We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
Employers who deal with Ontario Ministry of Labour inspectors
may wish to review the Ontario government's Regulator's
Code of Practice. That Code applies to MOL inspectors and
other government compliance staff, and sets out principles that the
inspectors and other compliance staff are expected to follow.
Interestingly, the Code states that government inspectors should
be "compliance-focused" rather than
"enforcement-focused", which in the context of MOL
inspectors, appears to mean focused on helping employers maintain a
safe working environment rather than focused on laying charges
against employers under the Occupational Health and Safety
Act.
The Code states that a compliance-focus requires the inspector
to "focus on the objectives of regulatory law and policy and
then consider the most innovative, efficient and effective method
of achieving compliance."
In an apparent recognition of the challenging economic climate
for many Ontario employers, particularly those in the manufacturing
industry, the Code states that government inspectors and regulators
should do their jobs in a way that "allows businesses to
better focus on increasing competitiveness and economic growth
while complying with Ontario's rules and regulations".
The Code goes on to suggest that government compliance staff,
including MOL inspectors, should classify employers into four
categories, and treat them as follows:
"For those who are in full compliance,
consider providing compliance assistance.
For situations where there is no previous history of
non-compliance, consider providing compliance assistance
as well as progressive compliance and enforcement action, where
appropriate.
For situations where there is repeated history of
non-compliance, consider using progressive compliance and
enforcement actions.
For situations where the level of risk is immediate and
serious, use your organization's appropriate
enforcement actions."
Those four categories suggest what is already commonly
understood: that employers with a history of non-compliance with
the OHSA are more likely to be charged at least in cases of
relatively minor safety violations than employers with a history of
compliance.
The Code also states that compliance staff should demonstrate
honesty and integrity, respect, objectivity, confidentiality,
knowledge and competencies.
FMC is one of Canada's leading business and litigation law
firms with more than 500 lawyers in six full-service offices
located in the country's key business centres. We focus on
providing outstanding service and value to our clients, and we
strive to excel as a workplace of choice for our people. Regardless
of where you choose to do business in Canada, our strong team of
professionals possess knowledge and expertise on regional, national
and cross-border matters. FMC's well-earned reputation for
consistently delivering the highest quality legal services and
counsel to our clients is complemented by an ongoing commitment to
diversity and inclusion to broaden our insight and perspective on
our clients' needs. Visit:
www.fmc-law.com
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The Federal Court of Appeal recently weighed in to reconcile competing tests on the proper way to determine whether an individual is a contractor or truly an employee.
A discussion on a recent decision of the Federal Court of Appeal, which confirms that the central question is, whether the person is performing the services as his own business, on his own account.
Back in July 2012, we covered "PVYW v Comcare" (No 2), [2012] FCA 395, which concerned an employee in the HR department of an Australian government agency who was injured on a work-related trip to a country town in New South Wales.
The employee, Ashworth, alleged that the manager demanded that she close the door and then positioned herself in front of the closed door and started screaming and pointing her finger in the employee’s face.
Some organizations subscribe to the close your eyes and think good thoughts school of drafting, when it comes to non-competition agreements in employment contracts.
A discussion on the judicial decision in a recent case, where a BC employer has successfully defended a claim for constructive dismissal despite taking away supervisory duties and moving the employee from an office to a cubicle.
