety Committee and, in some cases, to appoint safety
representatives .
The OHSA gives only two requirements for joint health and
safety committee meetings:
1 . The group must meet in the workplace at least once
every three (3) months .
2 . Minutes must be kept of the meetings and made
available for examination and review by an inspector
in the event of an inspection.
3 .8 Functions and Powers of a Joint Health and Safety Committee
Under the OHSA, the general function of a joint health and
safety committee is to identify situations that may be a
source of danger or hazard to workers and to make
recommendations for the improvement of workers ' health and
safety.
I
To assist the committee in carrying out these
responsibilities, the Act gives the members the power or right
to:
1 . Obtain information from the employer on existing and
potential hazards of materials, processes and equipment
and on health and safety experience and work standards
and practices in similar industries .
. . . /8
REPORT NO. : WD-37-92 PAGE 8
2 . Inspect the physical condition of the workplace.
3 . Make recommendations for the improvement of workers '
health and safety and for education and training programs
for the health and safety of workers .
4 . Investigate cases of fatal or critical injury at the
workplace.
5. Accompany a ministry inspector during a workplace
inspection and receive copies of any reports or orders .
6 . Obtain information from the employer or constructor
concerning the testing of any equipment, machine or
substance at the workplace.
7 . Be consulted about, and be present at, the beginning of
any testing of equipment, machinery or substances at the
workplace.
8. Receive the results of a report on occupational health
and safety that is in the employer's possession, and
obtain written portions of the report, if available.
3. 9 Town of Newcastle Safety Committees
Recommendation No. 3:
That Council approve the proposed By-law to Appoint Safety
Committees (Attachment No. 2) .
3 . 10 Some Recent Court Cases
Following is a summary of some recent court cases, the details
of which are provided in Attachment No. 2 :
1 . Supervisor working for Parkside Properties of Oshawa
fined $13,000 .
l
. . . /9
REPORT NO. : WD-37-92 PAGE 9
2 . Canada Wood Specialty Company ( 1983) Limited,
Barrie, fined $75,000 .
3 . Charges laid against the Welland and County Separate
School Board.
4 . Charges laid against City of Port Colborne, its Fire
Chief and Deputy Fire Chief.
5 . An Oshawa contractor is fined $20,000 and sentenced
to three (3) months in jail.
6 . Peterborough Y.M.C.A. lifeguard drowns in swimming
pool.
7 . Drowning in the Town of Lewisporte.
8 . Richmond Hill firm fined $75,000 after worker
electrocuted to death.
3 . 11 Review by Other Departments
This report has been reviewed by all other Department Heads .
Respectfully submitted,f Recommended for presentation
to the Committee,
I
Walter A. Evans, P.Eng. , Lawrence E. itative ff,
Director of Public Works Chief Admin Officer
WAE*ph
March 24, 1992
Attachments
I
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
BY-LAW NO. 92-
A by-law to establish an Occupational Health
and Safety Policy and an Occupational Health
and Safety Program as required by the
Occupational Health and Safety Act.
WHEREAS the Corporation of the Town of Newcastle is committed to
providing a healthy and safe work environment for all personnel;
AND WHEREAS the Occupational Health and Safety Act requires each
employer in Ontario to prepare and review at least annually a
written occupational health and safety policy and to develop and
maintain a program to implement that policy.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ENACTED by the Council of the Corporation of
the Town of Newcastle as follows:
1. The Health and Safety Policy and the Health and Safety Program
contained in Schedules "A" and "B", respectively, which are
attached to and form a part of this By-law, are hereby adopted
as the Town of Newcastle's Health and Safety Policy and Health
and Safety Program.
2. This By-law shall come into force and take effect on the date
on which it is passed.
By-law read a first and second time this 13th day of April, 1992.
By-law read a third time and finally passed this 13th day of April,
1992.
MAYOR
CLERK
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
t� lj WD-37-92
SCHEDULE "A" TO BY-LAW 92-
H E A L T H & S A F E T Y P O L I C Y
Responsibilities of Appointed and Elected Officials:
1. To provide as safe and healthy a working environment as can
reasonably be expected, given the resources and technology
available.
2. To establish an effective internal responsibility system,
whereby everyone clearly understands their responsibilities
regarding the occupational health and safety of workers.
3. To provide ongoing training to heighten employee awareness of
known safety hazards and maintain job skills and knowledge.
4. To develop and maintain open communication between all levels
in all Departments to encourage employee participation in the
Town's Safety Program.
5. To involve all employees in safety through effective Joint
Health and Safety Committees accessible to all employees.
6. To periodically review the Town's Health and Safety Policy,
Program and Standard Operating Procedures to achieve safety
performance.
7. To require compliance with applicable Federal, Provincial and
Municipal safety legislation.
Responsibilities of Workers:
Workers are responsible for maintaining a reasonable working
knowledge of the requirements of the Occupational Health and Safety
Act. They are also responsible for maintaining a reasonable
working knowledge of health and safety hazards in the work place
and preventative measures to be taken for their own protection.
Workers must:
a. Comply with all procedures and requirements of the
Occupational Health and Safety Act, Highway Traffic Act
and other applicable Federal, Provincial and Municipal
safety legislation.
b. Report any hazardous conditions which cannot immediately
be corrected to a Supervisor, and failing a satisfactory
resolution, in the opinion of the worker, to a member of
the Joint Health and Safety Committee.
C. Promptly report all accidents or injuries (no matter how
minor they may first appear) to a supervisor.
d. Not work or operate any equipment that may endanger the
safety of the worker or others.
e. Not engage in pranks or feats of strength that may
endanger the worker or others.
f. Wear and care for, as instructed, protective clothing
provided by the Town.
Note: All outside contractors will be required to comply with
Federal, Provincial and Municipal Safety Legislation when
working on Town property.
SCHEDULE "B" TO BY-LAW 92-
H E A L T H & S A F E T Y P R O G R A M
The Town of Newcastle Health and Safety Program shall be to
implement the recommendations contained in a report prepared by
Ken Fisher, Program Co-ordinator, Municipal Health and Safety
Program, dated August 30, 1989, and on file with the Town Clerk as
follows:
1. Work Practices Manual:
Prepare a work practices manual which sets forth the rules
and regulations regarding accident prevention activities.
• I
2. Promote Compliance with Legislation by Workers:
Promote awareness and compliance of all Workers with
legislation including the Occupational Health and Safety Act,
Worker's Compensation Act and First Aid Regulation 950.
3. Participate in the Municipality Injury Frequency and Cost
Record 'Program:
Participate in the Municipality Injury Frequency and Cost
Record Program, a voluntary reporting program for
municipalities which provides relevant statistical information
on a municipal service basis. This program allows comparison
with other municipalities.
4. Safety Officer:
Reinforce the Town's senior management commitment to the
Health and Safety Program by making the Town's safety
professional directly accountable to senior management.
5. Accident Investigation Procedure:
The establishment of appropriate accident investigation
procedures is the responsibility of all Department Heads.
Subject to the provisions of the Occupational Health and
Safety Act respecting the function of the joint health and
safety committee, implement a thorough accident investigation
procedure led by the Head of the Department to which the
persons involved in the accident are assigned to ensure the
complete, objective and co-operative investigation of all
accidents.
6. Procedure for Timely Reporting of Accidents:
Implement a procedure for the timely reporting by a senior
management representative of all claims to the Worker's
Compensation Board as well as the ongoing monitoring of all
claims, their status and opportunities for the early
rehabilitation and return to work of the injured worker.
7. Health and Safety Education Program: �
The implementation of an ongoing health and safety education
training program responsive to the identified needs in the
work place.
i
'I
- 2 -
8. Creation of a Steering Committee:
The creation of a steering committee composed of senior
management. This committee will oversee the Town's total
accident prevention program.
9. Criteria for Performance Review:
Include in the criteria for performance review for the
determination of remuneration for all management and
supervisory staff a significant recognition for accident
prevention performance of each employee, including supervisors
and senior management.
i
I
i
I
�� ��'
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
BY-LAW 92-
being a By-law to cause Joint Health and
Safety Committees for two Town of Newcastle
workplaces to be established and maintained in
accordance with the Occupational Health and
Safety Act and to cause workers at certain
other Town of Newcastle workplaces to select
Health and Safety Representatives for the
purposes of the Act.
WHEREAS subsection 9(4) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act
requires each employer to cause a Joint Health and Safety Committee
to be established at each workplace at which twenty or more workers
are regularly employed and provides for each Joint Committee to
perform certain responsibilities and to exercise certain rights as
set out in this Act;
WHEREAS The Corporation of the Town of Newcastle is an employer
which owns and operates two workplaces in the Town of Newcastle at
which twenty or more workers are regularly employed, being the
Newcastle Administrative Centre including Newcastle Fire Station
No. 1, and the Hampton Public Works Facility, as well as certain
other workplaces at some of which the number of workers regularly
exceeds five and is fewer than twenty;
WHEREAS subsection 8(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act
requires employers to cause the workers to select at least one
Health and Safety Representative from among the workers at
workplaces at which the number of workers regularly exceeds five
and is fewer than twenty and for which a Joint Health and Safety
Committee is not required to be established under subsection 9(4)
of the Act.
WHEREAS The Corporation of the Town of Newcastle as the employer
is required to cause the workers employed at the Courtice Fire
Station, the Bowmanville Public Works Yard and the Orono Public
Works Yard to select a Health and Safety Representative for these
workplaces in accordance with the provisions of subsections 8(1)
and 8(5) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
NOW THEREFORE The Council of the Corporation of the Town of
Newcastle enacts as follows:
I
1. Pursuant to subsection 9(4) of the Occupational Health and
Safety Act R.S.O. 1990 c. 0.1 a Joint Health and Safety
Committee for the Town of Newcastle Administrative Centre
including Newcastle Fire Station No. 1 is hereby established
and shall be maintained.
2. The Joint Health and Safety Committee for the workplace
referred to in Section 1 of this By-law shall consist of the
Directors of Community Services, Planning and Development,
and Public Works, the Treasurer and the Fire Chief or their
delegates, and five persons regularly employed at the
I
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
WD-37-92
2 -
workplace referred to in Section 1 who do not exercise
managerial functions, each of whom shall be selected by the
relevant trade union or the Newcastle Professional
Firefighters Association, Local 3139, International
Association of Fire Fighters, as the case may be, which
represents workers regularly employed at the aforesaid
workplace in the Departments of Community Services, Planning
and Development, Public Works, the Treasury Department and
the Newcastle Fire Department, respectively.
3. Pursuant to subsection 9(4) of the Occupational Health and
Safety Act a Joint Health and Safety Committee for the Hampton
Public Works Facility is hereby established and shall be
maintained.
4. The Joint Health and Safety Committee referred to in section
3 of this By-law shall consist of the Director of Public Works
and the Manager of Operations of the Public Works Department
or their delegates and two persons regularly employed at the
workplace referred to in section 3 who do not exercise
managerial functions, each of whom shall be selected by the
relevant trade union which represents workers regularly
employed at the aforesaid workplace.
5. Co-Chair of each Joint Health and Safety Committee referred
to in sections 1 and 3 of this By-law shall be appointed by
the members of the Committee in accordance with the
Occupational Health and Safety Act.
6. Each Joint Health and Safety Committee referred to in sections
1 and 3 of this By-law shall perform the responsibilities and
exercise the rights provided by the Occupational Health and
Safety Act.
7. The Corporation of the Town of Newcastle hereby requests the
Newcastle Professional Firefighters Association, Local 3139,
International Association of Firefighters, which represents
workers who do not exercise managerial functions assigned to
the Courtice Fire Station being a workplace at which the
number of workers is regularly more than five -and fewer than
twenty, to select one Health and Safety Representative from
among the workers at the workplace who do not exercise
managerial functions at this workplace in accordance with
section 8 and for the purposes of the Occupational Health and
Safety Act, and forthwith after doing so to notify the Fire
Chief in writing of the name of the worker so selected.
8. The Corporation of the Town of Newcastle hereby requests the
Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 74, which represents
workers who do not exercise managerial functions assigned to
the Bowmanville Public Works Yard, being a workplace at which
the number of workers is regularly more than five and fewer
than twenty, to select one Health and Safety Representative
from among the workers employed at the workplace who do not
exercise managerial functions in accordance with section 8 and
for the purposes of the Occupational Health and Safety Act,
and forthwith after doing so to notify the Director of Public
Works in writing of the name of the worker so selected.
i
7
0 � 1
3 -
9. The Corporation of the Town of Newcastle hereby requests the
Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 74, which represents
workers who do not exercise managerial functions assigned to
the Orono Public Works Yard, being a workplace at which the
number of workers is regularly more than five and fewer than
twenty, to select one Health and Safety Representative from
among the workers employed at the workplace who do not
exercise managerial functions in accordance with section 8 and
for the purposes of the Occupational Health and Safety Act,
and forthwith after doing so to notify the Director of Public
Works in writing of the name of the worker so selected.
BY-LAW read a first and second time this 13th day of April, 1992.
BY-LAW read a third time and finally passed this 13th day of April,
1992.
MAYOR
CLERK
I
I
i
i
I
i
Personal _fines of $13,000 against
supervisor indicative -of new trend
By RICK MORRISON
WHITBY, .Ont.`..'(DCN) - A total of $13,000 in personal fines levied
against a construction supervisor is the latest example of a trend
toward huge penalties for violating - Ontario's new Occupational
Health and Safety Act.
"What we see as significant is that the courts are prepared to
'impose that kind of a fine," Don' Chiasson, director of the Labour
Ministry's legal services branch, said in an interview Tuesday.
Maximum fines under the Occupational Health and Safety Act
increased dramatically when Bill 208 came into effect Jan. 1, 1991.
Companies violating the new act can be fined up to $500,000 while
individuals face fines of up to $25,000 and a year in jail.
In provincial court here last -week, justice of the peace Robert
Legate found John Vandebaar, a supervisor at Parkside Properties
of Oshawa, Ont. , guilty on four counts of violating the act.
Legate dismissed charges 'against. the employer, constructor anti
another Parkside •supervisor, Chiasson *said, and the ministry will'. .
appeal that part of the decision.
The fines came as the result of a routine ministry inspection of
an Oshawa apartment project in August 1990, when a construction
health and safety branch officer noted guardrails hadn't been
installed as required and some workers weren't wearing hardhats or
safety boots.
Vandebaar was fined $5,000 for failing to ensure guardrails were
used around the six-storey building's second and third floors and
at an opening at the front of the building. Another $5,000
personal fine was imposed because guardrails were missing around
two stair landings. He was fined an additional $3,000 for failing
to ensure all workers wore safety hats and footwear.
The case shows the courts are holding individuals accountable for
the safety of employees, Ontario Labour Minister Bob Mackenzie says
in a news release.
"The fact that such a significant fine was imposed before any
accident occurred signifies that any breach of the act will be
vigorously dealt with to prevent accidents from happening. "
As copied from "Daily Commercial News " .
ATTACHMENT N0. 3
i WD-37-92
ONTARIO CORPORATIONS FEEL THE BITE OF THE NEW HEALTH
AND SAFETY ' PENALTY PROVISIONS
Effective. January 1, 1991, the maximum fine for corporations
convicted under the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act
increased : twenty-fold, from , $25,000 per . charge to . $500,000 per
charge."., A .decision of the Ontario Court (Provincial* Division) in
Orillia, dated August 15, 1991, gives an initial indication of how
far the courts will be prepared to go to fine companies under these
new penalty provisions .
The Canada Wood Specialty Company (1983) Limited is . an Orillia
company that dries and exports hardwood. The . company employs
approximately 40 to 50 employees. A number of these employees are
drivers of lift trucks that stack and lift materials. In December
1990, a driver was .fatally injured on company premises when a lift
truck backed over him. The company, a supervisor and an officer
of the company were charged with failing to ensure that a signaller
was provided to assist the operator of a vehicle who did not have
a full view of the intended path of travel of the vehicle.
The corporation entered a plea of guilty to the charge in July
1991. Justice of the Peace G: Smith sentenced the company on
August 15, :.1991, making the .first decision under the. new, penalty
Provisions of. the Act in this .case.
'Although the corporation had not previously been convicted under
the Act, and advised the court that its safety record was
exemplary, the court imposed a fine of $75,000 against Canada Wood
Specialty. The Justice of the Peace indicated that this penalty -
three times the old maximum of $25,000 - was intended to send a
message not only to the company, but also to other companies, that
the court and society in general does not condone unsafe work
practices .
The company appealed the sentence, and an appeal is currently
scheduled to be heard in December 1991. In the meantime, this case
should send a clear message to Ontario employers that compliance
efforts must now be maximized. If a corporation is successfully
charged and convicted of any offence under the Act, even when no
accident has occurred, or the company has not complied with an
order, fines can be expected to be substantial.
This case will be included in Release No. 6 of The Employer's
Health and Safety Manual Ontario.
i
I
I
As copied from the De Boo Manual .
i
2 034
Our Lady of Grace School
SEPARATE BOARD FACING CHARGES
TORONTO (Staff) - The Welland County Roman Catholic Separate School
Board -and its maintenance director Will appear, in Fort Erie
provincial court July 8 to set a trial date for charges under the
provincial Occupational Health and Safety Act.
Ministry of Labour media consultant Bob . McClelland .reports the
board has been charged under three sections of the Act for failing
to ensure safety measures in removing an.asbestos-lined incinerator
from Our Lady of Grace School in Ridgeway in May 1990. The board's
maintenance supervisor Brian Mosher faces one charge under the Act
for failing as .a supervisor .to ensure .safety measures were taken.
The board faces a maximum fine of $500,000 'while the supervisor
faces a possible maximum $25,000 fine and one year in jail.
The charges stem from an 'incident last spring when board workers
removed an incinerator from the school without properly isolating
the area and shutting off ventilation -systems connected to the
boiler room. The school, according to parents, filled with a cloud
of dust. and was later closed for. several days .while air tests were
done and'the 'building was thoroughly cleaned.
Parents were angered at the time and protested by keeping most of
the 180 students out of class for more than a week. They also
picketed in front of the school and appeared with placards at a
board meeting.
"If they had done it right the first time it would not have cost
them half as much and it wouldn't have cost the kids any exposure, "
said head of a parents' committee Ena Hilmayer.
"I 'm glad the charges were laid. I'm not a vengeful person but I
don't think they'll try that on other kids again. "
Hilmayer was disappointed the charges came only because the
teachers were present while the work was being done.
"They have nothing to do with the children in the building, " she
said. "It's really sad you can't charge them .because of the
children. "
3 ,) J �
Charges against city, fire officials
MAXIMUM ' PENALTIES ..HEFIFY
PORT COLBORNE (Staff) - Hefty maximum penalties are involved in
Ministry of Labour charges against the. City of Port Colborne, its
fire- chief and deputy fire chief.
Fire chief Doug Lockyer and deputy chief Brian Heaslip are charged
with four counts of failing as supervisors to provide safety
measures in the July 4, 1990 drowning of. city firefighter Harry
Chevalier. Each .charge :carries a maximum fine of• $25,000 `and one
year imprisonment. ' The City of Port Colborne faces five charges
under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
City clerk/administrator Len Hunt said he was surprised the charges
were laid 11 months after the incident but the general manager of
the MOL's industrial safety branch said the investigation is a
long., drawn-out process.:
"There's a long process,.'" Brian Middlemiss saia. It Is' not just
like a police ticket where you see something is wrong and give out
a ticket. "
"It takes some time. "
Middlemiss was reluctant to give out any details of the charges but
he 'did say he was responsible for reviewing the investigator's
report recommending charges.
"Firefighters' are workers in this province, " he said.
"The information in the investigation showed that there was no
training. "
The city meanwhile, is preparing for its July 8 court date,
according to the lawyer handling the case.
"We're just examining the matter, " Stu Ellis said. "It's 10 months
since the incident and five months since the inquest so there are
things which will have to be re-examined. "
i
I
4 !
10 .. /
1 /}
PORT DROWNING TRIAL ADJOURNED TO JAN. 27
By MARIE CHAMBERLAND
Tribune staff writer
WELLAND - The trial of the City of Port Colborne and its two top._
fire department officials will resume Jan. 27.
The City, Chief Douglas Lockyer and Deputy Chief Brian Heaslip face
charges under the Occupational . Healtb ,and Safety Act' in . Ontario
Court Provincial Division.
Three charges against the city and two charges against each of the
fire department officials relate to the July 4, 1990, drowning of
35 year-old firefighter Harry Chevalier.
Chevalier died trying to rescue two swimmers in Lake Erie off
Pleasant Beach.
The city is accused of failing to provide adequate rescue equipment
and training. and failing to ensure the safety of its workers.
The chief and deputy chief -are each accused of the two latter:
infractions. .
In testimony yesterday, a swimming and water rescue expert said
given circumstances similar to the ones firefighters faced at the
beach that day, he wouldn't advise a rescue attempt.
"If you choose to attempt a rescue, you've got to be sure in your
mind that you'll be successful, " said Michael Shane, program
director of the Ontario Branch of the Royal Life Saving Society.
Shane said without proper training in swimming and rescue
techniques, there may be "two victims instead of one" .
In testimony earlier this week, court heard three firefighters,
including Chevalier, waded into water with rapidly increasing waves
and strong undertows, each. wearing safety belts with individual
lifeline ropes attached to them.
A pair of volunteer firefighters waded into waist-deep water
holding two of the ropes .. One of them was Chevalier's.
- i
The third rope was held by three men' on shore, and one of the
volunteers in the water held the mid-section of that third rope
between his arm and body.
0 3/ 7
PORT DROWNING TRIAL ADJOURNED TO •JAN. 27 Cont'd
Both volunteers were overcome by water conditions, and Chevalier's
rope came loose.
The two swimmers originally in distress also drowned that day.
"If the rescuers have sufficient 'training, there are a couple of ,
options that they can pursue, ". Shane said.
He said had the firefighters had training, they could have rowed
on a rubber raft to where ,they thought the swimmers in distress
were. ' The rubber raft would provide stability in rough'water.
Or they could have swum to the distressed people and given them
flotation objects to hold onto .before bringing them ashore.
Shane said the rescuer in that situation would have to be a
proficient swimmer.
Three of the five firefighters directly involved in, the rescue that
day testified they were averace swimmers.
6
BUSINESS.•...AND,THE LAW
by'.Claire Bernstein
RIGHTS CHARTER MUST APPLY IN SAFETY CASES
Employers take note: not making the safety of your employees a
top priority could mean a hefty fine and even jail.
All provinces have occupational health and safety acts. All these
acts contain fine and jail provisions.
But Ontario has taken a direction that other provinces may soon .
follow: . fines for a first offence can go as high as .$500,000, and
offenders .are actually being locked- up.
An Oshawa contractor spent three months in jail (his original 12-
month sentence was:xeduced to .three on appeal) for endangering the
life of a worker`on a. site.
This was his second offence. He had been fined once before for
hiring underage labourers .
This time, -not ,only had he hired an underage worker, but he also
had the youth working in a .trench that -was not shored up.
In another Ontario case, a contractor had failed to provide the
rail of a scaffolding with a guard. A worker fell• and suffered
serious injuries.
The company was fined $20,000 . According to the firm's lawyer,
Norman Keith, the size of the fine was the straw that broke the
back of this camel. The company went bankrupt.
This policy of making the workplace safe is not high on Ontario's
agenda just because there is an NDP government; it was the former
Liberal government that amended the health and safety legislation
to raise the maximum fine to a whopping $500,000. And the
possibility of a jail sentence came from Tory days .
But if jail sentences are to be applied, if unsafe practice is
being criminalized, then the accused must be provided with the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms safeguards _ afforded to people
charged -under the Criminal Code.
i
This is the appeal of Toronto lawyer Keith, who has represented
many employers charged with safety infringements .
He argues that the quality of judges before whom the offenses are
brought must be upgraded. • In Ontario, offenses care currently
brought before justices of the peace - for whom there are no
i
educational requirements . The appointments are purely political .
I
I
I
RIGHTS CHARTER . MUST APPLY IN SAFETY CASES
Cont'd
One of-the ,-last two .appointments was a variety-store ' owner; the
other a bus driver
Keith also maintains that the standard of proof should be beyond
a reasonable doubt.
He fears that prosecutors, in their zeal, are persuading justices
of the peace to accept :a less stringent standard of proof. - And
workers and supervisors should be advised of their constitutional
rights to remain silent.
Keith .tells the story of a tragic death - a worker fell. 10 storeys.
The mechanic working the hoist from which the worker -fell was so
shaken that he caved -in to . the threats- of inspectors who
immediately after the accident demanded that he sign statements -
in effect a confession - if he didn't want to go to jail.
The weaknesses -in the system must be attended. And the more
lawyers plead the Charter, the .sooner the Ontario government will
get the message to build in safeguards.
Health and welfare offenses are strict - liability offenses. Lack
of intent is no defence. The only defence is due diligence - that
the employer did everything reasonably possible to prevent the
accident.
To maintain the position where employers can plead due diligence,
Keith advises them to do two things;
"First, employers in all industries must start putting more
emphasis on 'prevention' in the workplace so that they can be seen
as being responsible corporate citizens. "
"Second, people who take shortcuts that endanger or compromise
safety - managers or labour - should be disciplined or fired. "
A due-diligence defence is effective only if the employer can prove
a health and safety policy is in place, and that the policy is
being enforced.
I
i
*Claire -Bernstein is a Montreal lawyer and syndicated columnist
8 :9.4 U
FOOT WAS PUT IN 'DRAIN: WITNESS
By PHIL TYSON
Examiner Staff Writer
YMCA lifeguard Linda Kosobucki drowned last April after she
deliberately: stuck her: foot. into an. open, pool- ...drain,- another
lifeguard testified yesterday at -a coroner' s ,inquest.
Allison White, who was standing nearest to the 22-year-old
Kosobucki,. said she . saw her colleague flexing her foot at the
uncovered drain hole and moving her arms to force herself
underwater, seconds after lifeguards had been discussing the
possible danger of the drain hole.
White was the.first to realize that Kosobucki was stuck, after her
leg was sucked into the drain. .Kosobucki: drowned April 12 after
spending. about 27 minutes underwater.
White cried when lawyers pressed her on statements she had made to
police right after the fatal accident. In them, White had said
she, Kosobucki and four other lifeguards were talking about suction
from the drain hole and how White mentioned she had once stuck her
leg into it to test the effect.
In her police statement, White said Kosobucki stuck her foot in the
drain "to do it on her own, " (test the suction) .
Testifying Thursday, White denied they had been talking about the
suction or her experiment with the drain a few weeks before. She
said she didn't remember saying the specific statements to police.
Just minutes before 'the fatal accident, Y aquatics director Lynn
Borland had another lifeguard retrieve the drain cover. She wanted
to take it to maintenance people to have it fastened down.
i
Although Borland has denied knowing, until that day, that the drain
cover in the Forbes pool was so loose it would come off, it was
common knowledge among many of her lifeguards that the drain cover
sometimes came off.
Martha Appelman, a nine-year veteran lifeguard, was talking with
Borland on the pool's deck at the time Kosobucki stepped into the
uncovered hole.
She said it was "a crazy thing" for Kosobucki to do.
I
Appelman said neither she nor Borland had told the four women
lifeguards in the water to stay away from the uncovered hole.
I
9
04 1
FOOT WAS PUT IN DRAIN: ' WITNESS Cont'd
"We were a bunch of lifeguards in training, " she said. "I assumed
nobody would go near the 'drain. "
Appelman •also had told police'"she •heard remarks :ab ouit the-drainIs
suction coming from other lifeguards in the pool. She wasn't sure
who made the remarks; but she thought it was Kosobucki and White.
She told police she thought White talked of sticking her leg in the
hold, just seconds before Kosobucki, got stuck.
But Appelman testified she wasn't sure she heard that.
In March, White and another lifeguard, Scott Skinner had stuck
their legs into the drain hole to test the suction. Skinner had
even sat on the ,10-inch diameter hole.
Lifeguard Sarah Dewar said she looked at a clock just before
Kosobucki got stuck and it was 10:56 a.m.
As copied from the Peterborough Examiner.
i
10 }
Errors led to death, inquest. told.
DROWNING BRINGS 13 SUGGESTIONS
PETERBOROUGH, Ont. (CP) - The death of a woman who drowned in a
public swimming pool when. her leg was sucked into a drain could
have been prevented, a coroner's inquest has -found.
The inquest jury returned with 13 recommendations Friday, 'after a
four-day probe into the death of Linda Kosobucki, 22, who died in
a YMCA pool April 12.
The university student and part-time . lifeguard stuck her foot in
an open drain -at the pool just after she and other guards had
discussed the safety of the drain.
The inquest heard that the drain was installed improperly during
renovation work..which began last September at the pool in this city
in central Ontario.
The loose drain cover was common knowledge among the lifeguards at
the pool - who testified that they wrote repeated notes to their
superiors-about it - and children swimming at the pool often played
with it.
The jury's recommendations ranged from provincial approval of pool
renovation plans to - revamped safety measures at public pools,
including installing pump shut-off switches at poolside.
Dr. Donald Thompson, who presided over the inquest, said a series
of errors and misjudgments led to Kosobucki's death.
"Accidents don't. just happen. Any of several events could have
prevented the death, " he told the jury before its three-hour
deliberations.
Thompson also had harsh words for the YMCA.
"A volunteer organization like the YMCA shouldn't be slapdash and
amateur in its workings, " he said.
"It is evident that communication at the YMCA leaves a lot to be
desired. "
I
I
I
i
I
HANGING HEADS IN SHAME
There .are some residents of Lewisporte• who should hang their heads
in shame and sleep uneasily over the tragic death of Stephen Eugene
Thomas Dart.
Dart drowned last summer when a boai he was- in capsized on
Woolfrey's Pond. -He didn't have a lifejacket and he couldn't swim.
That in itself is a tragedy. But what makes it worse, much worse,
is that it was such a very preventable death.
The.boat he was in was *a rented craft. It was rented by staff of
Woolfrey's •Pond Municipal Park, which is operated by the Town of
Lewisporte.
Staff knew the boats were rented leaked, and yet rented them.
Staff knew there were not enough lifejackets for each person in the
boat, and yet let them all get in.
Staff knew the mobile phone at the park, its only communication,
didn't work, and yet provided no alternate means of communicating.
Staff knew there was. no lifesaving equipment in a swimming area at
the park, and didn't provide anything even-as simple as a lifesaver
ring or. long pole.
Staff felt the boats would not be used this year, yet left them in
the park with no clear instructions not to use them.
Councillors were told of park staff's. concern for the boats'
condition, and yet referred it back to other staff to deal with and
did not ensure a serious problem was corrected.
All in all, last week's judicial inquiry was a litany of shame for
the municipal government and its employees in this town.
So many easy things could have been done to prevent a needless
death. Staff could have been told not to rent the boats,
attendants could have used their own common sense and refused to
rent a leaky boat, parents could have insisted young people wear
lifejackets on the water, and the boats themselves could have been
taken from the park once the decision was made that they were not
to .be used.
Although hindsight, admittedly, - is often 20-20, it was not hard for
any one of these actions. to have been done and prevented the
tragedy of Aug. 9 , 1990 . Inexplicably none of these actions were
taken and a life was lost.
I
12 0 411 4
1
HANGING HEADS tN SHAME cont'a
There's - no excuse for: this.. Everyone involved has- to take a
personal responsibility for their own part in the tragedy. "I was
only following.orders" didn't work at the Nuremburg trials and it
doesn't work here. - People had -a chance to make a difference and
they didn't. _
Last week's -;,,:dicial inquiry was a catharsis for all those who
played a part or were otherwise involved in the municipal park that
August day. But there is much, much more they could do.
The official inquiry report and its recommendations should make
very interesting reading. But more importantly, it could help
ensure that *this tragic, preventable death will never be repeated
in* Lewisporte or *elsewhere. -Michael Ralph
i
i
13
i
FIRM[ FINED $75,000 IN WORKER'S DEATH
By Hank Kolodziejczak
Oshawa Times staff
A Richmond Hill contracting company has been f ined'$75,000 'over an
accident where an employee was electrocuted to death.
Donald Bruce Kirk, • 41, of Gormely, died on Sept. 20, 1990 when the
30-foot' boom he was operating on a truck touched a high-voltage
electrical line overhead.
The 13,800 volts burnt Kirk's body beyond. recognition and caused
the truck to burst into flames.
Kirk was employed by Powell Contracting Ltd. . of Richmond Hill,
which had a contract to install a fence for 'Ontario Hydro along
Valley Farm Road, just south of Concession 3 Road in Pickering.
A labour ministry lawyer argued Powell Contracting should have
ensured that signs with the warning that there was a .potential
hazard from overhead power lines were posted on the job. And it
should have also ensured that another worker was stationed on the
ground within view of Kirk to warn him when the boom approached the
powgrline.
Powell Contracting and James Maddin, of R.R. 1, Pefferlaw, a
Supervisor on the job, pleaded not guilty to the two violations
under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
Maddlin was fined $2,000.
i
140 4,