Safety is expensive, but an accident is even more costly. All organizations, all business owners, all managers, supervisors and workers in all workplaces need to understand the effect of work performed on the human body and how we influence the demands of the work we do through human interaction. Both of these things relate to the correlation between the worker and the demands of the work they do, known as ergonomics and human factors.
There are a lot of moving parts when managing a WSIB claim, especially one that has become prolonged or complex. Most employers are aware that ensuring their company is compliant with Health & Safety best practices will likely result in reduced workers’ compensation costs. The same can be said with respect to important Human Resources practices and procedures. The problem is that busy claims managers sometimes lose sight of this while they attempt to juggle all the moving pieces of a claim.
The obligations on employers, constructors and other workplace stakeholders once a workplace accident occurs are heavy. The Occupational Health and Safety Act (the “Act”) requires that these parties take positive actions immediately from the time that an accident occurs. These actions can have important implications for later legal proceedings. Failing to comply with these obligations is itself a breach of the Act and can lead to legal liability distinct from and in addition to any liability flowing from the accident.
Three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk deal with wilful misconduct; family status and eldercare; and, criminal negligence causing death under OHSA.
Three popular articles this week on HRinfodesk deal with the importance of carefully crafting employment agreement; an employer’s offensive, distasteful and inappropriate’ motivational presentation; and, OHS worker fatality.
Last January, I wrote about fatalities at work, and in particular, the Metron Construction and Swartz decisions. Since then, there has been some developments.
A recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, confirming a trial decision, once again demonstrates the difficulty employers will face in satisfying courts in this province that there was cause for dismissal.
The saga of Ontario (Ministry of Labour) v. JR Contracting Property Services, Lootawan and Haniff case has finally come to its conclusion (at least on the merits). Employers would be well-advised to learn from the case how not to engage with Ministry of Labour inspectors in the aftermath of a workplace accident.
On Christmas Eve, 2009, four workers fell to their death at a Toronto construction site from a scaffold that did not use proper fall arrest systems. A fifth worker was seriously injured. The result: charges under both the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Criminal Code of Canada were filed against the individuals and companies involved in the construction project.
Ontario’s Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal has decided that a worker was not acting in the course of employment when she slipped and fell in the parking lot of the mall where she worked. As a result, she could not access workers’ compensation benefits; however, she retained her right of action in a civil suit […]