Overview

This section includes information about possible means to achieve compliance for the listed situations. It does not represent the exhaustive measures and procedures required by the Occupational Health and Safety Act and its regulations related to the general requirements.

This resource does not replace the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) and its regulations and should not be used as or considered legal advice. Health and safety inspectors apply and enforce these laws based on the facts they find in the workplace.

Program positions being discussed relate to sections 1 to 25 and 27 of O. Reg. 213/91.

Definitions and interpretations

Interpretation of practicable

Issue:

Is the monetary impact considered when deciding what is practicable?

Position:

While the term “practicable” may factor in some cost considerations, this must not supersede the health and safety of workers.

There are instances in the regulation where “guardrails”, “handrail”, or “barrier” are specifically required, regardless of “practicability”.

In the prescriptive areas of the regulations, practicability does not apply [namely section 26.3, 77 (handrail), 135, 137, 144, 153, 208, 209, and 233 (barrier)].

Alternative methods and equivalency

Equivalency determination under section 3 of O. Reg. 213/91

Issue:

What does “equivalency” mean under section 3 of O. Reg. 213/91 for alternative methods?

Position:

Section 3 does not permit the complete substitution or replacement of one method for another, but it allows a variation on a method already permitted under the legislation. However, it is conceivable that a legislatively required procedure could be varied to accommodate, and be supplemented by, a more protective design, composition and arrangement such that the level of protection is increased.

An employer seeking to rely on the equivalency provision in the construction regulation must be able to show that:

  •  the method or methods of protection they are using represents a variation of the prescribed requirement rather than a complete replacement or substitution
  • the variation provides equal or greater protection to the health and safety of workers. (This second step in the analysis requires a careful assessment of the nature of the risk or hazard being addressed and the purpose and level of protection being substituted.) 
  • the requisite notice has been provided to the joint health and safety committee (JHSC) or health and safety (H & S) representative.

Equivalency to Canadian Standards Association (CSA) standards

Issue:

What can an inspector accept as equivalency to a National Standard of Canada, (such as CSA standard) when one is required by the regulation?

Position:

The ministry will accept a signed and sealed report from an engineer, licensed to practice in Ontario. The report must state that variation from requirements of the standard referenced in the regulation to align with the requirements of the non-National Standard of Canada (such as the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard) to which the equipment had been built provides at least equal or better protection for the worker. This would satisfy equivalency under section 3.

An employer may employ the services of an engineer licensed to practice in Ontario to confirm the equivalency of ANSI, CSA or CAN standards – where applicable.

Registration and notices

Incomplete Form 1000

Issue:

What is the Ministry of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development's position regarding religious communities that declare themselves as self-insured for injury compensation purposes and do not provide WSIB information on a Form 1000?

Position:

There is no requirement under OHSA or the construction regulation for an employer to have insurance coverage with the WSIB. The requirement for each employer to complete a Form 1000 and for the constructor to ensure it is kept at a project remains, regardless of whether the workers have WSIB coverage or not. Employers must fill out the form with the applicable information.

Form 1000 availability on the project

Issue:

Do all employers always have to keep a filled Form 1000 on the project?

Position:

The ministry will accept that suppliers and delivery personnel have their Form 1000 in their trucks. When they are on site, they can provide the form to an inspector if requested.

Form 1000 and self-employed persons

Issue:

Do self-employed persons have to keep a filled Form 1000 on the project?

Position:

Self-employed persons must complete the form, and it must be available on-site for examination by an inspector if requested. The only exception would be for short visits where self-employed persons may carry their Form 1000 with them instead of giving a copy to the constructor.

Reporting of non-prescribed incidents

Issue:

If a non-prescribed incident (incident not prescribed in paragraph 2 of subsection 4(3) of O. Reg. 420/21 occurs on a project do the notice requirements under section 53 of OHSA apply? Does subsection 4(2) of O. Reg. 420/21 apply to the contents of the written notice whether the incident is prescribed or not?

Position:

Yes. The reporting requirements under section 53 of the OHSA go beyond those incidents prescribed under paragraph 2 of subsection 4(3) of O. Reg. 420/21 and are not limited to them. O. Reg. 420/21 subsection 4(2) would apply to the contents of the written notice, regardless of whether the incident was prescribed or not.

Contact with a neutral conductor and notice of occurrence under OHSA

Issue:

Is contact with a neutral conductor a notifiable occurrence under section 53 of OHSA? 

Position:

No. Section 53 of the OHSA for notice of occurrence on a project does not apply if an “unauthorized” worker, a worker’s tool, a piece of equipment or vehicle makes contact with an overhead neutral line or an underground neutral cable because the neutral conductor is not an “energized” conductor. Hence, such notification is not a prescribed incident under subparagraph 2 IV of subsection 4(3) of O. Reg. 420/21.

Annual notice of project (NOP) or blanket NOP

Issue:

Is a blanket NOP, submitted on a yearly basis, for construction and maintenance for an industrial premise acceptable?

Position:

No, one general blanket NOP is not acceptable. All aspects of section 6 (notification) need to be specified in relation to the NOP for each individual project.

Notice requirement for hitting a hydro pole

Issue:

Does a vehicle hitting a pole constitute a prescribed incident under paragraph 2 of subsection 4(3) of O. Reg. 420/21?

Position:

No. Contact with hydro pole is not a prescribed incident under subparagraph 2iv or subparagraph 2vii of subsection 4(3) of O. Reg. 420/21. The hydro pole is not considered as energized electrical equipment or part of an electrical installation. If the energized lines supported by the pole contacted the equipment or ground or a worker was shocked or burned, then this would be a prescribed incident.

Emergency procedures

High reach rescue

Issue:

Does section 153 of O. Reg. 213/91 apply during an emergency medical evacuation?

Position:

It is the ministry’s position that during a rescue operation when construction operations have ceased, the construction regulation does not apply, and the workplace parties would not have to comply with section 153 of O. Reg. 213/91 to perform a rescue using a crane. However, a properly constructed, engineered designed rescue basket in this instance needs to be used.

Tower crane rescue plan

Issue:

Does the ministry provide advice on what should be included in a tower crane operator rescue plan?

Position:

The ministry does not provide advice on what should be included in an emergency plan.

Personal protective equipment

Protective headwear compliance

Issue:  

What type and class of hard hat complies with the protective headwear requirement of the regulation?

Position:

A Type 1, Class E hard hat (as a minimum under CSA Z94-15) complies. Since 2002, the Canadian Standards Association (CSA), under Z94-15, has recommended the use of Type 2 safety hats at construction sites but this is not required.

Inspectors use their discretion to evaluate compliance based on the hazards present, enforcing the minimum of Type 1, Class E hardhat to be worn on construction sites under subsection 22 (2).

Protective headwear exemption for religious considerations

Issue:

 Is there an exemption from wearing protective headwear on a project for religious reasons?

Position:

There is no exemption for religious reasons from wearing protective headwear on construction projects.

Protective headwear for snowmobile or all-terrain vehicle on a project

Issue: 

What are the protective headwear requirements for a snowmobile or an ATV operator on a project?

Position:

Every worker must wear protective headwear when on a project (O. Reg. 213/91, section 22). Additional requirements may be required for the protective headwear  for snowmobiles and ATVs on a project, that fall under legislation enforced by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (the Off-Road Vehicle Act, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 863 and the Highway Traffic Act, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 610).You may seek further clarification by calling the Ontario Ministry of Transportation.

Requirement to wear a life jacket

Issue: 

When is a worker required to wear a life jacket?

Position:

A worker is required to wear a life jacket or other personal flotation device when exposed to a risk of drowning on a project. This could include a situation where a worker is in water and section 27 is applicable in such an instance. It could also include a situation where a worker is at risk of falling into water and is not protected from falling by a guardrail or fall protection equipment.