An Ontario Appeal judge has upheld an employer’s conviction under the Occupational Health and Safety Act for failure to “block” a machine, after the trial justice held that “blocking” required a physical block, not simply shutting off the hydraulic power.
The Ontario Ministry of Labour had charged the company with failing to ensure that a “part of a machine, transmission machinery, device or thing shall be cleaned, oiled, adjusted, repaired or have maintenance work performed on it only when . . . any part that has been stopped and that may subsequently move and endanger a worker has been blocked to prevent its movement”, contrary to section 75(b) of the Industrial Establishments regulation under the OHSA.
A maintenance worker with the company, which operated a sawmill, suffered crushing injuries to his arm as he reached in between the “side heads” of a saw while performing maintenance. Another employee, not knowing that the maintenance worker had gone into the area between the side heads, had used the control box for the machine to close the side heads.
The machine had been shut down for maintenance and its electrical system had been locked out. However, the maintenance worker left the hydraulics on, which was required in order to move the side heads for maintenance.
The appeal court held that the trial justice had not erred in deciding that “blocking” required a physical block be used to restrain movement of the side heads. It was reasonable to interpret “blocking” to require that a physical block, a “large solid piece of hard material” be used.
The conviction was therefore upheld. The appeal judge also held that the $48,000 fine was reasonable, despite the fact that the company had only 25 workers and no previous convictions under the OHSA.
Ontario (Ministry of Labour) v. McKenzie Lumber Inc., 2016 ONCJ 533 (CanLII)