Skip to Content

Client Update: Who is a constructor?

Mark Tector and Richard Jordan

The Nova Scotia Occupational Health and Safety Act (the “Act”) provides that “contractors” and “constructors” have similar, but not identical, responsibilities, with a “Constructor” having greater authority and more responsibility for the health and safety of those working “at or near a project”. Determining who is or who isn’t a “constructor” has not always been clear. However, two relatively recent decisions from the Nova Scotia Provincial Court have gone a long way in clarifying matters.

Both decisions stemmed from a September 2013 accident during the construction of a new building at Dalhousie University when an unsecured outrigger beam fell several floors and caused catastrophic injuries to a worker.

The first decision from 2016 involved the acquittal of McCarthy’s Roofing of four charges as a result of the accident: R. v. McCarthy’s Roofing Limited, 2016 NSPC 52. Stewart McKelvey provided this analysis with respect to Judge Derrick’s decision.

More recently, Aecon Construction Group was found guilty of breaching the Act and sentenced to a $35,000 fine (plus 15% victim surcharge) and a payment of $15,000 to the Nova Scotia Construction Safety Association so that they could prepare presentations regarding the proper safe assembly, disassembly, securing and storing of swing stages. Judge Lenehan’s 68-page decision found that Aecon was a constructor and it had breached the “general duty” provision of the Act, which required it to take every precaution reasonable to ensure the health and safety of a person at a workplace.

Judge Lenehan’s decision is significant for employers for two reasons:

  1. As noted above, the differences in responsibilities under the Act between a contractor and a constructor are a little unclear. Following McCarthy’s Roofing, the Aecon decision provides further guidance on how the Court will assess whether an entity is a constructor, which is defined in the Act as “a person who contracts for work on a project or who undertakes work on a project himself or herself.” Judge Lenehan explained:
    • The Court must look at the role of the alleged constructor on the project, both individually and in contrast to other persons on the project and examine their level of authority and responsibility for a project or workplace in the context of the other contractors on site.
    • Under the terms of Aecon’s contract with Dalhousie to act as Construction Manager, Aecon:
      – controlled the scheduling of work on the project;
      – monitored the progress of the work;
      – directed the work of the trade contractors and reviewed the
      latter’s performance;
      – was responsible for establishing and overseeing health and
      safety on the project.
    • There is nothing in the Act which says that there can be only one constructor on a project (a point which Judge Derrick first made in McCarthy’s Roofing).
  2. Judge Lenehan’s decision confirms that where an entity is charged with an offence under the general duty of the Act and the Crown proves that the entity has not taken every precaution reasonable in the circumstances, it has negated any due diligence defence.

Offences under the Act are strict liability offences so the defendant can generally try to establish on a balance of probabilities that it exercised due diligence. However, this was not open to Aecon because exercising “due diligence” means acting without negligence or taking all reasonable care. Therefore, the fact that the Crown had already proven that Aecon had not taken every reasonable precaution regarding the disassembly, securing and storing of the swing stage meant that Aecon could not seek to defend against the charge on the basis that it had taken all reasonable care.

What does this mean for you?

The clarification from the Court should assist employers in determining and understanding their OHS responsibilities at a workplace and on a project. Also, a key takeaway is to have a clear agreement in relation to any construction project and identification of each party’s status and responsibilities.

The foregoing is intended for general information only. If you have any questions about how this may affect your business, please contact a member of our Labour & Employment group.

Archive

Overview of labour and employment implications of the proposed Federal Budget 2025 – the “Canada Strong Budget”

BY Marina Luro & Sophie Poulos

By Marina Luro and Sophie Poulos Introduction The Canadian government has recently tabled their “Canada Strong Budget 2025” (Budget 2025)[1] – an ambitious plan to increase efficiency and cut “wasteful spending”. In large part,…

Read More

Lost in the weeds: Drafting clarity, fire losses, and marijuana exclusion clauses

BY Tipper McEwan

By Tipper McEwan The British Columbia Court of Appeal recently dealt with a marijuana exclusion in Busato v. Gore Mutual Insurance Company, 2025 BCCA 79.  Mr. Busato had a license…

Read More

Proceed with caution: Supreme Court confirms framework for assessing “Material Changes” requiring timely disclosure in Lundin Mining Corp. v Markowich

By Andrew V. Burke, Jason W.J. Woycheshyn, David F. Slipp, and Noah Archibald Take note all public companies – not all operational surprises can be quietly managed. The Supreme Court…

Read More

Building Canada Act – An Act respecting national interest projects

BY Kim Walsh & Michael O'Keefe

By Kim Walsh and Michael O’Keefe Overview The Government of Canada introduced Bill C-5, the One Canadian Economy Act, just over one month after the 2025 federal election. With Bill…

Read More

Concurrent jurisdiction: New Brunswick Court clarifies intersection of labour and human rights disputes

BY Sheila Mecking & John Morse

By Sheila Mecking and John Morse Historically, unions and employees in New Brunswick have sought to enforce an employee’s human rights through both grievance arbitration and by filing complaints with…

Read More

Canada’s 2025–2027 Immigration Plan: Initial impacts

BY Chiara Nannucci

By Chiara Nannucci On October 21, 2025, the Government of Canada released a report[1] evaluating the effectiveness of its 2025-2027 Immigration Levels Plan (the “2025 Plan”).[2] The 2025 Plan was…

Read More

Obligations for service providers: New Powers of Attorney and Personal Directives Act

BY Zach Geldert, TEP

By Zach Geldert New legislation, the Powers of Attorney and Personal Directives Act, will come into force in Prince Edward Island on November 1, 2025 (the “New Act”). Along with other…

Read More

New PEI Powers of Attorney and Personal Directives Act

BY Zach Geldert, TEP

By Zach Geldert New legislation will come into force on November 1, 2025, concerning powers of attorney and personal directives in Prince Edward Island. The new act, Powers of Attorney…

Read More

A union’s optional approach to following the law

Chad Sullivan and Meaghan MacMaster, CIPP/C, CPHR The Air Canada flight attendants’ strike, the subsequent back-to-work order, and union’s refusal to comply, have all made headlines. Now that the dust…

Read More

Setting a course: Governments signal possible commercial terms and frameworks for Nova Scotia’s first offshore wind Call for Bids

BY David Randell & James Gamblin

David Randell and James Gamblin On September 18th, the federal and Nova Scotia governments issued a joint Strategic Direction Letter (the “Direction“) to the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Energy Regulator (the…

Read More

Search Archive