First Reference Talks

Business, Payroll, Employment Law, Internal Controls & You!

  • Home
  • About
  • Contact Us
  • Free Updates

Trucker fined for smoking in his vehicle considered at work

Author: Yosie Saint-Cyr

Posted on Wednesday, October 14th, 2009 at 12:30

Tweet
smoking

Image taken from: http://www.reuters.com

This month, an Ontario truck driver was fined $305 for smoking in his vehicle, because it is also considered his workplace. Under the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, smoking is prohibited at all workplaces in the province, and this includes a vehicle that is deemed a place of work in the Act.

The Smoke-Free Ontario Act is designed to protect the health of all Ontarians by prohibiting smoking in all enclosed workplaces and enclosed public places in Ontario.

 

 

Specifically, the Act states (bold and italics added for emphasis):

1. “enclosed public place” means, (a) the inside of any place, building or structure or vehicle or conveyance or a part of any of them (i) that is covered by a roof, and (ii) to which the public is ordinarily invited or permitted access, either expressly or by implication, whether or not a fee is charged for entry, or (b) a prescribed place.

This makes me wonder… if a vehicle is also part of the definition of an enclosed public place, how come smokers who drive with passengers are not currently being fined for violating the law? I see them everyday on my commute to and from work, smoking away in their car with passengers in them. Please note that I am not talking about the prohibition to smoke or have lighted tobacco in a motor vehicle while another person who is less than 16 years old is present in the vehicle. 

2. “enclosed workplace” means, (a) the inside of any place, building or structure or vehicle or conveyance or a part of any of them, i) that is covered by a roof, (ii) that employees work in or frequent during the course of their employment whether or not they are acting in the course of their employment at the time, and (iii) that is not primarily a private dwelling, or (b) a prescribed place.

“employee” means a person who performs any work for or supplies any services to an employer, or a person who receives any instruction or training in the activity, business, work, trade, occupation or profession of an employer.

In addition, the Ministry of Health Promotion indicates in its employer/employee guide that the ban on smoking in an enclosed workplace is in effect at all times, even during off-hours when people are not working.

This makes me wonder… route sales people who do not report to work at their employer’s place of business, who use their car to work on a daily basis to make sales call to customers, have their logs, laptop and paper work in their car, and smoke on the way—while working—how will the police know they are smoking in a vehicle that is also considered their workplace?

I find the Act very ambiguous and difficult to enforce. Your thoughts please!?

 Yosie Saint-Cyr

Human Resources and Compliance Managing Editor

Tags: ban smoking in vehicles, occupational health and safety, OH&S, OHSA, ontario, Ontario Trucking Association, Smoke-Free Ontario Act, smoking ban, trucking, Work vehicles

This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 14th, 2009 at 12:30 and is filed under Health and Safety, Human Resources. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

9 Responses to “Trucker fined for smoking in his vehicle considered at work”

October 14th, 2009 at 15:25

Sandra says:

Was the truck owned by the truck driver or by the company he works for? If “enclused workspace” does not apply to a private dwelling, so people with a home office can smoke without being fined, why can’t it apply to a private vehicle? or does it?

Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

October 14th, 2009 at 15:41

Cindy says:

The Act states “and (ii) to which the public is ordinarily invited or permitted access, either expressly or by implication,” I can’t believe the public would be allowed access to a company’s truck; would it not be classified as off limits to the public?

Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

October 14th, 2009 at 15:59

Yosie Saint-Cyr says:

A vehicle in the Act is not just defined as a truck or a company truck… The definition of “motor vehicle” is the one found under the Ontario Highway Traffic Act.

The HTA defines “motor vehicle” includes an automobile, motorcycle, motor assisted bicycle unless otherwise indicated in this Act, and any other vehicle propelled or driven otherwise than by muscular power, but does not include a street car, or other motor vehicles running only upon rails, or a motorized snow vehicle, traction engine, farm tractor, self-propelled implement of husbandry or road-building machine within the meaning of this Act

Thus, it includes a car or a truck that the employee works in or frequents during the course of their employment.

Also, vehicle is not referred to as private vehicle like private dwelling… vehicle here means any vehicle owned by the employee or the employer that the employee works in or frequents during the course of their employment.

Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

October 15th, 2009 at 10:52

Sandra says:

So if the vehicle is owned by the employee I’m not sure I understand why it should be treated differently than a private dwelling. What if he smokes in his truck while driving home after he’s done work? Can he be fined in that case?

Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

October 15th, 2009 at 13:00

Brian says:

At times, government rules, regulations and in this case laws are passed where intent or misinterpretation goes beyond common sense.
I do not expect that my tax dollars would support an activity like this by our provincial police.

Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

October 15th, 2009 at 13:06

Molly says:

A lot of truck drivers own their own cabs, if the vehicle is owned by the driver and only occupied by the driver than I don’t see how he/she could be fined.

If it is still possible because the vehicle is being used on company time than what about employees that drive home for lunch and smoke in their vehicles?

Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

October 15th, 2009 at 14:49

Yosie Saint-Cyr says:

I just read in the Star.com that the trucking company that the trucker (subject of the blog post) works for was charged two years ago by a provincial health unit officer under the Smoke-Free Ontario Act. The company decided to fight the charges in court.

The Crown withdrew the charges on the day the case was to be heard. The issue being if the company is federally or provincially regulated; complicating the issue even further. Read http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/710544–truckers-battled-smoke-law-and-won

Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

October 19th, 2009 at 18:41

Yosie Saint-Cyr says:

I’ve decided to ask the Ontario government, the Ministry of Health Promotion some clarification on the application of the law and will get back to you with a follow up blog. Stay tuned!

However if you have any more comments please continue to post them.

Thanks, Yosie

Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

October 20th, 2009 at 09:09

Sandra says:

Thank you Yosie, we all appreciate it!

Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Reply

Note that some comments may be moderated. If you have not had an approved comment here before, your comment will be held for approval. We are glad to publish comments that address issues raised in the post or other comments on it and that contribute to a fruitful discussion. We do not publish comments that seek to promote commercial products or that seek personal legal advice. Although we do not require it, we ask that in making a comment you use your full name. You must supply a valid email address, which will not appear with your comment.




Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

  • Get Free Updates

    RSS and Email

  • 2012 Annual Ontario Employment Law Conference

    2011 Canadian Law Blog Finalist

    2010 Canadian Law Blog Finalist

  • Categories

    • Accessibility Standards
      • Integrated Accessibility Regulation
      • Standard for Customer Service
      • Standard for Employment
      • Standard for Information and Communications
      • Standard for the Built Environment
      • Standard for Transportation
    • Announcements
    • Conferences
    • Human Resources
      • Corporate Immigration
      • Employee Relations
      • Employment Standards
      • Health and Safety
      • HR Analytics
      • HRMS
      • Human Rights
      • Privacy and Security
      • Recruiting and Hiring
      • Training and Development
      • Union Relations
    • Internal Controls
      • Environmental Law
      • Finance and Accounting
      • IT, Privacy and Security
      • Not-for-Profit
    • Payroll
      • Benefits
      • Compensation
      • Source Deductions and Reporting
  • Recent Comments

      CommentLeslie D Foreman:
      I agree with the court decision. Granting a full 52 weeks leave for an adoptive...

      CommentDr. Mike Michael:
      While there are many factors associated with depression, a main cause is the...

      CommentAndrew Taillon:
      Thanks Chris. I would suggest that the confusion arises from the way damages were...



  • First Reference:
    @firstreference

    Yosie Saint-Cyr:
    @yosie23

    Adam Gorley:
    @agorley

  • Like us on Facebook!



  • Links

    • First Reference
    • HR eSource
    • HRinfodesk
    • HRtrack
    • Human Resources Advisor
    • PolicyPro
  • Blogroll

    • All About Information
    • Chambers on the Profession
    • Corporate Governance
    • Corporate Governance & Risk Management Blog
    • Corporate Reporting to Stakeholders
    • Daniel A. Lublin Employment Law Blog
    • Doorey’s Workplace Law Blog
    • Employment & Human Rights Law in Canada
    • Human Right in the Workplace
    • International Corporate Governance
    • Leech Talks Risk
    • Marks on Governance
    • Osgoode Labour & Employment Law Society
    • SBH Lawyers blog
    • Slaw
    • Thoughts from a Management Lawyer
  • Post Archives

    • February 2012 (9)
    • January 2012 (26)
    • December 2011 (27)
    • November 2011 (24)
    • October 2011 (22)
    • September 2011 (34)
    • August 2011 (27)
    • July 2011 (25)
    • June 2011 (35)
    • May 2011 (29)
    • April 2011 (28)
    • March 2011 (27)
    • February 2011 (20)
    • January 2011 (22)
    • December 2010 (23)
    • November 2010 (23)
    • October 2010 (22)
    • September 2010 (24)
    • August 2010 (28)
    • July 2010 (26)
    • June 2010 (29)
    • May 2010 (32)
    • April 2010 (24)
    • March 2010 (22)
    • February 2010 (9)
    • January 2010 (11)
    • December 2009 (11)
    • November 2009 (14)
    • October 2009 (16)
    • September 2009 (11)
    • August 2009 (1)
  • Questions?

    Email us:
    editor[at]firstreference.com

Copyright © 2012 - First Reference | Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS) | Twitter | Facebook

WordPress theme designed by web design