11 employers convicted of OHS violations in 2023

I recently came across a page on the Government of Alberta’s website that lists convictions resulting from violations of provincial Occupational Health and Safety law.

I thought I’d highlight all the convictions from 2023. There are some listings for 2024, but the year isn’t over yet, so I’ll wait until next year to cover those.

Let’s start with Vanoco Supervision Ltd., the first company to be convicted last year.

Back in March 2019, three people—a floor hand, a rig manager, and a wellsite supervisor—were trying to move a skid-mounted pumphouse. The floor hand was hooking up a tow chain to the ripper tooth of a bulldozer from the skid of the pump house. The floor hand was standing between the bulldozer and the pumphouse, which makes sense if you’re connecting a tow chain between the two. The wellsite supervisor, who was operating the bulldozer, backed into the floor hand, who ended up pinned between the bulldozer and the pumphouse, getting injured in the process. The floorhand died from the injuries.

Vanoco eventually pled guilty of failing to ensure that all equipment used at a work site (including the tow chain) was of adequate strength for its purpose. All other charges were dropped, as were all charges that had been levied against connected companies: Precision Drilling Corporation et al, Vanoco Consulting Ltd., Codeco-Vanoco Engineering Inc. and Whitecap Resources Inc.

They were convicted in January 2023 and fined $275,000, which includes the 20% victim fine surcharge they have to pay.

Next on the list was Vincent Roberts, who was running Roberts Roofing 2017 Inc. back in the summer of 2023. The company had hired a roofer, who fell from the roof of an Edmonton home they were working on, and died as a result of injuries sustained in the fall.

Roberts pled guilty to failing to ensure workers were protected from falling at a temporary work area where the workers could fall a vertical distance of 3 metres or more. All other charges were withdrawn. As well, all charges against the company were withdrawn.

He was convicted in January 2023 and fined $40,000, which included the 20% victim fine surcharge. He was also placed on 2 years of enhanced regulatory supervision.

The third conviction took place 3 months later, on 14 April 2023. Two companies were actually convicted in this case: Christina River Construction Ltd. and Suncor Energy Service Inc.

Suncor had hired Christina River as a contractor to perform work at one of their drill sites in the Fort McMurray area. A worker employed by Christina River was operating a bulldozer at the site in January 2021. At some point, that worker drove the bulldozer on to a tailings pond that had frozen over. Unfortunately, the ice thickness was less than 17 inches—which Suncor’s own construction safe work plan for that specific pond prohibits—and the bulldozer fell through, killing the worker in the process.

Christina River pled guilty for failing to ensure the worksite and every work process under their control did not create a risk of health and safety to any person.

They were fined $50,000, including the 20% victim fine surchage. They were also ordered to pay $275,000 to Keyano College, $200,000 of which was supposed to fund both a memorial scholarship and a memorial safety award in the worker’s name, and the remainder was to be used to subsidize safety courses for forklift, skid steer, telehandler/variable reach forklift/zoom boom, and wheeled loader/front end loader operation.

Suncor pled guilty to failing to coordinate, organize, and oversee the performance of all work at the worksite to ensure that no person was exposed to hazards arising from activities at the worksite.

They were also fined $50,000, including a 30% victim fine surchage. As well, they had to pay $370,000 to Lynch School of Engineering Safety and Risk Management at the University of Alberta, which they would then use for a research project to improve industry and regulatory practices for recognizing and managing hazards in oilsands mining operations, to protect worker safety.

All other charges were dropped as a result of these pleas.

Just four days after this conviction, another company was charged with an OHS violation.

In December 2020, workers employed by Emcon Services Inc. were repairing potholes on Highway 16 near Mannville when three of them were struck by a vehicle.

The company pled guilty for failing to ensure the health and safety of their workers.

They were convicted in April 2023 and fined $142,000, inclusive of the 20% victim fine surcharge, and all other charges were withdrawn.

Except, this wasn’t the only OHS incident involving Emcon. Just two months prior to the above incident, in October 2020, two workers were servicing a sand mixing machine, when one of them ended up caught in a slow-moving conveyor and sustained injuries as a result.

Emcon pled guilty to failing to ensure the health and safety of their worker.

They were convicted in June 2023 and fined $1000 as a result, including a 20% victim fine surcharge. They were also placed on two years of enhanced regulatory supervision and ordered to pay $89,000 to Vegreville Fire Services, which they could use to purchase personal protective equipment and equipment for firefighting and emergency response.

In May, Brewster Inc. was convicted in connection to a bus rollover in Jasper National Park during the summer of 2020, which resulted in serious injuries to the driver, as well as injury and deaths to passengers.

The tour bus company pled guilty to two charges.

The first was failure to ensure the health and safety of their worker because they didn’t mandate seat belt usage on their tour buses.

The second was failure to ensure the health and safety of a passenger at or in the vicinity of the work site who could be affected by hazards originating from the work site of that employer. the company had not adequately controlled the hazard of the slope grade of the lateral moraine the bus was travelling on.

The company was fined $1,000, including a 20% victim fine surcharge. They were also ordered to pay $365,000 to the University of Alberta to fund research regarding safe operation of off-road multi-passenger vehicles. Finally, they were ordered to pay $109,000 to STARS for operational costs.

All other charges were dropped.

In November 2021, a worker employed at Calgary Pallet Inc. was removing pieces of lumber from a pallet notcher that was still operating. In the process, their hand got caught in one of the cutting heads of the unit, and they sustained serious injuries.

OHS officials laid 3 charges related to this incident, all of which the company pled guilty to.

First, they were charged with failing to ensure that a worker was adequately trained in all matters necessary to protect their health and safety before beginning to perform a work activity.

Second, they failed to ensure that dangerous work was done by a worker who was competent to do the work or working under the direct supervision of a worker who was competent to do the work.

Finally, despite having developed a procedure or other measure respecting the work at a work site, they failed to ensure that a worker affected by the procedure or measure was familiar with it before starting the work.

They were convicted on all 3 charges in July 2023 and ordered to pay $37,500 in favour of the Manufacturers’ Health and Safety Association to fund a sponsorship program open to women in the manufacturing industry to enhance their careers by achieving manufacturing safety officer or manufacturing safety administrator designations.

They were also ordered to pay an additional $37,500 in favour of the Alberta Construction Safety Association to fund a sponsorship program open to women in the construction industry to enhance their careers by achieving national construction safety officer or national health and safety administrator designations.

Finally, they were placed on 2 years of enhanced regulatory supervision.

That same month, Spilak Tank Truck Service Ltd. was convicted in connection to the death of a worker after that worker became entangled in the power take-off while offloading produced water from a tanker truck in January 2022.

OHS officials charged the company with failing to properly maintain equipment—in this case, a shaft extension coupler assembly.—in a condition that wouldn’t compromise the health and safety of a worker using it.

The company pled guilty to this charge and ended up fined $275,000, including a 20% victim fine surcharge. A second charge was dismissed.

In March 2021, two workers employed with Finning International Inc. were in the process of removing a counterweight from an excavator for maintenance. While they were removing the last of the 6 bolts attaching the counterweight to the excavator, the counterweight fell onto them, seriously injuring one of them and killing the other.

Finning pled guilty for failing to ensure equipment was serviced, tested, adjusted, calibrated, maintained, repaired and dismantled in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications or the specifications certified by a professional engineer.

OHS convicted them in September 2023 and fined them $1000, including the 20% victim fine surcharge.

They were also ordered to pay $414,000 in favour of Energy Safety Canada for the development of training materials for the management of critical hazards during maintenance and service operations for heavy mobile equipment.

All other charges were dropped.

A year after the Finning incident, in March 2022, a worker employed at La Crete Sawmills Ltd. died on the job while trying to unjam a planer when it was unsafe to do so.

The employer pled guilty to failing to ensure the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of that employer.

They were convicted in November 2023 and ordered to pay nearly $300,000 tp the Fort Vermillion School Division, which they can use to implement instructor-led courses for their students in Grades 10–12 regarding work place safety systems, work place safety practices, Foundations in Industry Workplace Safety 35, and first aid.

The school division will also provide online safety courses for high school students in the following areas:

• Lockout/tagout
• Workplace Hazardous Material Information System (WHMIS)
• Elevated work platform
• Workplace violence and harassment
• Confined spaces
• Crane safety
• Forklift safety
• Skid-steer safety
• Ground disturbance
• H2S Alive
• Transportation of dangerous goods

OHS dropped all other charges they had laid on the company.

The final conviction of 2023 was related to another workplace death, after a worker employed by SA Energy Group, a Partnership was killed while a trench box was being disassembled in relation to pipeline activities.

The employer pled guilty to failing to ensure that the manufacturer’s specifications were readily available to the workers responsible for the work, despite the fact that the work is supposed to be done according to the manufacturer’s specifications or specifications certified by a professional engineer.

They were convicted on 23 November and fined just shy of $200,000, including the 20% victim fine charges.

All other charges were dropped.

While these 11 companies were all ultimately convicted on at least some of their charges, there is another conviction currently under appeal.

In that case, Inland Machining Services Ltd. was charged with 33 counts under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, after one of their workers was killed in August 2019.

The workers was using a manual lathe to polish something they had been working on when the machine caught the worker, who ended up entangled in it.

Here is a list of the charges:

• Failing to ensure the worker was protected from being injured while operating equipment
• Failing to ensure the worker was protected from injury by a safeguard while operating equipment
• Failing to develop, implement, and monitor the implementation of a safe work practice or safe job procedure for the task of operating equipment
• Failing to adequately supervise or direct their worker in the safe performance of operating equipment
• Failing to assess their worksite and conduct or repeat adequate or any hazard assessments (H/A) at reasonably practicable intervals in respect of the operation of equipment
• Failing to identify and control the hazard of injury to the worker while operating equipment
• Failing to train the worker or maintain the worker’s sufficient competency in the safe operation of equipment
• Failing to ensure worker was protected from injury by a safeguard or safeguards while operating equipment for which they were intended or was designed
• Failing to ensure equipment used at a work site, would safely perform the function for which it was intended or was designed (x4)
• Failure to ensure equipment used at a work site was free from obvious defects (x4)
• Failure to ensure that if work was to be done that may endanger a worker, it was done by a worker competent to do the work or by a worker who is working under the direct supervision of a worker who was competent to do the work
• Failure to ensure a worker was trained in the safe operation of the equipment the worker was required to operate, including the use of the equipment, the operator skills required by the manufacturer’s specifications for the equipment, and the hazards specific to the operation of the equipment at the work site
• Failure to assess their work site and identify potential or existing hazards before work began at the work site
• Failure to prepare a report of the results of an H/A and the methods used to control or eliminate the hazards identified
• Failure to repeat any H/A at practicable intervals to prevent the development of unsafe and unhealthy working conditions
• Failure to involve affected workers in an H/A and in the control or elimination of hazards identified
• Where an existing or potential hazard to workers was identified during an H/A, failed to take measures to eliminate or control the hazards
• Failure to ensure equipment was operated, handled, serviced, tested, adjusted, maintained, or repaired in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications set out in the service manual
• Failure to ensure equipment was operated or handled in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications, specifically: “Do not touch the spindle, chuck or work piece while they are in motion”.
• Failure to ensure equipment was operated, handled, serviced, tested, adjusted, maintained or repaired in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications set out in the service manual for the lathe
• Failure to provide safeguards if a worker could accidentally, or through the work process, come into contact with moving parts of machinery or equipment
• Failure to provide safeguards if a worker could accidentally, or through the work process, come into contact with moving parts of machinery or equipment
• Failure to provide safeguards if a worker could accidentally, or through the work process, come into contact with moving parts of machinery or equipment
• Failure to provide safeguards if a worker could accidentally, or through the work process, come into contact with moving parts of machinery or equipment
• Failure to provide safeguards if a worker could accidentally, or through the work process, come into contact with machinery or equipment that may be hazardous due to its operation
• Failure to provide safeguards if a worker could accidentally, or through the work process, come into contact with a hazard
• Where machinery was operated without safeguards, the employer failed to ensure that a worker operating the machine wore personal protective equipment that was appropriate to the hazard and offered protection equal to or greater than that offered by the safeguards

The employer was found guilty of and convicted on 13 of these charges. 8 of the convicted charges were stayed. They were fined $420,000 as a result, including the 20% victim fine surcharge.

Less than a month later, an appeal was filed on both the conviction and sentence.