Skip to content

Brought to you by

Dentons logo in black and white

Dentons Canadian Occupational Health & Safety Law

Keeping you current on OHS Laws and Developments in Canada.

open menu close menu

Dentons Canadian Occupational Health & Safety Law

  • Home
  • About Us

In important decision, Ontario appeal court says that general duty clause in OHSA can impose higher obligations than specific requirements in regulations

By Adrian Miedema
January 5, 2018
  • Caselaw Developments
  • Prosecutions / Charges
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn

The Ministry of Labour can prosecute employers under the “general duty” clause of the Occupational Health and Safety Act even where the charges impose obligations that are greater than those set out in the regulations under the OHSA, the Ontario Court of Appeal has decided.

In this case, a trial and appeal justice had decided that the employer could not be found guilty of failing to provide guardrails around a temporary work platform.  They reasoned that the applicable regulation under the OHSA (“Industrial Establishments”), which dealt with the issue of guardrails, did not require guardrails in this particular situation (a temporary work platform at a height of six feet).  As such, the lower courts held that the MOL could not use the “general duty” requirement found in s. 25(2)(h) of the OHSA to impose obligations greater than those in the regulation.

The Ontario Court of Appeal disagreed, stating that regulations cannot be expected to anticipate the circumstances of all workplaces across Ontario. The key question in this case was whether the installation of guardrails was a reasonable precaution.  The Court of Appeal held that the trial justice failed to address that point.

The court concluded, at paragraph 45:

It may not be possible for all risk to be eliminated from a workplace, as this court noted in Sheehan Truck, at para. 30, but it does not follow that employers need do only as little as is specifically prescribed in the regulations. There may be cases in which more is required – in which additional safety precautions tailored to fit the distinctive nature of a workplace are reasonably required by s. 25(2)(h) in order to protect workers. The trial justice’s erroneous conception of the relationship between s. 25(2)(h) and the regulations resulted in his failure to adjudicate the s. 25(2)(h) charge as laid.

Practically, one expects that MOL inspectors will consider using this decision to issue compliance orders – or charges – under the “general duty clause” even where the regulations deal with the specific safety issue at hand – such as guardrails or fall arrest – but do not apply in the particular case.  For instance, MOL inspectors may issue compliance orders or charges for failing to provide guardrails around a temporary work platform that is only one foot high.

The appeal court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial before a different justice.

Ontario (Labour) v. Quinton Steel (Wellington) Limited, 2017 ONCA 1006 (CanLII)

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn
Subscribe and stay updated
Receive our latest blog posts by email.
Stay in Touch
Adrian Miedema

About Adrian Miedema

Adrian is a partner in the Toronto Employment group of Dentons Canada LLP. He advises and represents public- and private-sector employers in employment, health and safety and human rights matters. He appears before employment tribunals and all levels of the Ontario courts on behalf of employers. He also advises employers on strategic and risk management considerations in employment policy and contracts.

All posts Full bio

RELATED POSTS

  • Caselaw Developments
  • Prosecutions / Charges

“Creative sentence” imposed for OHSA violation: company must give 150 hours of safety presentations on case, plus pay fine

A Nova Scotia court has imposed a “creative sentence” for a violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, requiring […]

By Adrian Miedema
  • Caselaw Developments
  • Violence and Harassment

“An employee does not necessarily get one free sexual harassment before he loses his job”, says arbitrator in upholding dismissal for Facebook harassment, threats

An arbitrator has upheld the dismissal of a unionized employee for one incident of sexual harassment and threats on Facebook. […]

By Adrian Miedema
  • Caselaw Developments
  • Safety - Risk Management

E-mails Sink Employer in Safety-Retaliation Case: “Carefully Chosen Ruse” Found

An employer’s internal e-mails showed that a “professional standards investigation” conducted on an employee was actually a retaliation for the […]

By Adrian Miedema

About Dentons

Redefining possibilities. Together, everywhere. For more information visit dentons.com

Grow, Protect, Operate, Finance. Dentons, the law firm of the future is here. Copyright 2023 Dentons. Dentons is a global legal practice providing client services worldwide through its member firms and affiliates. Please see dentons.com for Legal notices.

Categories

  • Amendments to Safety Laws
  • Caselaw Developments
  • COVID-19
  • General
  • Government Safety Investigations
  • International Standards
  • Occupational Health and Safety
  • Other Safety Developments
  • Prosecutions / Charges
  • Safety – Risk Management
  • Safety Professionals – Practice Issues
  • Violence and Harassment

Subscribe and stay updated

Receive our latest blog posts by email.

Stay in Touch

Dentons logo in black and white

© 2025 Dentons

  • Legal notices
  • Privacy policy
  • Terms of use
  • Cookies on this site