We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
An Ontario court has dismissed a charge against an employer of
failing to acquaint a worker with a hazard, because the
worker's supervisor knew of the hazard.
The charge was laid against Transgear Manufacturing under
section 25(2)(d) of the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act,
which requires employers to "acquaint a worker or a person in
authority over a worker with a hazard . . ."
Justice of the Peace Ziegler, of the Ontario Court of Justice in
Guelph, found that the injured worker's supervisor, the
Maintenance Supervisor, was "in authority" over the
injured worker and "not only does [the Maintenance Supervisor]
have his ability to repair, maintain, lockout and partially lockout
machines under his purview but he is also acquainted with any
hazard in the work . . ."
The court noted that "There is no offence under the
Occupational Health and Safety Act which limits acquainting the
named hazards to the worker only, it requires that the acquainting
of the named hazards be either the worker 'or a person in
authority over the worker'. Therefore I must read in the words
'or a person in authority over the worker' after the words
'acquaint a worker' in Count 3."
Interestingly, the court went on to convict Transgear of failing
to provide sufficient "information, instruction and
supervision" to the worker under section 25(2)(a) of the
Occupational Health and Safety Act, apparently because that section
dealt only with the awareness of the worker himself, not also of
his supervisor.
FMC is one of Canada's leading business and litigation law
firms with more than 500 lawyers in six full-service offices
located in the country's key business centres. We focus on
providing outstanding service and value to our clients, and we
strive to excel as a workplace of choice for our people. Regardless
of where you choose to do business in Canada, our strong team of
professionals possess knowledge and expertise on regional, national
and cross-border matters. FMC's well-earned reputation for
consistently delivering the highest quality legal services and
counsel to our clients is complemented by an ongoing commitment to
diversity and inclusion to broaden our insight and perspective on
our clients' needs. Visit:
www.fmc-law.com
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The Federal Court of Appeal recently weighed in to reconcile competing tests on the proper way to determine whether an individual is a contractor or truly an employee.
A discussion on a recent decision of the Federal Court of Appeal, which confirms that the central question is, whether the person is performing the services as his own business, on his own account.
Back in July 2012, we covered "PVYW v Comcare" (No 2), [2012] FCA 395, which concerned an employee in the HR department of an Australian government agency who was injured on a work-related trip to a country town in New South Wales.
The employee, Ashworth, alleged that the manager demanded that she close the door and then positioned herself in front of the closed door and started screaming and pointing her finger in the employee’s face.
Some organizations subscribe to the close your eyes and think good thoughts school of drafting, when it comes to non-competition agreements in employment contracts.
A discussion on the judicial decision in a recent case, where a BC employer has successfully defended a claim for constructive dismissal despite taking away supervisory duties and moving the employee from an office to a cubicle.
