Workplace Health and Safety — Ontario Employment Law
Related Keywords
About Workplace Health and Safety
In Ontario, your right to a safe and healthy workplace is not just a good idea—it's the law. The cornerstone of this protection is the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA), a comprehensive piece of legislation that outlines the duties of employers, supervisors, and workers. The OHSA is built on the principle of the 'internal responsibility system,' which means that everyone in the workplace has a role to play in ensuring safety. Employers have the primary duty to take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances to protect a worker. This includes providing information and instruction about hazards, ensuring equipment is in good condition, and maintaining safe work environments.
For workers, the OHSA grants three fundamental rights. First is the 'Right to Know' about any potential hazards you may face on the job. Second is the 'Right to Participate' in the health and safety process, often through a workplace Joint Health and Safety Committee (JHSC). Third, and perhaps most critically, is the 'Right to Refuse' work that you believe is unsafe for you or a coworker. This right is protected, and an employer cannot legally discipline, fire, or otherwise penalize you for exercising it in good faith. This is known as a 'reprisal,' and it is strictly prohibited.
It's important to understand that 'health and safety' under the OHSA extends beyond physical dangers like faulty machinery or chemical exposure. It also explicitly includes workplace violence and harassment, which are considered workplace hazards. Employers are legally required to have policies and programs in place to address these issues. If you find yourself in a situation where your safety concerns are being ignored, leading to significant negative changes in your job or even dismissal, the circumstances can become quite complex, potentially involving multiple areas of employment law. Understanding your specific rights and the correct procedures to follow is crucial, and reviewing your unique situation with a legal professional can provide essential clarity.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the main law that protects my health and safety at work in Ontario?
The primary law is the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA). It sets out the rights and duties of all parties in the workplace to ensure a safe environment.
What should I do first if I believe my work is unsafe?
You should immediately report your concern to your supervisor or employer. If the issue is not resolved and you still believe the work is unsafe, you have the right to refuse work by following the specific process outlined in the OHSA.
Can my boss fire me for reporting a safety issue or refusing unsafe work?
No. The OHSA prohibits employers from carrying out a 'reprisal' against a worker for following the law. This means they cannot dismiss, discipline, intimidate, or penalize you for exercising your health and safety rights.
Does workplace health and safety cover issues like bullying or psychological stress?
Yes, to an extent. The OHSA defines workplace harassment, which can include bullying, as a workplace hazard. Employers are required to develop and maintain programs to address it, which contributes to psychological safety.
Is there a time limit to file a complaint if I'm punished for raising a safety concern?
Yes, there are strict deadlines. If you believe you have been subject to a reprisal, you must file a complaint with the Ontario Labour Relations Board. Seeking legal advice quickly is important to ensure you don't miss these critical timelines.
What is a Joint Health and Safety Committee (JHSC)?
A JHSC is a committee of worker and management representatives who meet regularly to identify workplace hazards and make recommendations for improvement. In Ontario, most workplaces with 20 or more employees are required to have one.
My employer ignores all safety rules and I'm worried I'll be fired if I speak up. When is it time to get legal advice?
If you are in a situation where raising legitimate safety concerns puts your job at risk, or if you have already faced negative consequences, it's a critical time to consult with an employment lawyer. They can advise you on how to exercise your right to refuse unsafe work and protect yourself from illegal reprisals.
Common Scenarios
- A warehouse worker is asked to operate a forklift that has not been properly maintained and has faulty brakes.
- An office administrator is subjected to persistent verbal abuse from a manager, causing significant anxiety, but their complaints to HR are dismissed.
- A roofer is told to work without proper fall protection equipment on a high-pitched roof, directly violating OHSA regulations.
- After a retail employee reports a recurring electrical hazard to their supervisor, their hours are suddenly and drastically cut without explanation.
- A lab technician is not given adequate training or personal protective equipment (PPE) before being instructed to handle a new, potentially hazardous substance.
What You Should Know
- Document every safety concern in writing. Keep a personal record of dates, times, the specific hazard, who you reported it to, and their exact response.
- Familiarize yourself with the formal work refusal process under the OHSA. Following the correct steps is essential to protect your rights and your job.
- Do not quit your job in response to an unsafe condition without first attempting a work refusal and seeking legal advice, as resigning can affect your legal options.
- If you have been disciplined or terminated after raising a health and safety issue, contact an employment lawyer immediately to assess whether you have grounds for a reprisal complaint.
- Know who your Joint Health and Safety Committee (JHSC) representatives are. They can be a valuable resource for raising concerns and promoting a safer workplace.
Featured Cases
Morey v. C.A.T.
2022 ONSC 4621 (CanLII) · 2022-08-19Constructive Dismissal Case: No Damages Awarded
A constructive dismissal case where the plaintiff alleged changes in compensation, hours, and work conditions led to a breach of employment contract. The court found no constructive dismissal and no damages were awarded. The case also involved allegations of unsafe work and frustration of contract due to medical leave, but these were not substantiated.
Wolfman v. Rocktenn-Container Canada, L.P.
2015 ONSC 1432 (CanLII) · 2015-03-06Termination Without Cause: 16-Year Employee Awarded 16 Months Notice
A termination without cause case where a 52-year-old employee with 16 years of service was awarded 16 months' notice period based on age, service length, and job-specific skills. The plaintiff was also compensated for benefits and bonuses during the notice period and acted reasonably in mitigating damages by securing employment within 11 months.
Bellehumeur v Windsor Factory Supply Ltd.
2013 ONSC 4373 (CanLII) · 2013-08-08Termination for Just Cause: Threats and Mental Health
A case involving the termination of an employee for just cause due to threats made upon leaving the workplace. The court examined whether the employer's termination was justified, considering the balance between the employer's right to terminate for major employment offences and the duty to accommodate the employee's mental health condition. The case also addressed the employer's duty to investigate threats and comply with its own handbook policies.
Reichard v. Kuntz
2011 ONSC 7460 (CanLII) · 2011-12-15Dismissal for Cause: Managerial Employee's Romantic Relationship with Subordinate
A managerial employee was dismissed for cause after engaging in a romantic relationship with a subordinate, failing to report the relationship, and engaging in repeated dishonesty. The court must determine if the dismissal was justified, considering the impact on workplace safety and the principle of proportionality.
Rockall v. Munro Concrete Products Limited
2010 ONSC 3453 (CanLII) · 2010-06-15Wrongful Dismissal: Summary Termination and Employment Standards Act
A wrongful dismissal case where a forklift operator was summarily terminated for leaving work without completing assigned tasks. The court considered the plaintiff's claims of unsafe working conditions and procedural unfairness, as well as the employer's policies and evidence of compliance with health and safety regulations. The case also analyzed the statutory framework for notice and termination under the Employment Standards Act.
Doran v. Ontario Power Generation Inc.
2007 CanLII 49486 (ON SC) · 2007-11-16Constructive Dismissal: 24-Month Notice Awarded in Ontario Case
A constructive dismissal case where the plaintiff alleged that changes to compensation, job responsibilities, and reporting structure constituted constructive dismissal. The court applied the Farber test and found the cumulative effect of the changes to be a constructive dismissal. The plaintiff was awarded 24 months’ notice, with damages reduced by income earned during the notice period, resulting in a total award of $698,287.00.
Oliveira v. Greenspoon Brothers Ltd.
1979 CanLII 1955 (ON SC) · 1979-08-03Workmen's Compensation Jurisdiction: Employee Right to Sue Employer
A merits decision addressing whether the Workmen's Compensation Board has exclusive jurisdiction to determine if an employee can bring an action against their employer under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The case examines the applicability of Sections 15 and 74 of the Act to Schedule 1 employers and whether employee actions against employers should be stayed pending Board determination.
Re Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd. and United Steelworkers of America, Local Union 2251
1975 CanLII 330 (ON SC) · 1975-06-16Employment Termination: Arbitration Board Reinstatement Under Collective Agreement
A termination of employment case under a collective agreement, where an employee was dismissed for absence of ten consecutive working days without a reasonable excuse. The Board of arbitration found no reasonable excuse but ordered conditional reinstatement, raising questions about whether the board exceeded its jurisdiction and whether the collective agreement prohibited such a remedy.
Neumann and Young Ltd. v. O'Rourke et al.
1974 CanLII 850 (ON SC) · 1974-10-15Labour Dispute: Secondary Picketing at Public Warehouse
A labour dispute case involving members of a labour union engaged in secondary picketing at a public warehouse storing goods of a struck company. The court examined whether the picketing constituted a 'labour dispute' under the Judicature Act and whether the premises of the warehouse could be considered a 'place of business' of the struck company.
Re Parking Authority of Toronto and Toronto Civic Employees' Union Local 43, Canadian Union of Public Employees
1974 CanLII 445 (ON SC) · 1974-05-21Grievance Arbitration: 16-Year Delay and Laches Doctrine
A merits decision involving a grievance arbitration dispute under a collective agreement, where the employer argued that a 16-year delay in filing a grievance constituted laches. The arbitration board found no acquiescence or detriment to the employer and upheld its decision, which was affirmed by the court.
Regina v. Fiber & Wire Industries Ltd.
1973 CanLII 1469 (ON SC) · 1973-05-04Workplace Safety: Employer Strict Liability Under Industrial Safety Act
An appeal concerning an employer's liability under the Industrial Safety Act, 1971, for failing to ensure an employee used required eye protection while operating a grinding wheel. The court ruled that the employer's strict duty under the Act is not affected by the employee's refusal to comply with safety measures, and the appeal was allowed with the matter remitted for further disposition under strict liability principles.
Toronto Harbour Commissioners v. Sninsky et al.
1967 CanLII 326 (ON SC) · 1967-08-11Secondary Picketing Injunction: Labour Relations Case in Ontario
An interlocutory injunction was granted to restrain secondary picketing at marine terminals, which was deemed unlawful regardless of the peaceful nature of the picketing or the legality of the underlying strike. The case also involves statutory interpretation regarding the authority of the Toronto Harbour Commissioners to seek such an injunction.
Regina v. Bigelow et al., Ex parte Sefton
1965 CanLII 282 (ON SC) · 1965-01-13Collective Agreement Lunch Periods: Court Unable to Overturn Arbitration Decision
A merits decision involving the interpretation of a lunch period clause in a collective agreement. The arbitration board allowed interrupted lunch periods for day workers as long as the total time amounted to 30 minutes. The court found the interpretation unreasonable but was powerless to quash the award due to limited review powers.
General Printers Ltd. v. Thomson et al.
1964 CanLII 140 (ON SC) · 1964-09-01Contempt of Court: Labour Injunction Breach and 15-Day Sentence
A merits decision involving a contempt of court case where non-parties were found to have breached a labour injunction through acts of violence and threats during picketing. The court emphasized the importance of enforcing injunctions to protect public interest and industrial peace, and imposed a 15-day sentence for contempt.
Re Texaco Canada Ltd. and Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union, Local 16-599
1964 CanLII 127 (ON SC) · 1964-04-16Labour Arbitration: Collective Agreement Jurisdiction and Overtime Distribution
A labour arbitration case involving the interpretation of a collective agreement and the jurisdiction of an arbitration board. The case addresses whether an arbitration award can be quashed for exceeding jurisdiction or making errors in law, and whether the arbitration board misinterpreted provisions regarding overtime distribution.
Carl v. Warren
1959 CanLII 142 (ON SC) · 1959-06-12Workplace Accident: Employee Injured by Falling Tree During Tree-Felling Operation
A workplace accident case where an employee was injured by a falling tree during a tree-felling operation. The court examined the employer's duty to provide a safe system of work, the applicability of the volenti non fit injuria doctrine, and the employee's contributory negligence. The employee suffered severe injuries, including paralysis of the left arm and hand, and was awarded $15,000 in general damages, reduced by 50% due to contributory negligence.
Canadian Brotherhood of Glass Workers, Local No. 3 v. Dominion Glass Co. et al.
1944 CanLII 398 (ON SC) · 1944-02-14Collective Bargaining Certification: Delayed Filing Not a Bar to Certification
A certification of collective bargaining agency case where the applicant failed to file required documents at the time of application. The court ruled that filing during the certification proceedings satisfies statutory requirements and that jurisdiction is not lost if materials are filed during the process. A certification order was issued.
Nadeau v. City of Cobalt Mining Co.
1912 CanLII 1239 (ON SC) · 1912-04-19Employer Liability: Injury from Vicious Animal in Workplace
A workplace injury case where the plaintiff was injured by a horse owned by the employer while performing employment duties. The case addresses whether the employer is liable for injuries caused by a known dangerous animal and whether the employer failed to ensure a safe working environment.