Date Time Location Chair Attendees: Emergency Preparedness by Trueman Hirschfeld 1 Min Introductions by Trueman Hirschfeld 5 Min Agenda Review by Trueman Hirschfeld 1 Min New Business by the group 20 Min Safety Share - Working Outside of Boundaries by John Roberts (TESC) 15 Min MOL PLMHC Report Review by Jim Mathiasen 5 Min PMO Stats / Hi Potential Incident Report / Lessons Learned by Jim Mathiasen 15 Min Stop and Correct Reporting by John Roberts (TESC) 10 Min 3) Tom Giornofelice Vale Plant specific PHR standards: - The PHR Program document is to be updated to clarify when a Sub-contractor should attend a PHR Meeting. Sub-contractors that "add value" to the development of a PHR should attend the PHR Meeting. - It is NOT mandatory for JHSC member to review the PHR with the workers. If asked to do something outside the standard consider the implication and challenge/escalate as appropriate. Jim Mathiasen Vale - PHR Audits will be conducted - only include high risk hazards applicable for the work to be covered for that PHR - do not include action items in the Existing Protection column Monthly Vale Surface Contractor Safety Meeting Friday, March 18, 2016 8:00AM- 10:00AM CC Club - Invac & Outvac locations, emergency procedures. Continuous alarm: OUTVAC - Proceed to Assembly area in the Parking lot Intermittent alarm: INVAC - The Main Hall is the Invac Area Please Stand Up when introducing yourselves (Name, Company, Position) Near Miss Reporting cards have been updated to Stop and Correct cards and are available on the PMO Extranet Site under the FORMs tab. (presentation attached to minutes below) Copper Cliff Club 1) Trueman Hirschfeld Vale Update on 3-Year List of Initiatives: We're developing a Mission Statement for these Monthly Contractor Safety Meetings: - How will these meetings help achieve Zero Harm? - Who is the target audience / primary Stakeholder Group? (Safety Professionals? or Management Teams? or Both? or Other?) Focus Group: Contractor Reps: Alex Fielding (Carman), Andy Fournier (State) - other reps TBD: Adam Cecchetto (Klohn), Debbie Mackinnon (TESC) Training Provider Reps: Dan St. Onge (NORCAT), Jim Bartolucci (People at Work) Trades Reps: Anthony Iannucci (Local 800), TBD Vale: Trueman Hirschfeld/Raphael Tiangco/John Goedhuis (Surface PMO), Jim Mathiasen / Chris Lepera (GSO), Allain Lavoie (Contract Mgt), JHSC Reps (TBD) Glencore/Domtar: (Mike Siemer, TBD) 2) Trueman Hirschfeld Vale * Meeting Safety Message * - Please review the attached message with your workers (field personnel) by Friday, April 1st 2016. - Submit the sign-off sheet to your Vale Representative with your Weekly Contract-Specific Safety Plan Compliance Audit package (formerly Weekly Safety Plan Compliance Report). - Hard copy printouts are available at the meeting. A pdf version will also be emailed by the end of the day. - Working Outside of Vale Standards (by John Roberts - TESC) (summary attached to minutes - see below) DM# 1172278 v 3a (Report attached below) Improving Safety & Health requires making real and lasting changes, as per the introduction in the March 2016 PLMHC. Review this report and consider how this statement ties to the Mission Statement being developed for our monthly meeting. Trueman Hirschfeld Contracting Party personnel: Safety Coordinators, Management, Supervisors (as available) Vale Representatives: Management, GSO Safety, Project Teams (PM's, Supervisors, Safety), Maintenance, JHSC, CMO, other Other: Representatives from Glencore, Trade Unions, IHSA, NORCAT, Suppliers, Engineering Consultants, other Guest Speakers BREAK (9:05-9:15) Minutes (presentation attached to minutes below) - 2017 Target for Zero Harm Days = 128 High Potentials Summary 1) SAP IM#1777918 - Follow established risk management tools and work plans that are in place, if unsure what to do escalate, or follow the process (No "step-back" was done) 2) SAP IM#1728260 - Elevator safety: be aware of potential for doors to close rapidly once counterweights are engaged (watch for pinch points – this event led to a fractured wrist) 3) SAP IM#1785177- Using the correct tools for the task; ensure chain falls and come-alongs have load limiters COMMENTS: it was identified by the group that there would be value in receiving the High Potential Incident summaries as they occur as apposed to reviewing them 1-2 months later at these meetings. This suggestion will be reviewed by the 3 Yr Initiative Focus Group. DM# 1172278 Page 1 of 2
Transcript
Date
Time
Location
Chair
Attendees:
Emergency Preparedness by Trueman Hirschfeld 1 Min
Introductions by Trueman Hirschfeld 5 Min
Agenda Review by Trueman Hirschfeld 1 Min
New Business by the group 20 Min
Safety Share - Working Outside of Boundaries by John Roberts (TESC) 15 Min
MOL PLMHC Report Review by Jim Mathiasen 5 Min
PMO Stats / Hi Potential Incident Report / Lessons Learned by Jim Mathiasen 15 Min
Stop and Correct Reporting by John Roberts (TESC) 10 Min
3) Tom Giornofelice Vale
Plant specific PHR standards:
- The PHR Program document is to be updated to clarify when a Sub-contractor should attend a PHR Meeting. Sub-contractors that
"add value" to the development of a PHR should attend the PHR Meeting.
- It is NOT mandatory for JHSC member to review the PHR with the workers. If asked to do something outside the standard consider
the implication and challenge/escalate as appropriate.
Jim Mathiasen Vale
- PHR Audits will be conducted
- only include high risk hazards applicable for the work to be covered for that PHR
- do not include action items in the Existing Protection column
Monthly Vale Surface Contractor Safety Meeting
Friday, March 18, 2016
8:00AM- 10:00AM
CC Club - Invac & Outvac locations, emergency procedures.
Continuous alarm: OUTVAC - Proceed to Assembly area in the Parking lot
Intermittent alarm: INVAC - The Main Hall is the Invac Area
Please Stand Up when introducing yourselves (Name, Company, Position)
Near Miss Reporting cards have been updated to Stop and Correct cards and are available on the PMO Extranet Site under the
FORMs tab.
(presentation attached to minutes below)
Copper Cliff Club
1) Trueman Hirschfeld Vale
Update on 3-Year List of Initiatives:
We're developing a Mission Statement for these Monthly Contractor Safety Meetings:
- How will these meetings help achieve Zero Harm?
- Who is the target audience / primary Stakeholder Group? (Safety Professionals? or Management Teams? or Both? or Other?)
Focus Group:
Contractor Reps: Alex Fielding (Carman), Andy Fournier (State) - other reps TBD: Adam Cecchetto (Klohn), Debbie Mackinnon
(TESC)
Training Provider Reps: Dan St. Onge (NORCAT), Jim Bartolucci (People at Work)
Trades Reps: Anthony Iannucci (Local 800), TBD
Vale: Trueman Hirschfeld/Raphael Tiangco/John Goedhuis (Surface PMO), Jim Mathiasen / Chris Lepera (GSO), Allain Lavoie
(Contract Mgt), JHSC Reps (TBD)
Glencore/Domtar: (Mike Siemer, TBD)
2) Trueman Hirschfeld Vale
* Meeting Safety Message *
- Please review the attached message with your workers (field personnel) by Friday, April 1st 2016.
- Submit the sign-off sheet to your Vale Representative with your Weekly Contract-Specific Safety Plan Compliance Audit package
(formerly Weekly Safety Plan Compliance Report).
- Hard copy printouts are available at the meeting. A pdf version will also be emailed by the end of the day.
- Working Outside of Vale Standards (by John Roberts - TESC)
(summary attached to minutes - see below)
DM# 1172278 v 3a
(Report attached below)
Improving Safety & Health requires making real and lasting changes, as per the introduction in the March 2016 PLMHC.
Review this report and consider how this statement ties to the Mission Statement being developed for our monthly meeting.
Trueman HirschfeldContracting Party personnel: Safety Coordinators, Management, Supervisors (as available)
Vale Representatives: Management, GSO Safety, Project Teams (PM's, Supervisors, Safety), Maintenance, JHSC, CMO, other
Other: Representatives from Glencore, Trade Unions, IHSA, NORCAT, Suppliers, Engineering Consultants, other Guest Speakers
BREAK (9:05-9:15)
Minutes
(presentation attached to minutes below)
- 2017 Target for Zero Harm Days = 128
High Potentials Summary
1) SAP IM#1777918 - Follow established risk management tools and work plans that are in place, if unsure what to do escalate, or
follow the process (No "step-back" was done)
2) SAP IM#1728260 - Elevator safety: be aware of potential for doors to close rapidly once counterweights are engaged (watch for
pinch points – this event led to a fractured wrist)
3) SAP IM#1785177- Using the correct tools for the task; ensure chain falls and come-alongs have load limiters
COMMENTS: it was identified by the group that there would be value in receiving the High Potential Incident summaries as they
occur as apposed to reviewing them 1-2 months later at these meetings. This suggestion will be reviewed by the 3 Yr Initiative Focus
Group.
DM# 1172278 Page 1 of 2
Contractor Incident Review - Follow up by Steve Sheppard (Anmar) 10 Min
SHE Coordinator Requirements by Trueman Hirschfeld 0 Min
IHSA Update by 20 Min
Q&A by the group 0 Min
Today's Message Recap by Trueman Hirschfeld 5 Min
Contractor External Link Access: Vale Network Internal Access Link:
Please review the message in the box below with all Contractor workers (field personnel), as part of a daily toolbox talk / crew line-up meeting by Friday, April 1st 2016.
This message is to be delivered by the crew supervisor or by the Safety / Health / Environment Coordinator.
Submit the Worker Sign-off Sheet to your Vale Representative with your Weekly Contract-Specific Safety Plan Compliance Audit package (formerly Weekly Safety Plan Compliance Report).
Working Outside of Vale Standards
Vale Standards are in place to protect workers, the environment, and company assets.
It’s impossible to predict every situation, so sometimes these standards won’t fit the circumstances perfectly, or they might conflict with the plan for the work.
If your assigned tasks might take you outside the boundaries of Vale Standards, escalate those issues to your Supervisor before starting that work.
A formal Risk Assessment must be submitted to the Vale Representative to justify an exemption to Vale Standards. Your Vale Representative can provide the appropriate Risk Assessment tools and instructions.
Refer to the PMO Extranet Site for current copies of all Vale Policies, Programs and SPIs.
Reference Materials:
Job Hazard Analysis Procedure (OO-RM-PRO-02) (contact your Vale Rep for a copy)
Job Hazard Analysis (JHA) Template
PHR Guideline – FEL / Construction / Commissioning (NAV-GP-0072)
PHR Process Hazards Review Template (NAV-TP-0019)
Standard Job Procedure Guideline (NAV-GP-0291)
Standard Job Procedure Template (NAV-TP-0291)
SPI-SAF-99 Application for SPI Exemption (Note: the Vale Rep will complete & submit.)
Safety Share – Working Outside of Boundaries– Working Outside of Boundaries by John Roberts (TESC) At last month’s meeting Jim said that if we believe a specific SPI or program hinders us in how we perform our work safely then we should challenge that SPI or program. We do have options, there is a Vale Exemption Process (SPI SAF 99 Exemptions for SPI’s) that can be used for situations where there is alternate protection that protects a worker that does not adhere to a Vale Policy, Procedure, or SPI. We can also refer to Section 3 of both the O.Reg. 213/91 (Construction) and O.Reg. 854 (Mining) which state: An employer, owner or constructor may vary a procedure required by this Regulation or the composition, design, size or arrangement of a material, object, device or thing as required by this Regulation,
(a) if the procedure, composition, design, size or arrangement as varied affords protection for the health and safety of workers that is at least equal to the protection that would otherwise be given; and (b) if the employer, owner or constructor gives written notice of the varied procedure, composition, design, size or arrangement to the joint health and safety committee or the health and safety representative, if any, for the work place.
On Mar 08/16 Jim conducted a site inspection at one of our project’s at Clarabelle Mill and, in doing so, was kind enough to identify some area’s that needed correcting/improving, thanks Jim. One area of concern that Jim had was when he observed one of our carpenter’s climb the formwork wailer to install bolts through the formwork in order to affix them together. The worker was tied off to an SRL for fall protection and was using a belly hook as a positioning system. When Jim questioned what he saw, the TESC Carpenter Foreman reminded him that he had allowed this very same practice at a previous project. Jim agreed with the foreman however, a JHA had been developed by the JHSC and the carpenter worker rep at the previous project and there was no JHA or written procedure readily available at this project. A procedure was written, approved, and reviewed with the crew and, the project continued. The message I want to share here is this: When we work outside of the boundaries (Vale & Employers) there is a process to follow and this requires a formal risk assessment such as a written procedure, JHA, or PHR.
MOL Report to PLMHSC – Construction Sector – March 2016 Meeting
Page 1 of 14
Section 1
Reporting Month Statistics – Quick Overview
Reporting Month Fatalities Critical Injuries Total
February 2016 0 4 4
Provincial Coordinators Comments March 2016 PLMHSC Meeting
Two months into the year things are moving along smoothly, no workers have died and that is a good thing. We
all want to have workplaces that are safe for all workers and ultimately the quest for zero workplace injuries is
something we look forward to.
At last month’s PLMHSC meeting there was table talk about measuring the effectiveness of government
measures that are put in place. In other words it’s not just about doing something, it is about measuring if that’s
something actually is having an impact. I understand the concern, and in fact is one of the things that I spend a
considerable amount of time considering when developing blitz targets or enforcement strategies. MOL
inspectors ask themselves the same thing when they return to a workplace observing the same contraventions
for which they had issued orders weeks earlier.
What does it take to make real and lasting changes? Is the question simply so large that it cannot be answered in
a simple way? Perhaps the real issue with this, in construction especially, lies in the dynamics of the ever-
changing workplace and the rotation of workers through that workplace. It makes it far more challenging to
control, and the application of recognized Occupational Health & Safety strategies and systems more difficult. For
example read the quote below:
“Zero Harm” is a “do not” target. “Do” targets are possible, while “do not” is often impossible. The focus should be on
aspects like “the best available and reasonable safety practices”, or “improved measures” or “better hazard/ risk
identification.” These are things that can be done. If you tell me “do not get injured”, I am going to ask you “How will I
not get injured?” What will your answer be? (If you do have an answer, I bet it will probably be a list of things I should
DO.) – Wynand Serfontein – 2014
This is an interesting idea, but it reads somewhat negative in that it implies the impossibility of a workplace
with zero injuries. At the same time focusing on what we should not do, is a little like a parent lecturing a
child from birth until they leave home about the perils of world to avoid and then being surprised when their
child is unable to live in that world because they have not been taught to function and interact with other
humans on the planet.
MOL Report to PLMHSC – Construction Sector – March 2016 Meeting
Page 2 of 14
In the same way, measuring safety performance by counting injuries is a little like measuring the effectiveness of
you parenting skills by counting the number of times you discipline your child. It misses the point and real
improvements are ignored at the cost of focusing only on the negative consequences.
For those of us that have been involved in Occupational Health & Safety for many decades, one of the biggest
challenges is keeping the message fresh, in talking to the next generation, and not appearing to be a relic from
the past focused on doom and gloom and essentially appearing to say “the sky is falling” like the popular
children’s fable.
There have been real and positive gains and those gains are at risk if we cannot adapt the message to the next
generation, if we cannot break the cycle of being focused on the negative and look forward to how we can create
a positive workplace.
If we are simply focused on that one accident, or avoiding regulatory prosecution we miss the real opportunity to
create, to establish, to inspire new workers in a way to carry the torch of safety forwards.
That is a real challenge we face: not counting errors.
Michael Chappell
Provincial Coordinator Construction Health and Safety Program
Ontario Ministry of Labour
Section 2
MOL Current Events
New video: inspectors are checking hygiene at construction sites. Wash your hands
MOL Report to PLMHSC – Construction Sector – March 2016 Meeting
Page 4 of 14
Section 3
Case 1
Def. #1: Streetcar Construction Ltd.
Def. #2: Scafom Canada Inc.
Def. #1: Streetcar Construction Ltd. (1) THAT STREETCAR CONSTRUCTION LTD., 510 King St. East, Suite 310, Toronto, Ontario, M5A 1M1,
on or about the 19th day of July 2010, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region, in the Province of Ontario, did commit the offence of failing, as a constructor, to ensure that the measures and procedures prescribed by subsection 44(3)(e) of O. Reg. 213/91, as amended, were carried out at a project located at King Street, Toronto, Ontario, contrary to subsection 23(1)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.O.1, as amended.
Particulars: The defendant failed to ensure that warning signs were posted where there was a potential hazard from an energized overhead electrical conductor of 750 or more volts.
Def. #2: Scafom Canada Inc.
(2) AND FURTHER THAT, SCAFOM CANADA INC., 19 Delta Park Blvd., Brampton, Ontario, L6T 5E7, on or about the 19th day of July 2010, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region, in the Province of Ontario, did commit the offence of failing, as an employer, to ensure that the measures and procedures prescribed by subsection 44(3)(e) of O. Reg. 213/91, as amended, were carried out, at a workplace located at King Street East, Toronto, Ontario, contrary to subsection 25(1)(c) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.O.1, as amended. Particulars: The defendant failed to ensure that warning signs were posted where there was a potential hazard from an energized overhead electrical conductor of 750 or more volts. 6
MOL Report to PLMHSC – Construction Sector – March 2016 Meeting
Page 5 of 14
Conviction Information: Streetcar Construction Ltd. Facts in Support of Guilty Plea / Conviction or Reasons for Acquittal:
1. The Defendant admits the facts that are contained in count no. 1 of the Information.
2. Streetcar Construction Ltd. [Streetcar Construction] is a construction company. Its address is 510 King St. East, Suite 310 in Toronto. Streetcar Construction employs approximately 69 workers and additional sub-trades.
3. On July 19, 2010, Streetcar Construction was the constructor a new construction project - a 7 storey mixed use residential condominium complex - located at King Street East in Toronto.
4. On that day, Mr. James M and 4 co-workers, all employed by a sub-contractor, were in the process of dismantling a 5 storey metal scaffolding system on the north side of the project. Mr. M and his co-workers were dismantling the scaffolding system by hand. A worker would stand on each of the 5 levels. The worker on the top level would take the top level scaffolding apart piece by piece and hand it down to the worker on the next level (level 4) who would then hand it down to the worker on the next level (level 3) and so on until it got to the worker on the ground.
5. At the time of the incident, Mr. M was lowering a metal ladder from level 3 to the worker on level 2 when the ladder made contact with an overhead electrical conductor (a 13,800 volts power line). The ladder became energized. Mr. M was knocked unconscious receiving burns to his arms, face and chest. He was transported by ambulance to St. Michael’s hospital.
6. The Ministry of Labour was notified of the incident and its investigation found that there were no warning signs posted in accordance with s. 44(3)(e) of O. Reg. 213/91 7. Accordingly, Streetcar Construction failed in its duties as a constructor as set out in s. 23(1)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.O.1.
8. This is the first offence for Streetcar Construction.
Sentencing Information: Streetcar Construction Ltd. Date of Sentence: June 28, 2012 Sentence (per count): $30,000 + 25% VFS
MOL Report to PLMHSC – Construction Sector – March 2016 Meeting
Page 6 of 14
Conviction Information: Scafom Canada Inc. Facts in Support of Guilty finding 1. The Defendant admits the facts that are contained in count no. 2 of the Information. 2. Scafom Canada Inc. [Scafom] is a company that builds scaffolds. Its address is 19 Delta Park Blvd. in Brampton. Scafom employs approximately 45 workers. 3. On July 19, 2010, workers of Scafom were dismantling a scaffold at a project located at King Street East in Toronto. 4. On that day, Mr. James M and 4 co-workers, all employed by Scafom, were in the process of dismantling a 5 storey metal scaffolding system on the north side of the project. Mr. M and his co-workers were dismantling the scaffolding system by hand. A worker would stand on each of the 5 levels. The worker on the top level would take the top level scaffolding apart piece by piece and hand it down to the worker on the next level (level 4) who would then hand it down to the worker on the next level (level 3) and so on until it got to the worker on the ground.
5. At the time of the incident, Mr. M was lowering a metal ladder from level 3 to the worker on level 2 when the ladder made contact with an overhead electrical conductor (a 13, 800 volts power line). The ladder became energized. Mr. M was knocked unconscious receiving burns to his arms, face and chest. He was transported by ambulance to St. Michael’s hospital.
6. The Ministry of Labour was notified of the incident and its investigation found that there were no warning signs posted in accordance with s. 44(3)(e) of O. Reg. 213/91 7. Accordingly, Scafom failed in its duties as an employer as set out in s. 25(1)(c) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1190, c.O.1. 8. This is the first offence for Scafom.
MOL Report to PLMHSC – Construction Sector – March 2016 Meeting
Page 7 of 14
Case 2
Def. #1: Matheson Constructors Limited
Def. #2: Phil Lindsay
Def. #3: Karl
Jedan
Def. #1: Matheson Constructors
Limited
1) Matheson Constructors Limited, Creditstone Road, Suite #201, Concord, ON L4K 3Z2,
or on about the 19th
day of August, 2013, at the City of Toronto in the Toronto Region, in the Province of Ontario, did commit the offence of failing, as a constructor, to ensure that the safety of workers was protected on a project it had undertaken at Sheppard Ave. East, Toronto, contrary to section 23(1)(c) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.O.1, as amended.
Particulars: The accused failed to protect two workers working from an elevated work platform
(scissor lift) from the hazard of an overhead garage door contacting the platform/lift.
Def. #2: Phil Lindsay
2) And Further That Phil Lindsay, Georgetown, Ontario L7G 1P8, on or about the 19th day
of August, 2013, at the City of Toronto in the Toronto Region, in the Province of Ontario, did
commit the offence of failing, as a supervisor, to take every precaution reasonable in the
circumstances for the protection of a worker, contrary to section 27(2)(c) of the Occupational
Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.O.1, as amended.
Particulars: The accused failed to take the reasonable precaution of ensuring that an overhead
garage door could not contact an elevated work platform (scissor lift) upon which two workers
were working.
Def. #3: Karl
Jedan
3) And Further That Karl Jedan, West Gwillimbury, Ontario L0L 1L0, on or about the 19th
day of August, 2013, at the City of Toronto in the Toronto Region, in the Province of Ontario,
did commit the offence of failing, as a supervisor, to take every precaution reasonable in the
circumstances for the protection of a worker, contrary to section 27(2)(c) of the Occupational
Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.O.1, as amended.
Particulars: The accused failed to take the reasonable precaution of ensuring that an overhead
garage door could not contact an elevated work platform (scissor lift) upon which two workers
were working.
MOL Report to PLMHSC – Construction Sector – March 2016 Meeting
Page 8 of 14
Facts in Support of Guilt
Matheson Constructors Limited is an Ontario corporation, properly registered as such. At all
material times it was a “constructor” as defined in the Occupational Health and Safety Act
(“OHSA”). In August of 2013 it was engaged in a project at the Malvern Garage of the Toronto
Transit Commission (“TTC”), involving the upgrade of an automatic bus wash in the building.
The garage is located at Sheppard Ave. East, in Toronto. This was a “project” as defined in the
OHSA.
Part of the project involved insulating an overhead water pipe which passed through the
maintenance garage to the bus wash area.
Plumbing portions of the project were subcontracted by Matheson to KEM Khider
Electromechanical Inc. (“KEM”), which in turn subcontracted insulating work to Komenda
Contracting Corp. (“Komenda”). On Monday, August 19, 2013 Komenda had two workers at
the project – MG and KK the brother of the company president). Both were “workers” as
defined in the OHSA. It was the first day on the job for both workers. Mr. B had been hired by
Komenda on the Friday three days previous.
On that day, August 19, Phil Lindsay was the project’s site superintendent for Matheson. Karl
Jedan was the assistant superintendent for Matheson. Both were “supervisors” as defined in the
OHSA.
Mr. B and Mr. K received an orientation from Mr. Lindsay at the site in the morning. Mr.
Lindsay informed a Ministry of Labour investigator that lockout procedures were not discussed
with the two workers. The two workers began work insulating the overhead pipes in a
mechanical room in the garage. They continued their work and followed the pipes into a large
garage space.
An overhead door in the garage was in an open position. The door, upon opening, curved along
tracks to rest over an entry bay, allowing the entry of buses into the maintenance area. The
workers continued their insulation work until they reached the open overhead door, which
blocked their progress. The workers were working from a self-propelled elevating work
platform, commonly referred to as a scissor lift. They were protected from falling by the
guardrail of the platform and the wearing of harnesses tethered to the platform.
The two workers approached Mr. Jedan shortly after 10:00 am regarding the overhead door
obstacle. They were unable to operate the door. A TTC foreman had turned the door controls
off. Mr. Lindsay had by that time left the site. The instruction from Mr. Jedan was to not touch
TTC equipment and to not go near the door, that only TTC personnel could operate mechanical
equipment, and that he (Mr. Jedan) would make arrangements with the designated TTC
Inspector. A supervisor from KEM also spoke to Mr. Jedan half an hour later about the same
issue. The KEM supervisor was told by Mr. Jedan to follow TTC policy and to find the TTC
Inspector to have the door lowered. The KEM supervisor was unable to locate the TTC
Inspector so he instructed the workers to continue working away from the door.
MOL Report to PLMHSC – Construction Sector – March 2016 Meeting
Page 9 of 14
The workers continued working on the pipe near the door. At 12:58 the door was lowered half
way by a TTC employee (not the designated TTC Inspector) at the request of the workers. The
TTC employee did not lock out the controls to the door. The TTC employee did not consult the
designated TTC Inspector about the lowering of the door or locking it out. Lock out is a means
of preventing power from being applied to a piece of equipment, thereby ensuring it cannot be
set in motion. All affected workers apply a physical lock to the prevention mechanism to ensure
no worker is endangered by movement of the equipment. Matheson was required by its contract
with the TTC to follow the TTC’s lockout procedure. The TTC’s lockout procedure required
that the TTC’s Representative authorize and carry out any lockout of any TTC equipment,
including the subject overhead door. The TTC employee who lowered the door at the workers’
request did not follow the TTC lockout procedure. Matheson Constructors, Mr. Lindsay, or Mr.
Jedan did not ensure that the TTC lockout procedure was completed.
Upon lowering of the door the scissor lift was moved into a position behind the door. At 1:04
pm a mechanic pushed a cart through the open doorway, triggering an electric eye mechanism on
the door and causing it to open. There were indications that the door may have been
malfunctioning on the day of the incident. TTC employees had observed the door close on its
own, without any control input, on a previous occasion on the day of the incident. A couple of
weeks previously, TTC workers tried to close the door with the door controls and it would not
move.
The door opened, striking the scissor lift as it rolled along the overhead track. A TTC employee
tried to stop the opening of the door at the time of the incident, but the door did not stop in time
when the “stop” button was pushed. The scissor lift was knocked over, with both workers falling
to the concrete floor some twenty feet below. Mr. B suffered blunt head trauma injuries and
died four days later as a result. He was fifty years old. Mr. K suffered broken bones in his hand
MOL Report to PLMHSC – Construction Sector – March 2016 Meeting
Page 10 of 14
Case 3
Def. #1: Solmar Homes Inc.
Def. #2: Donald Collins c.o.b. as Double D. Construction
Charges
Def. #1: Solmar Homes Inc.
1) Solmar Homes Inc., 122 Romina Dr., Concord, Ont., L4K 4Z7, on or about the 23rd day of March,
2013, at the Town of Niagara on the Lake, in the Central West Region of the Province of Ontario, did
commit the offence of failing, as a Constructor, to ensure that every part of a structure was designed and
constructed to resist all loads and forces to which it is likely to be subjected without exceeding the
allowable unit stress for each material used, contrary to s. 31(1)(a) of Ont. Reg. 213/91, at a workplace
located at York Rd., Niagara on the Lake, Ontario, contrary to s.23(1)(a) of the Occupational Health and
Safety Act, R.S.O., 1990, c.O.1, as amended.
Def. #2: Donald Collins c.o.b. as Double D. Construction
2) Donald Collins, c.o.b. as Double D. Construction, 2158 Chiefswood Rd. RR2 Oshweken, Ont., N0A 1M0, on or about
the 23rd day of March, 2013, at the Town of Niagara on the Lake, in the Central West Region of the Province of Ontario, did
commit the offence of failing, as an Employer, to ensure that every part of a structure was designed and constructed to
resist all loads and forces to which it is likely to be subjected without exceeding the allowable unit stress for each material
used, contrary to s. 31(1)(a) of Ont. Reg. 213/91, at a workplace located at York Rd, Niagara on the Lake, Ontario, contrary
to s. 25(1)(e) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O., 1990, c.O.1, as amended.
3) And further that, Donald Collins, c.o.b. as Double D. Construction, 2158 Chiefswood Rd. RR2 Oshweken, Ont., N0A
1M0, on or about the 23rd day of March, 2013, at the Town of Niagara on the Lake, in the Central West Region of the
Province of Ontario, did commit the offence of failing, as an Employer, to comply with the terms of s. 32(2)(a) of Ontario
Regulation 213/91, at a workplace located at 494 York Rd, Niagara on the Lake, Ontario, contrary to s. 25(1)(e) of the
Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O., 1990, c.O.1, as amended
4) And further that, Donald Collins, c.o.b. as Double D. Construction, 2158 Chiefswood Rd. RR2 Oshweken, Ont., N0A
1M0, on or about the 23rd day of March, 2013, at the Town of Niagara on the Lake, in the Central West Region of the
Province of Ontario, did commit the offence of failing, as an employer, to comply with the terms of s. 134(1) of Ontario
Regulation 213/91, at a workplace located at 494 York Rd, Niagara on the Lake, Ontario, contrary to s. 25(1)(e) of the
Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O.,1990, c.O.1, as amended
Conviction Information: Solmar Homes Inc.
MOL Report to PLMHSC – Construction Sector – March 2016 Meeting
Page 11 of 14
Facts in Support of Guilty Plea / Conviction
1. Solmar Homes Inc. (“Solmar”) was, at all material times a validly subsisting corporation.
2. Solmar was, at all material times, a constructor as defined by the Occupational Health & Safety Act (“OHSA”). Solmar is
a small company with approximately 20 workers and operates as a building contractor.
3. At all material times, Solmar was engaged in a project, as defined by the OHSA, in the vicinity of York Road, Niagara-On-
The-Lake, Ontario. The project consisted of constructing a façade for a sales office to be located in a proposed subdivision.
4. Solmar contracted with Donald Collins, c.o.b. as Double D. Construction, to perform framing related duties on the
project. Donald Collins was the owner and operator of Double D. Construction and the supervisor of Double D.
Construction’s employees.
5. On March 23, 2013, at the request of Solmar, Double D. Construction was asked to attend the project to increase the
size of the canopy over the front entrance to the sales office. Donald Collins assigned two workers to complete the task.
6. At approximately 1:30 p.m., the two employees of Double D. Construction were injured when the structure upon which
they were working collapsed.
7. As such, an investigation determined that Solmar failed as a constructor to ensure that every part of a structure,
specifically a temporary platform constructed by Double D. Construction, was designed and constructed to resist all loads
and forces to which it is likely to be subjected, contrary to s. 31(1)(a) of Reg. 213/91, contrary to s. 23(1) of the OHSA.
Sentencing Information
Date of Sentence: September 9, 2015
Sentence (per count): $15,000 + 25% VFS
Sentencing Information Double D Construction
Sentence (per count): $3,335 each count
MOL Report to PLMHSC – Construction Sector – March 2016 Meeting
Page 12 of 14
Section 4
Fatality & Critical Injury Year-to-Date Overview - Construction Sector
2016
1st January – 29 February 2016 2015
1st January – 28 February 2015 comparison with same time period last year
Fatalities 0 0
Critical Injuries 14 ??
* NOTE: These figures represent preliminary data, and are not to be considered official statistics from the Ministry of Labour. Official statistics will be issued quarterly
by the Program Analysis, Evaluation and Outcomes Unit of the Occupational Health and Safety Branch of the Ministry of Labour.
REPORTING MONTH: 1st – 31 January 2016 Monthly Summary Report
January 2016 Fatalities (0)
NOTE: Data are subject to change due to updates in the enforcement database. Only events reported to the ministry are included here. Except for fatalities,
event categories in the ministry’s data set are based on what was assigned at the time of the initial report to the ministry. The reported event category may
not represent what actually occurred at the workplace.
Brief Summary
NOTE: These entries are in ascending date order (i.e. 1st to 31st) not sector order. See
Section 5 for additional entry details.
By Sector
February 2016 Critical Injuries (4) (till Feb. 25
th)
NOTE: Data are subject to change due to updates in the enforcement database. Only events reported to the ministry are included here. Except for fatalities,
event categories in the ministry’s data set are based on what was assigned at the time of the initial report to the ministry. The reported event category may
not represent what actually occurred at the workplace.
By Sector • 1: Single Family Housing (RESS)
• 2 : Road Building (ROAD)
• 1: ??? (to check out )
MOL Report to PLMHSC – Construction Sector – March 2016 Meeting
Page 13 of 14
Section 5
Fatality & Critical Injury Year-to-Date Summaries*- Construction Sector
*All new entries (current month and reconciled data) appear in bold.
NOTE: Some detail will inevitably be missing from the PLMHSC Report. The document is intended to provide an initial overview, not a comprehensive report. Annual data reporting approved by the Director should be used by stakeholders if they wish to see all data available to the Ministry related to an event.
Fatalities Year-to-Date Summary: 1st
January to 29th
February 2016.
Total Year-to-Date Fatalities: 0
# Date of
Incident
Region
Sector
Age
Occupation Details
(as reported to MOL)
Critical Injuries Year-to-Date Summary: 1
st January to 29
th February 2016
Total Year-to-Date Critical Injuries: 14 [Add the additional 6 from Jan. 28 to Feb. 25 with the first two bolded]
Note: Reconciled data appears in bold
#
Date of Incident
Region
Sector
Occupation Details
(as reported to MOL)
1 05-Jan-16 Central East INST Worker Worker fell 4 metres from scaffold, sustain broken leg
2 09-Jan-16 Central East INDU Worker Worker fell while installing new commercial oven chimney. Struck head – loss of consciousness
3 14-Jan-16 Central West RESS Worker Worker fell 7 metres from scaffold, loss of consciousness & broken pelvis
4
18-Jan-16
Central East
RESS
Worker
Worker struck by material that fell of a truck, sustained
broken leg.
5
20-Jan-16
Central East
RESM
Worker
Worker jumped from malfunctioning swing stage, sustained broken leg.
6
20-Jan-16
Western
COMM
Worker Worker struck by material – loss of consciousness.
7
20-Jan-16
Eastern
RESM
Worker
Worker fell > 1 metre – broken leg and loss of
consciousness
8
21-Jan-16
Central West
RESS
Worker
Worker fell from ladder, broken leg
9 28-Jan-16 Central East RESM Worker
Worker is a plumber working on a 6ft ladder, second
rung from bottom, making his way down and he fell
backwards. Worker couldn't remember where he
landed. An investigation confirmed that he lost
consciousness.
MOL Report to PLMHSC – Construction Sector – March 2016 Meeting
Page 14 of 14
10 28-Jan-16 Hamilton BRID Worker
Worker was wearing a full body harness, tied off with
one lanyard to a fixed point at the time; worker
walked further than he could with the lanyard, lost
his balance and fell approx. 6 feet. Co-worker (health
and safety rep) drove injured worker to Joseph Brant
Hospital. IW had sustained a high ankle break
11 04-Feb-16 Toronto (W) ROAD Worker
Caller alleges worker at this site (road work) was on top
of a trailer pushing hot mix to the back of the trailer
when he missed a step and fell to the ground; caller
alleges he landed on his left arm; they drove him to
Trillium Hospital where he was advised he fractured his
left humerus; no loss of consciousness
12 10-Feb-16 Central West ROAD Worker Worker was struck by a vehicle and taken to the hospital.
IW sustained a punctured lung and several broken ribs.
13 22-Feb-16 Western RESS Worker Caller reports that a worker slipped on piece of plywood
falling approx. 7 feet sustaining a broken leg
14 23-Feb-16 Central West COMM Worker
Worker retrieving tool out of back of truck twisted and
then his back went into spasm.
Worker indicated that he was leaving because of back
pain.
When worker got to lower level and getting of elevator
worker is said to have sustained a LOC for a few
seconds.
Worker later drove home then was taken to hospital to
seek medical attention.
PMO Contractor Safety Meeting SAP IM Reports Lessons Shared
7 ZERO HARM DAY’s Feb. 2016 and 12 Year-to-Date / 2016 Target 128
2015 MOL Field Visits on Vale Ontario Operations Sites
Jan. 2016 Feb. 21016 Year-to-Date
• 10 Field Visits - 25 Field Visits - 35 YTD
• 16 Orders - 30 Orders - 46 YTD
• 11 Completed - 17 Completed - 30 YTD
2
3
Follow up on
AWP incident from
February meeting
Approximate height from floor to work location: 20 feet
Rough position of Scissor lift during the task. Actual unit was a Genie Scissor lift RT 26 (Rough terrain scissor unit with 26 foot working height) Approximately deck dimensions are: Wide: 68 inches Length: 105 inches Height of Guard rail: 40 inches
Worker’s position sitting on grey beam of door frame plus above and outside the guardrail system. Worker was wearing fall body harness and tie off to approved anchor point of AWP.
