Skip to content

The Latest in Labour Law: A Stewart McKelvey Newsletter – Onsite OHS liability: Who is (and who is not) the true constructor?

Peter McLellan, QC and Michelle Black

In a recent decision, R v McCarthy’s Roofing Limited, Judge Anne Derrick provided some much-needed clarity around what it means to be a “constructor” on a job site. This is critical as “constructors” have added responsibility extending to employees of all job site “contractors” for whom they have responsibilities.

The events

In early September, 2013, several contractors were working at a building construction project located on the Dalhousie University campus.

McCarthy’s Roofing Limited (“McCarthy’s”) was in the process of winding up its work on the site and, due to demands for employees and equipment to complete work on other projects, had to wrap up its participation over the first weekend in September. On Saturday, September 7, 2013, a McCarthy’s foreperson removed the weights and tether that were securing an outrigger beam located on the penthouse of the building. He admitted at the hearing that he did not have training on outrigger beam removal and, unfortunately, he did not tell anyone that the beam had been left in an unsecured state.

On Monday, September 9, 2013, an employee of Economy Glass (another onsite contractor), Paul Conrod, was seriously injured when the beam fell on top of him.

Subsequently, McCarthy’s was charged under the Occupational Health & Safety Act (“OHSA”) for (amongst other things) having failed as a constructor to take every reasonable precaution to protect the health and safety of persons at or near a workplace (sic “project”) and to ensure communication necessary to the health and safety of persons at the project. (McCarthy’s was also charged as an employer on two other counts but was acquitted for reasons outside the scope of this article on those counts.)

The defence

The key defence that McCarthy’s raised, and the defence which resulted in an acquittal of the above-mentioned charges, was that McCarthy’s was not a “constructor” as defined under the OHSA.

The decision

In considering McCarthy’s position, Judge Derrick discussed the relevant provisions in the OHSA, including the meaning of “projects” and “workplaces” and noted that the OHSA distinguishes between the two when referencing the obligations on constructors vs. contractors. Whereas contractors have prescribed responsibilities “at or near” the workplace, constructors have prescribed responsibilities “at or near” projects. Judge Derrick first clarified that constructors have broader authority and responsibilities than contractors and then looked to the evidence to determine whether it could be said that McCarthy’s was in fact a constructor.

The answer was “No”. While there were multiple contractors on site, one in particular (Aecon, the project construction manager, which was also charged in relation to the accident) was clearly the constructor, not McCarthy’s. In arriving at this decision, Judge Derrick listed some of the “indicia of authority” held by Aecon over the project, including:

  • Control of the project site (including requiring McCarthy’s employees to gain admission to the site only through Aecon personnel);
  • Communications hub for all trade contractors;
  • Conduct of the site orientations for all workers;
  • Oversight, control and management of the trade contractors;
  • Chairing of the JOSH Committee for the project;
  • Evidence that AECON directed compliance by the trade contractors with the new and enhanced safety measures;
  • Central coordination for safety documentation required of all trade contractors (including Job Assessment Risk Review (JARR) cards and hot work permits); and
  • Reviewing/auditing of completed JARR cards. (from paras. 140 and 141)

While she noted that it was possible that there could be multiple constructors on a project, Judge Derrick contrasted the level of authority possessed and exercised by McCarthy’s (vs. Aecon) and found that McCarthy’s authority was nowhere near the level required to find McCarthy’s was a constructor. McCarthy’s was therefore acquitted.

The significance

The differences in OHSA responsibilities as a contractor vs. as a constructor have not, as yet, been well explained and the fact that there is intentional overlapping responsibility through the OHSA regime makes the divide between the two all the more unclear. Even in this case, the Crown argued that both Aecon and McCarthy’s could be considered constructors. Judge Derrick’s decision is therefore a helpful guide to determining which entity (or entities) is/are properly considered the constructor(s).

One of the interesting points in this decision is that, after determining that McCarthy’s should be acquitted on all four counts, Judge Derrick then went on to discuss the fact that, had she decided McCarthy’s was a “constructor”, she would not have accepted its due diligence defence. This sends the message that, while McCarthy’s was not “guilty as charged”, it nonetheless should have been more careful in fulfilling its safety duties.

If there is any doubt about whether a contractor is responsible for the “project” or the “workplace”, the contractor will need to examine its level of authority and responsibility in the context of the other contractors onsite. Failure to do so could result in that contractor being left “holding the bag” when the OHSA assigns liability (i.e. lays charges) for an accident. Further, nothing in this decision changes the contractor’s responsibility to ensure that it is exercising due diligence through all stages of its own work.

The foregoing is intended for general information only. If you have any questions about how this may affect your business, please contact a member of our Labour & Employment practice group.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Client Update: Requirement to register as a mortgage brokerage and mortgage administrator in New Brunswick

July 7, 2016

On April 1, 2016 New Brunswick’s Mortgage Brokers Act came into force, requiring businesses acting as mortgage brokerages or as mortgage administrators in New Brunswick to be licensed. A mortgage brokerage is a business that on behalf…

Read More

Copyright does not monopolize facts – documentary filmmakers’ claim against book author and publisher fails

June 29, 2016

In May 2016, the Federal Court of Canada confirmed that copyright does not protect facts, even where a book’s author is clearly inspired by the content of a film (Maltz v. Witterick, 2016 FC 524 (CanLII)).…

Read More

Solicitor-client privilege vs the Canada Revenue Agency: the SCC speaks

June 10, 2016

By Jennifer Taylor “…firms of notaries or lawyers…must not be turned into archives for the tax authorities”1 So says the Supreme Court of Canada in one of two highly anticipated decisions on solicitor-client privilege, offering lawyers…

Read More

Why can’t we be friends?: Lessons on corporate dissolution from Smith v. Hillier

May 30, 2016

Joe Thorne1 and Clara Linegar2 As joint owners of a business, what do you do when the business relationship falls apart? And what if one owner undermines the business in the process? In Smith v Hillier,3 Justice Paquette…

Read More

Client Update: Supreme Court of Canada dismisses appeals in punitive damages cases

May 26, 2016

The Supreme Court of Canada has dismissed the appeals in Bruce Brine v. Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc.1 (with costs) and Luciano Branco, et al. v. Zurich Life Insurance Company Limited, et al.(without costs). Both of…

Read More

Client Update: Pension update: Countdown to Nova Scotia Pooled Registered Pension Plans

May 17, 2016

On May 4, 2016, the Nova Scotia Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act (“PRPP Act”) was proclaimed in force, and finalized Pooled Registered Pension Plan Regulations were released. While there were no major changes from the previously released draft regulations, the proposed rules…

Read More

Pension Primer: Pooled Registered Pension Plans (“PRPPs”) in Nova Scotia

April 22, 2016

By Level Chan and Dante Manna Pooled Registered Pension Plans (“PRPPs”) are closer to becoming a reality for Nova Scotian employers. PRPPs were established by the Federal government in an effort to address the lack of retirement savings…

Read More

Client Update: Perrin v Blake reaffirms the law on contributory negligence and recovery of damages

April 14, 2016

In a case where there is a contributorily negligent plaintiff and two or more negligent defendants, can the plaintiff recover 100% of her damages from any of the defendants? The answer in Nova Scotia is…

Read More

Client Update: Interest arbitration changes for New Brunswick postponed for further study

April 11, 2016

On Friday, the Province of New Brunswick announced that it would not proceed at this time with the recently proposed changes to binding interest arbitration. The Province announced that a joint labour management committee will be struck to examine…

Read More

Client Update: Universal interest arbitration proposed for New Brunswick

April 5, 2016

On March 29, 2016, the Province of New Brunswick tabled proposed changes to the Industrial Relations Act and the Public Services Labour Relations Act. If passed, these changes would dramatically alter well-established principles of private sector collective bargaining.…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top