A city has won a suspension of a Ministry of Labour inspector’s decision that the city was a “constructor” under the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act on a watermain-improvement project.
The city was the “owner” of the project. It had retained, for the project, a construction company which had assumed the role of constructor under the OHSA and was carrying out the duties of constructor on the project.
The city asked the Ontario Labour Relations Board to suspend the operation of the inspector’s Order that the city was the constructor. The MOL opposed the suspension request, alleging that the city had retained a great deal of control over the project, including the timing of some of the work, and had control over the construction company and the police service (which performed some traffic control functions in connection with the project). The MOL argued that because the city had such “control”, the city should also have the duties of constructor under the OHSA.
The OLRB suspended the MOL inspector’s Order pending the outcome of the city’s appeal challenging the inspector’s decision. The OLRB decided that the safety of workers on the project would be maintained because the construction firm was an “experienced and responsible entity” which was carrying out the duties of constructor on the project. While the city may have requested and paid for the traffic control services provided by the police, it was at the construction company’s request that the city contacted the police and arranged for traffic control. The construction company “more closely resembled” the constructor on the project. Compelling the city to carry out the obligations of the constructor would cause it prejudice that it ought not to bear if it was not in fact the constructor.
City of Greater Sudbury v A Director under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, 2015 CanLII 86601 (ON LRB)
