FAQ.35

Question:

Are OAA members responsible for safety on a construction site?

Short Answer:

Yes. No. Sometimes. All the time. The primary responsibility for site safety typically lies with the constructor in accordance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA).

Expanded Answer:

Traditional thinking has been that the contractor is solely responsible for site safety. That is a far too limited perspective for several reasons.

1. It focusses only on the construction site. Under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA), if you are an employer, you are responsible for providing a safe working environment for your employees. That is not limited to your office space, but extends to anywhere your employees go as your employees. Part and parcel of this is ensuring your employees are properly trained in relation to any hazards they may encounter in performing their duties. This likely involves at least WHMIS and Working at Heights training. Depending on where they will be working (even if only sporadically or occasionally), it may also include enclosed spaces, and site specific training.
   
   
2. It focusses only on the construction phase of a project. What about when conducting an initial site walk-through with a client or their representative, possibly before there is even an official project, and long before any project goes out to tender, or performing a warranty review months after it has stopped being a construction site, and is simply an occupied building?
   
   
3. It ignores our duty of care to the public, and our status as professionals. We can’t simply turn a blind eye to safety hazards, or violations just because the contractor is in charge of site safety. Hazards, and violations should be reported to a responsible person as soon as practicable – usually a site superintendent in the first instance.
   

While the contractor is usually the constructor under OHSA, and has both legislated and contractual responsibilities, and may therefore be in control of site safety; we all share responsibility for safety.

If you haven’t seen any of the coverage, look into Ontario (Labour) v Sudbury (City) legal proceedings. It will be interesting to see what is upheld on appeal. The argument used to find the city responsible could easily be extended to Architects, Licensed Technologists OAA, and Engineers. One question is, “Does this ruling extend our responsibility and liability beyond what it was in the past?” The scary answer is that it may not.

P.S.  The clauses in CCDC 2-2020 relating to site safety have been revised from what was in CCDC 2, 2008. Any provisions in supplementary conditions or specifications should be reviewed to ensure they align with the new construction contracts from CCDC as they are issued.