Ontario Employers Take Note: Arrival Of Administrative Monetary Penalties Under The Occupational Health And Safety Act

On November 27, 2025, Ontario's Bill 30, Working for Workers Seven Act, 2025, received Royal Assent. This latest installment in the Working for Workers series introduces several changes, including a new tool to enforce the Occupational Health and Safety Act ("OHSA") - Administrative Monetary Penalties ("AMPs").

On December 16, 2025, the Province followed up Bill 30 with a companion implementation regulation, O. Reg. 365/25: Administrative Penalties, which provides the basic mechanics for how AMPs will be employed under the OHSA framework.

This is a significant development. The use of AMPs by the Ontario Ministry of Labour, Immigration, Training, and Skills Development (the "Ministry") could bring a major shift in Ontario's occupational health and safety ("OHS") enforcement regime.

What Are AMPs?

AMPs are financial penalties imposed by a regulator (under OHSA, the Ministry) through an administrative process rather than the courts. Instead of prosecuting companies or individuals in court for breaches of the OHSA, Ministry inspectors can issue AMPs notices shortly after an incident or investigation into non-compliance with the Act. AMPs are intended to encourage compliance with the Act and its regulation and remove (or reduce) any economic benefit gained from non-compliance, all without the stigma associated with a quasi-criminal conviction.

However, AMPs can be more than just a financial sanction. They carry significant indirect consequences. AMPs create a record of non-compliance, which regulators and the court can consider when determining future penalties – both for future AMPs and for fines resulting from convictions. Repeated AMPs may attract more regulatory scrutiny to an operation through increased inspections. AMPs are also usually publicized by regulators, which can cause reputational harm.

AMPs in Other OHS Regimes

AMPs are already employed as an enforcement tool in OHS regimes across Canada. British Columbia imposes some of the highest penalties for serious violations, with a three-tiered system with maximum penalties of $500,000. Most OHS violations in BC are enforced using AMPs. In other jurisdictions, AMPs are used for less serious violations . For example, in Alberta, maximum AMPs are $10,000 per violation for each day the non-compliance continues, and in Manitoba, penalties range from $1,000 to $5,000. At the federal level, the Canada Labour Code allows AMPs up to $250,000 for OHS violations, calculated on an individual basis depending on the type and size of business, the nature of the violation, and any history of non-compliance.

AMPs in Other Regulatory Regimes

AMPs are not unique to OHS, they are widely used in other regimes:

• Environment and Climate Change Canada enforces seven environmental acts (the Canada Wildlife Act, Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and others) that include AMPs regimes under Environmental Violations and Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulation.
• The Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario enforces many acts that include AMPs regimes, including the Insurance Act, Mortgage Brokerages, Lenders and Administrators Act, 2006, Pension Benefits Act, Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act, 2020, Automobile Insurance Rate Stabilization Act, 2003, Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act.
• The Canada Border Services Agency applies AMPs for customs violations, such as failing to pay duties or failing to provide required information.
• The Canada Energy Regulator enforces AMPs pursuant to regulations under the Canada Energy Regulator Act for pipeline safety and environmental compliance.

AMPs are also proposed, with enabling legislation pending, in a number of other regimes including:

• Ontario's Environmental Protection Act and related regulations; AMPs apply may one day apply for violations such as improper waste management, failure to report spills, or non-compliance with permits.
• Ontario's Consumer Protection Act may soon allow regulators to impose AMPs for misleading advertising, unfair business practices, and deceptive marketing.

Ontario's OHS AMP Framework

  The basic framework for AMPs under OHSA is established under Part IX.1 of the Act (s. 69.1), which provides:

• Inspectors Authorized to Issue Penalties: Inspectors may issue administrative penalty notices for contraventions of OHSA or its regulations. The decision to issue a penalty is made by the Inspector.
• Penalty Amount: Penalty amounts will be set by regulation, and where a range has been prescribed, the Inspector will have discretion to determine the penalty amount.
• Who Can Receive a Penalty: Any "person", which for OHSA purposes can include supervisors, workers, and others who fail to meet their legal obligations. Directors and officers may also be subject to penalties if they authorize or permit non-compliance.
• Review Process: Section 69.1(8) allows parties to request a review of the notice.
• Protection Against "Double Jeopardy": Section 69.1(11) ensures that once an AMP is paid in accordance with the notice terms, the same facts cannot lead to a court prosecution under OHSA.

The specific mechanics of AMPs have been provided for in O. Reg. 265/25: Administrative Penalties and will come into effect on January 1, 2026. Key details include:

• Service of Notices: May be delivered personally, by mail, or by another method if the sender can prove receipt. Based on the Ministry's historical practice, it is likely notices will be delivered to the workplace in-person by an Inspector, but the Regulation allows delivery via email.
• Payment: Where a notice relates to an order made under the Act, within 30 days of the expiry of the appeal period for the order or 30 days of the date of the decision by the Board. For other notices, within 45 days or 30 days after a decision is made by the Board in review of the notice.
• Review (appeal): Reviews (i.e. appeals) will be heard by the Ontario Labour Relations Board (the "Board"), subject to the following key rules:
  • Applications for review must be filed within 15 days of receipt of the penalty notice. This is much shorter than the 30 day deadline to appeal an Inspector's order under the Act. The Board may extend the appeal period where it considers appropriate.
  • The Board is empowered to confirm, vary, or set aside the notice and has extensive powers to control the review process and shape a review hearing, including the ability to order the production of documents or the furnishing of particulars, summons witnesses, determine the evidence it will receive (regardless of the rules of evidence applicable in court), make interim orders, and substitute parties.
  • A decision of the Board is final, though subject to judicial review on the grounds of unreasonableness.
• Debt Enforcement: Unpaid AMPs will be enforced as debts, and will be collected in the usual course as would civil amounts owing pursuant to a Superior Court of Justice court order. The Ministry will file unpaid notices with the registrar of the Superior Court of Justice to commence the enforcement process.
• Publication: The Ministry may publish the identity of the party, the nature of the contravention, and the amount of an administrative penalty that has been imposed.
• Limitations: Notices may not be filed more than one year after the contravention first came to the knowledge of the inspector.

So far, the Regulation establishes only one AMP amount. Persons who contravene section 3 of O. Reg. 364/25: Health and Safety Management Systems and Procurement face a penalty of the lesser of $100,000 and 10% of the value of the relevant procurement contract. It is unclear the intent of this AMP as it is not tied to a specific regulatory requirement (the section references may be updated or corrected at a later point) but it provides an early indication that AMPs may be focused on disgorging profits resulting from non-compliance. Further revisions to the Regulation to include further AMP amounts should be expected. Interestingly, this first prescribed AMP is a fixed amount tied to contract value, and does not provide a discretionary range.

Due Diligence

A number of fairness and due process questions remain unanswered. The legislation does not confirm whether evidence of a party's due diligence will be considered upon review of an AMP. As a result, it is unclear whether demonstrating reasonable care could reduce or eliminate penalty amounts. Other jurisdictions' regimes vary on this point. Some allow consideration of due diligence, while others, such as the Canada Labour Code or the Environmental Violations Administrative Monetary Penalties Act, explicitly prohibit it.

Inspector Discretion and Fairness

The new AMP regime concentrates decision-making power in the hands of Inspectors, who will have broad discretion to issue AMPs. The approaches of individual Inspectors can differ significantly, which could result in inconsistent application. Further regulations or updates to the Ministry's policies and procedures may be required to provide the guidance required to ensure fairness and consistency.

Takeaways for Employers

AMPs represent a significant shift in Ontario's enforcement approach. However, while we await further details, employers should continue to take proactive steps to ensure their health and safety programs remain robust and compliant. This includes ensuring adequate systems to record (and if required, prove) the steps the employer or workplace has taken to demonstrate its due diligence efforts.

To view the original article click here

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.