Case Study: Health and Safety Violations in Construction Companies

This case study analyzes three real-world cases involving violations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OSHA), focusing on employer negligence and workplace accidents. The cases involve Bélanger Construction Inc., Waterloo North Hydro Inc., and the Ottawa Catholic District School Board, each resulting in worker injuries or fatalities and subsequent fines. The analysis highlights the common failures of employers to comply with OSHA regulations, specifically the lack of hazard-free environments, insufficient safety information, and inadequate safety measures. The study emphasizes the importance of employer responsibility in providing safe workplaces and the role of employee awareness and regulatory oversight in preventing accidents. The cases underscore the legal consequences of non-compliance, including fines and victim surcharges, and the potential for vicarious liability for company directors. The study concludes that adherence to OSHA guidelines, including hazard assessments and employee training, is critical to preventing workplace injuries and fatalities.

Running head: HEALTH AND SAFETY
HEALTH AND SAFETY
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1HEALTH AND SAFETY
In the case of Bélanger Construction Inc, the court held the defendant company guilty
of breach of the Occupational Health and Safety Act which resulted in the injury of a worker
in the company and imposed fine upon Bélanger Construction (1981) Inc. and R.M. Bélanger
Limited of a total amount of $290,000 on August 10, 2012, for the breaching failure of their
duty to provide adequate protection in the case of falling from a bridge while doing their duty
(news.ontario.ca, 2017). Further for not providing necessary equipment materials and
protective devices and not for informing the workers regarding the necessary safety
instruction while doing their work. The companies' director, Ronald Bélanger, was fined
$10,000 for his failure as a director to ensure that both the companies safety guidelines are
made in compliance with the provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, 1970 and
its regulations. Further, a victim fine surcharge of 25 percent has been imposed under the
Provincial Offences Act by the court.
In the second case of Waterloo North Hydro Inc., the court held the defendant
company guilty of breach of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, 1970 which resulted in
the injury of a worker in the company and impose fine of $110,000 (macronsafety.com,
2012). Waterloo North Hydro Inc., the defendant company further pleaded guilty for the
failure to set up and execute a sufficient job plan before the installation of the transformer.
Further, a victim fine surcharge of 25 percent has been imposed under the Provincial
Offences Act by the court.
In the third case of Ottawa Catholic District School Board, the court held the
defendant school guilty of breach of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, 1970 which
resulted in the death of a student in the school and impose fine of $275,000 (news.ontario.ca,
2016). The Ottawa Catholic District School Board pleaded guilty for breach of their duty as
an employer and to provide requisite instruction and direction to the school teacher regarding
safe work practices and further for non-recognition of the hazards related to the project.

2HEALTH AND SAFETY
Further, a victim fine surcharge of 25 percent has been imposed under the Provincial
Offences Act by the court.
Therefore in all the three cases, one thing is common that is the failure of the
employer to comply with the mandatory safety provision of a workplace as envisaged in
Occupational Health and Safety Act, 1970 and also to the failure to inform about the
hazardous nature of work and safety information regarding the work to their employees
(Connolly & Crowell, 2017). Further, In all the three offenses the court has offered victim
fine surcharge of 25 percent under the Provincial Offences Act, which is required to create a
fund for the victim of workplace negligence. Further for protecting the interest of the
employers in case employers negligence.
The inconsistency in the three cases is, in the second and third case, the defendant
accepted their fault and pleaded guilty. However, in the first case, the defendant company did
not plead guilty, and in that case, the director was separately finEd under vicarious liability
for his company which he owed to his employers.
It can be seen from the three cases, that all the accident happen due to the failure of
the employer to comply with the mandatory safety provision of a workplace as envisaged in
Occupational Health and Safety Act, 1970 and also to the failure to inform about the
hazardous nature of work and safety information regarding the work to their employees
(Rosner & Markowitz, 2016). Therefore, these accidents in the respective case could only be
prevented if the employer has followed the provision of Section 5 of the Occupational Health
and Safety Act, 1970, that is to provide a hazard-free environment to the employees, and also
further comply with the provision for safety as provided under the OSHA, the failure to
which might cause death or injury to those respective employees. Further, it was also a duty
of those employees to have a check on the security measures of the workplace as the same

3HEALTH AND SAFETY
has been elaborated as employee's duty under section 5 of the OSHA. Further, the accident
could have been prevented, if the twelve members of the National Advisory Committee on
Occupational Safety and Health and the Secretary of health and safety has performed their
duties of inspection, inform and direct about requite safety guidelines required in a workplace
as envisaged in Section 6 and section 8 of the OSHA (Janicak & Cekada, 2016). Further, if
they had reported about the lack of security structure in these three defendant workplaces of
the above-mentioned cases, which was detected by these authorities after conducting an audit,
then this accident could have been prevented.

4HEALTH AND SAFETY
Reference:
Connolly Jr, W. B., & Crowell, D. R. (2017). A Practical Guide to the Occupational Safety
and Health Act. Law Journal Press.
Janicak, C. A., & Cekada, T. L. (2016, January). OSHA’s Enforcement of the General Duty
Clause: An Investigation into Citations. In ASSE Professional Development
Conference and Exposition. American Society of Safety Engineers.
macronsafety.com. (2012). Worker burned in arc flash event; company fined $110,000 -
Macron Safety. Retrieved 21 March 2020, from https://macronsafety.com/osha-
safety/worker-burned-in-arc-flash-event-company-fined-110000/
news.ontario.ca. (2016). Ottawa Catholic School Board Fined $250,000 in Death of
Maintenance Worker. Retrieved 21 March 2020, from
https://news.ontario.ca/mol/en/2016/03/ottawa-catholic-school-board-fined-250000-
in-death-of-maintenance-worker.html
news.ontario.ca. (2017). R.M. Belanger Limited Fined $125,000 and Supervisor Fined $5,000
After Worker Injured. Retrieved 21 March 2020, from
https://news.ontario.ca/mol/en/2017/08/rm-belanger-limited-fined-xxx000-and-
supervisor-fined-x000-after-worker-injured.html
Rosner, D., & Markowitz, G. (2016). “Educate the Individual... to a Sane Appreciation of the
Risk” A History of Industry’s Responsibility to Warn of Job Dangers Before the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. American journal of public
health, 106(1), 28-35.