ARTICLE
28 December 2023

Construction Project Owners Potentially Liable As 'Employers' Under Ontario's Occupational Health And Safety Act

OH
Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP

Contributor

Osler is a leading law firm with a singular focus – your business. Our collaborative “one firm” approach draws on the expertise of over 400 lawyers to provide responsive, proactive and practical legal solutions driven by your business needs. It’s law that works.
A recent split decision of the Supreme Court of Canada carries significant implications for construction project owners. As a result of the split decision, a 2021 Ontario Court of Appeal decision...
Canada Employment and HR
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

A recent split decision of the Supreme Court of Canada carries significant implications for construction project owners. As a result of the split decision, a 2021 Ontario Court of Appeal decision remains in place and its findings mean a construction project owner that employs quality control staff to oversee the work of a general contractor may be an "employer" with liability, overlapping with the "constructor", for overall construction site health and safety under Ontario's Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA).

In 2015, the City of Greater Sudbury (Sudbury) contracted with a general contractor to perform watermain repairs in the city's downtown area. As is typical in such contracts, the contract required the general contractor to assume the role of "constructor" under the OHSA. When one of the general contractor's employees driving a road grader tragically struck and killed a pedestrian, Ontario's Ministry of Labour charged both Sudbury and the general contractor with violating their duties as "constructor" and "employer."

Following lower court decisions that held Sudbury was neither an "employer" nor a "constructor", the Ontario Court of Appeal found Sudbury to be an "employer" on the basis that it employed quality control staff that attended the construction site and, as such, Sudbury was responsible for ensuring compliance with OHSA workplace safety measures for the construction site. The four justices of the Supreme Court of Canada who upheld the Ontario Court of Appeal decision went even further than the Ontario Court of Appeal, suggesting Sudbury was also an "employer" by virtue of having hired a general contractor (and thereby contracted for the services of the general contractor's workers).

For more insight into the potential ramifications of the decision and the Court's reasoning, read the full post on our Construction and Infrastructure Law Blog.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More