Suppose your company spills chemicals, pollutes the air or engages in some other environmental offence that allegedly harms a lot of people. They may try to band together and sue it in what’s called a “class action,” which is a kind of lawsuit designed to …

Since Bill C-45 took effect six years ago, it has resulted in two—count ‘em, two—criminal negligence cases. And the only defendant convicted was a corporation (Transpavé). But suddenly in a matter of weeks, criminal charges have been laid in connection with a workplace safety fatality …

The purpose of incident investigations is to determine the root cause of the incident and identify corrective actions necessary to prevent it from happening again. The OHS laws of most jurisdictions require the JHSC (or safety representative) to participate in investigations. But what exactly is …

Although random drug testing is illegal and random alcohol testing is problematic, it’s generally acceptable to test workers for either substance after they’ve been involved in a workplace incident. Post-incident testing is especially justifiable when the worker to be tested occupies a safety-sensitive position, such …

Companies aren’t the only ones that can get into trouble for OHS violations. Supervisors also have health and safety responsibilities and face the risk of prosecution and fines under OHS laws. Supervisor liability for safety violations isn’t just a theory. Supervisors are being prosecuted and …

When a company has a safety or environmental incident, prosecution for OHS or environmental violations and even criminal charges may be the least of its problems. If the incident impacts neighbouring companies or residents, say, because it involves a fire or explosion, the neighbours may sue the company for the damage done to their property either individually or collectively in a lawsuit called a “class action.” In either case, before the case gets to trial, the parties suing the company are entitled to engage in a process known as “discovery” in which they seek to gather information and documents from the company that they can use as evidence in the lawsuit.

Employers across Canada have a duty to protect workers from violence in the workplace. And if one worker attacks another worker at work, the employer must discipline the attacker appropriately. But what if the worker attacks the co-worker outside of work after their shifts? Does the fact that the fight didn’t occur on company property or during work hours make it simply a private affair between the workers? Or can the employer treat it as a company matter and terminate one or both of the workers? A recent case involving this exact situation shows how much leeway courts, arbitrators and other tribunals will give employers in dealing with worker-on-worker violence, regardless of where the violence occurred. Although the case comes from Manitoba, the principles in it also apply in other parts of Canada.

When a safety incident occurs in the workplace, the employer has a duty to investigate the incident, determine its cause and take steps to prevent similar incidents from happening in the future. One of the key steps in the internal investigation is interviewing the worker(s) involved. But when interviewing workers, you need to be aware of and respect their civil rights, such as  the right to remain silent in the face of an actual or potential criminal investigation.

OHS programs typically focus on protecting full-time workers. After all, these workers are generally the ones who do the bulk of the work. But the OHS laws require companies to provide a safe workplace for all workers, not just the ones who work full-time. After all, a worker’s right to a safe workplace shouldn’t be contingent on the number of hours he works per week. Unfortunately, part-time workers sometimes get lost in the shuffle, especially if they work odd shifts or short hours. As a result, the employer may skimp on their safety training and supervision. A recent case from Alberta serves as a reminder that in addition to injuries and illnesses, an employer’s failure to protect part-time workers can lead to liability under OHS laws.

A company is a legal entity that obviously can’t act on its own; it can only act through its agents, including its officers, directors, managers, supervisors and workers. Thus, if a worker is negligent, the company is automatically liable, right? Not always. As a general rule, a company is “vicariously liable” where a worker was negligent in performing an act that he or she was authorized or required to do. But applying this principle to actual cases isn’t always as easy as it sounds. A recent case illustrates how courts do it when deciding vicarious liability claims. Although the ruling comes from Saskatchewan, it’s relevant across Canada because vicarious liability rules don’t vary much from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.