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
The Ottawa Catholic District School Board was recently fined
$275,000 for a violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act
relating to an explosion in a school classroom that killed a
student who was participating in a class project. The Ottawa
Catholic District School Board was charged by the Ministry of
Labour (MOL) in January 2012, for failing as an employer to comply
with s. 25(2)(a) of the OHSA. The school board ultimately pled
guilty to failing, as an employer, to provide information,
instruction and supervision to the student's teacher concerning
safe work practices and recognition of the hazards associated with
the class project. Two additional charges against the school board
were dropped.
On May 26, 2011, students in a Mother Teresa High School
classroom were making barbeques out of steel barrels. As a student
was cutting a barrel with a hand grinder, the barrel exploded. The
student was killed. An MOL investigation found that the barrel the
student was using had been washed out with a flammable cleaner. The
barrel had been stored with its caps closed prior to the class
project. This allowed flammable cleaning vapours to accumulate
inside the barrel. When the student was cutting the barrel, a spark
from the grinder ignited the vapours, causing the explosion. The
investigation also found that the school board did not have
adequate review and assessment procedures in place to ensure hot
work on drums or containers could be carried out safely.
Hot work on containers, including welding, grinding and cutting,
is a very hazardous operation. Legislation, including the Ontario
Regulations for Industrial Establishments, Fire Code and other
nationally recognized codes and standards, contain provisions for
hot work, welding and cutting. Section 78 of the Regulations for
Industrial Establishments require "that where repairs or
alterations are to be made on a drum, tank, pipeline or other
container, [it] shall be...drained and cleaned or otherwise
rendered free from any explosive, flammable or harmful
substance."
For any hot work such as welding or cutting on a container that
may have contained flammable or combustible material, the following
minimum precautions must be taken:
The container's internal layout must be determined to make
sure that fittings such as baffles will not interfere with cleaning
or purging.
The container must be drained and cleaned using appropriate
methods.
To determine whether draining and cleaning has made the
container safe, its interior must be tested with a combustible gas
detector both before hot work begins and periodically during the
work.
Some containers cannot be drained and cleaned well enough to
make them safe. Such containers may be made safe by purging and
inerting with an inert gas, but only if these precautions are
taken:
Recognized procedures and proper equipment must be used.
The oxygen level inside the container must be monitored with an
oxygen analyzer and maintained at essentially zero for the duration
of the work.
Workers must be made aware of the limitations of the inerting
process.
Workers should never assume a container is clean or safe and
should always make sure that it is made safe and that its safety is
verified by testing before any hot work begins. Not following this
rule, as was the case in this tragic incident, is likely to cause
serious injury or worse.
This conviction and others like it related to incidents
involving students, means that schools and school boards must be
diligent in developing comprehensive health and safety programs;
training workers, including teachers, to identify and report
hazards; and eliminating identifiable hazards.
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.
