We have been advised that fraudulent emails and faxes regarding unclaimed insurance money have been received by members of the public from a source claiming to be Aird & Berlis LLP. These communications are not from Aird & Berlis LLP. Disregard them and do not engage with the sender in any way. Please report the attempted fraud by contacting the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre.

Back to all publications
Dec 18, 2017

Bill 177 Amends Occupational Health & Safety Act

By David S. Reiter and Cynthia R. C. Sefton

While there has been a steady increase in the enforcement of health and safety violations at workplaces by the Ministry of Labour (MOL) in recent years, the Occupational Health & Safety Act (OHSA) hasn’t always kept pace.

That has now changed. Bill 177, the Stronger, Fairer Ontario Act (Budget Measures), 2017, amended the OHSA, and those amendments are now in effect. As the amendments allow for, and depend on, further changes that will be coming, it will take time until their full scope is understood. However, it is clear that there will be an immediate impact on workplaces.

  • First, the Bill overhauls the OHSA’s sentencing regime by changing fine limits that have been in place for more than a generation. Up until the amendments, the maximum fines that individuals and corporations faced were $25,000 and $500,000 respectively. Those limits have now been increased to $100,000 and $1.5M. While these changes will have to make their way through the courts, prosecutors are likely soon to start seeking proportionate increases in fines, and fines may well double or triple.
  • Second, the OHSA has always required that charges be laid within a year of the date of an incident. This also has changed. A discoverability component has been added, and charges can now be laid within a year of an inspector becoming aware of an alleged offence. While it isn’t yet clear how this will be applied, it is clear that charges can now be laid more than a year after an incident has happened. As a result, revisions may have to be made to the way in which companies conduct internal investigations, retain records and insure risks.
  • Third, employers have always had to notify the MOL of certain accidents and when certain substances are used at a workplace. However, employers’ reporting obligations have now changed. Employers now have to notify the MOL when joint health and safety committees or representatives identify potential structural inadequacies in a workplace that could be a source of danger to workers. It also appears that the regulations will be changed to include new instances in which notice from employers will be required, including accidents that do not result in critical injuries or hospitalization. These changes will likely require companies to review their internal policies and maintenance standards, and they will also likely lead to an increase in MOL scrutiny of workplaces.   

The Occupational Health & Safety Team at Aird & Berlis will be following developments related to these amendments, and future newsletters will provide further updates and analysis. 

Related Publications

Publications Article
A New Year’s Reminder From the Ministry of Labour About Workplace Violence By David S. Reiter Jan 23, 2020 Last week, the Ministry of Labour laid nine charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act against an Ontario health facility. These charges are a reminder for businesses that workplace violence continues to be a significant problem in Ontario, and they highlight why employers...
Publications Article
Recent and Significant Decisions in Employment and Labour Law By Daria (Dasha) Peregoudova Jan 23, 2020 More and more commonly, employers are offering alternatives in how they compensate their employees, such as the granting of share options and restricted share units. When faced with interpreting which of these incentives an employee is entitled to upon termination in cases where the employee has...
Publications Article
Canada (Minister Of Citizenship And Immigration) v. Vavilov: Supreme Court of Canada Revisits the Standard of Review By Matthew Helfand Jan 06, 2020 In Canada (Minister Of Citizenship And Immigration) v. Vavilov, the Supreme Court of Canada charts a new course forward for determining the standard of review that applies when a court reviews the merits of an administrative decision.