The device of including a general duty clause requiring employers to address recognized dangers not specifically addressed in the statutes or regulations is also used in Canada.

Explanation: Under the internal responsibility system, each workplace stakeholder—which includes not just employers but supervisors, workers and even external parties like contractors and suppliers—is required to meet certain duties to keep the workplace safe. Among the responsibilities required of employers is to take necessary measures to ensure health and safety. Although worded differently, e.g., some provinces require “reasonable” or “practicable” measures, this broad duty is essentially the equivalent to the general duty clause under U.S. OSHA law.

As in the U.S., the question of what risks are covered by the general duty is decided case by case. However, the step of setting out actual criteria used by the FOM is one that no Canadian jurisdiction has taken—as far as I’m aware. (If any of you SafetyXChange members know otherwise, please let me know. glennd@bongarde.com.)

On the other hand, as we’ll see next week, the criteria set out by the FOM for determining if a hazard is recognized parallel those used by courts, prosecutors and OHS government officials in Canada to determine if a company exercised due diligence, i.e., took all reasonable steps, to prevent a risk or OHS violation.

Story Tools:  Email This Post  Print This Post Top