An investigation decided that Steed and Evans Ltd. did not place ample warning indicators of limitations to guard a employee
NEWS RELEASE
ONTARIO MINISTRY OF LABOUR, IMMIGRATION, TRAINING AND SKILLS DEVELOPMENT
*************************
Convicted: Steed and Evans Ltd., 3000 Ament Line, St. Jacobs, Ontario, a civil infrastructure and materials provide firm.
Location of Office: A building mission at Elliott Avenue and Harpin Method in Fergus, Ontario.
Description of Offence: A employee was critically injured after being struck by a automobile whereas performing sewer chamber work on a roadway. By failing to place ample warning indicators or limitations to guard the employee, Steed and Evans Ltd. failed to make sure that the measures and procedures as prescribed by part 67(4) of Ontario Regulation 213/91 had been carried out on the office, opposite to part 25(1)(c) of the Occupational Well being and Security Act.
Date of Offence: June 10, 2022
Date of Conviction: Nov. 15, 2024
Penalty Imposed:
Following a responsible plea within the Provincial Offences Courtroom in Guelph, Steed and Evans Ltd. was fined $70,000 by magistrate Michael Cuthbertson; Crown Counsel was Katie Krafchick.
The courtroom additionally imposed a 25 per cent sufferer high quality surcharge as required by the Provincial Offences Act. The surcharge is credited to a particular provincial authorities fund to help victims of crime.
Background:
On June 10, 2022, a employee was parging beforehand put in sewer chambers in the course of a roadway. This concerned reaching into the sewer chamber and making use of a coat of blended cement to the within collar of the chamber to fill in gaps and cracks.
Because the employee carried out this job on the bottom beside the sewer chamber, one other employee drove by way of the realm and struck the primary employee, inflicting crucial accidents.
On the time of the incident, the employee on the bottom was sporting a excessive visibility vest and was performing the duty alone. There have been no site visitors management measures in place across the employee, or any limitations or warning indicators across the workspace.
The highway the place the work was going down was an unassumed highway and was not open to public site visitors, however it was nonetheless accessible to vehicular site visitors and was often used for building automobiles and gear.
A Ministry of Labour, Immigration, Coaching and Expertise Improvement investigation decided that Steed and Evans Ltd. did not place ample warning indicators or limitations to guard a employee performing work on a roadway.
Steed and Evans Ltd. failed to make sure that the measures and procedures as prescribed by part 67(4) of Ontario Regulation 213/91 had been carried out on the office, opposite to part 25(1)(c) of the Occupational Well being and Security Act.
*************************
