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.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


Generic filters

 
 

New Brunswick restricts entry of temporary foreign workers

May 12, 2020

*Last updated: May 12, 2020 (Originally published April 29, 2020) Kathleen Leighton On March 19, 2020, the Province of New Brunswick declared a state of emergency in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. On March 25,…

Read More

Returning to work: COVID-19 and mental health considerations

May 11, 2020

Murray Murphy, QC, CPHR, and Charlotte Jenkins Mental health impacts of COVID-19 The mental health impacts of COVID-19 have been, and will continue to be significant and wide-spread around the world. Individuals are continuously required…

Read More

Cautiously inching toward the new normal in Atlantic Courts

May 6, 2020

Nancy G. Rubin, QC and Erin McSorley In response to the immense public health and safety challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, Courts across the country have modified their practices and procedures. This article provides…

Read More

Newfoundland and Labrador introduces travel ban

May 4, 2020

Kathleen Leighton On March 18, 2020, Newfoundland and Labrador declared a public health emergency as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. While a declaration of public health emergency is in effect, the Chief Medical Officer…

Read More

More return to work

May 1, 2020

Brian Johnston, QC and Brittany Trafford Governments and employers are strategizing ways to open economies, businesses and services following unprecedented closures around the world.1 In Canada, each Province is taking its own approach and various…

Read More

Bringing corporate governance online: can Atlantic Canadian private issuers leverage tech solutions within the existing statutory framework? Part 1: Virtual shareholders’ meetings

May 1, 2020

Stephanie Stapleford, Andrew Burke, Mike Carver, Matthew Craig and Divya Subramanian Part 1: Virtual shareholders’ meetings The escalating COVID-19 crisis, and federal, provincial and local governments’ directives for individuals to comply with social distancing policies,…

Read More

New reporting requirements for beneficial ownership of Nova Scotia companies

April 29, 2020

Kimberly Bungay In the spring sitting of the legislature, the Nova Scotia government introduced Bill 226, which amends the Companies Act (the “Act”) to require companies incorporated under the Act to create and maintain a…

Read More

New Brunswick government suspends limitation periods and time limits applicable to ongoing proceedings

April 28, 2020

Catherine Lahey, QC, Iain Sinclair and Robert Bradley The Province of New Brunswick declared a State of Emergency on March 19, 2020 related to the COVID-19 pandemic and issued a Mandatory Order stipulating restrictions on…

Read More

Halifax lawyers create a resource for STEP Canada outlining temporary estate document signing protocols by province during the COVID19 Pandemic

April 27, 2020

Halifax Partners Richard Niedermayer, TEP, Secretary, STEP Canada, and Tim Matthews, QC, TEP, and Articled Clerk Madeleine Coats, have prepared a useful resource for STEP Canada members outlining the options in place for having estate…

Read More

Update on Newfoundland and Labrador variation of limitation periods and statutory timelines during COVID-19 pandemic

April 27, 2020

Joe Thorne In our update on April 2, 2020, Newfoundland and Labrador passes law to allow variation periods and statutory timelines during COVID-19 pandemic, we reported on Newfoundland and Labrador’s passage of the Temporary Variation…

Read More

Search Archive


Generic filters

Scroll To Top