Canadian Safety Reporter - sample

March 2018

Focuses on occupational health and safety issues at a strategic level. Designed for employers, HR managers and OHS professionals, it features news, case studies on best practices and practical tips to ensure the safest possible working environment.

Issue link:

Contents of this Issue


Page 7 of 7

CSR | March 2018 | News Impossible to eliminate all risk in industry standards: Court WEBINARS Interested in learning more about safety and HR issues directly from the experts? Check out the Canada Professional Development Centre's live and on-demand webinars discussing topics such as Ontario's sexual violence and harassment plan act, chemicals in the workplace, and fall protection. Visit for more information. ©2018 Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd ISBN/ISSN: 978-0-7798-2810-4 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the written permission of the publisher (Thomson Reuters, Media Solutions, Canada). Canadian Safety Reporter is part of the Canadian HR Reporter group of publications: • Canadian HR Reporter — • Canadian Occupational Safety magazine — • Canadian Payroll Reporter — • Canadian Employment Law Today — • Canadian Labour Reporter — See for information Safety Reporter Canadian Published 12 times a year by Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. Subscription rate: $139 per year Customer Service Tel: (416) 609-3800 (Toronto) (800) 387-5164 (outside Toronto) Fax: (416) 298-5106 E-mail: Website: One Corporate Plaza 2075 Kennedy Road Toronto, Ontario, Canada M1T 3V4 Director, Media Solutions, Canada Karen Lorimer Publisher/Managing Editor Todd Humber Lead Editor Jeffrey R. Smith Marketing & Audience Development Manager Robert Symes (416) 649-9551 Circulation Co-ordinator Keith Fulford (416) 649-9585 Sales Manager Paul Burton (416) 649-9928 filled any gap that may have been left," including paramed- ics, a training pilot, and the base safety officer. Many of these po- sitions covered the functions of a base manager and there was no evidence the presence of a base manager would have changed the conditions leading to the ac- cident, said the court. In addi- tion, the court noted that "pilots as a group are very safety con- scious" and didn't need extra su- pervision. The court dismissed the third count against Ornge. Searchlights sufficient on older helicopters: Court The court also found that the helicopter involved in the crash "was equipped with a search- light that could have and should have been used during take-off." While searchlights may have been the least effective means of visual reference to the ground compared to night-vision gog- gles or the temporary improved searchlights for the new heli- copters, there was no evidence it didn't provide a means of main- taining that visual reference, said the court. However, the court noted that it had to be established whether the means Ornge provided was sufficient to ensure the safety of its employees given the potential improvements available. The court also noted that aviation in Canada is heavily regulated by Transport Canada and Ornge was in full regula- tory compliance. Night-vision goggles were not required by any regulation, the helicopter in question was certified and equipped for night flying, and both pilots met the require- ments for instrument-only fly- ing. In addition, at the time the safety manager recommended night-vision goggles, the tech- nology was "just starting to get a foothold in civilian (helicopter emergency medical service) in Canada" and was not an industry standard at the time of the crash, the court said. The court found that the introduction of night-vision goggles would be a major and expensive step for Ornge for its new fleet of helicopters, but it should have done research on the possibility — its failure to do so meant it didn't exercise due diligence in its safety obli- gations in this regard. However, this was a moot point because the crash happened with one of its older Sikorsky helicopters, and it wasn't reasonable to ex- pect Ornge to introduce a night- vision goggles program for them when they were aging and were to be eventually replaced. Addi- tionally, Ornge was in a bind with its resources and couldn't station a new helicopter in Moosonee at the time, even if it was equipped with night-vision goggles, said the court. "With respect to industry practice and standards, the in- dustry recognizes that it is im- possible to eliminate all risk; the goal is to reduce and maintain risk at an acceptable level; what is acceptable is highly variable; 'acceptable' is not equated with the optimal level of safety or least possible level of risk; and the best equipment or technology that will ensure the highest level of safety is not always provided," the court said. The court determined that Ornge was not negligent in fail- ing to provide night-vision gog- gles for the older Sikorsky he- licopter and dismissed the first two counts against the company as well. Ornge was negligent in not equipping its new helicop- ters with the technology, but it was irrelevant to this case, said the court. For more information see: • R. v. 7506406 Canada Inc. (Ornge), 2017 CarswellOnt 17694 (Ont. C. J.). Ornge < pg. 5

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Canadian Safety Reporter - sample - March 2018