FAQs: R. v. Greater Sudbury (City) and its Impact on Construction Project Owners

A landmark legal ruling is reshaping the responsibilities of construction project owners and general contractors. Explore our FAQs below and read our full whitepaper to learn what steps you must take to safeguard your organization from liability under OHSA.

1. What was the key outcome of the R. v. Greater Sudbury (City) case?

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice (SCJ) upheld the City of Greater Sudbury’s acquittal on charges related to a workplace fatality. The decision affirmed that a construction project owner, even when delegating project management to a general contractor (GC), can be considered an “employer” under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) but can still fulfil their due diligence obligations.

2. How does this case impact construction project owners in Ontario?

The case clarifies the responsibilities of project owners under OHSA. It highlights that owners have a legal obligation to act as “employers” and ensure worker safety, even when day-to-day management is delegated to a GC. However, the SCJ also outlined how owners can meet these obligations and avoid liability by implementing effective due diligence practices.

3. What constitutes due diligence for a project owner in this context?

The SCJ identified four key factors to determine an owner’s due diligence:

• Degree of control: The owner’s level of control over the workplace and workers.
• Delegation of control: Reasons for delegating control to a GC, such as lacking the expertise to manage the project safely.
• Contractor evaluation: The thoroughness of the process for selecting a qualified GC with a proven safety record.
• Monitoring and supervision: The owner’s efforts to monitor the project, address safety concerns, and ensure compliance with OHSA.

4. What specific actions did the City of Greater Sudbury take to demonstrate due diligence?

The City ceded control of the project to a qualified GC (Interpaving), selected through a rigorous evaluation process that considered their safety record and expertise. The City monitored the project through regular progress meetings, addressed public complaints, and required Interpaving employees to undergo specific safety training.

5. Can project owners still delegate responsibility for worker safety to GCs?

Yes, but delegation doesn’t absolve owners of their OHSA obligations. Owners must demonstrate they selected a competent GC, provided clear expectations for safety performance, and actively monitored the project to ensure worker safety.

6. Does this mean project owners must micromanage GCs to avoid liability?

No. The SCJ confirmed that owners can exercise due diligence without micromanaging. Effective oversight, communication, and documentation of safety procedures are crucial, but owners don’t need to assume the GC’s role.

7. How does this decision benefit both project owners and GCs?

The decision provides clarity on the roles and responsibilities of each party. Owners are encouraged to implement robust safety practices, while GCs are empowered to manage day-to-day operations knowing the owner shares the responsibility for a safe work environment.

8. What key steps should project owners take in light of this decision?

• Review and update existing safety procedures to ensure alignment with OHSA and the factors outlined by the SCJ.
• Implement a comprehensive contractor pre-qualification process focused on safety performance and qualifications.
• Develop a clear system for monitoring and documenting safety practices on project sites.
• Maintain open communication with GCs regarding safety concerns and ensure prompt resolution of any issues.

Read our full whitepaper to learn what steps you must take to safeguard your organization from liability under OHSA.

Explore ContractorXchange – Prequalification and Contractor Management Software →