Recently, our firm represented an employer facing multiple OHS charges in Alberta following a workplace incident. One of these charges, Count 1, alleged that the employer failed to ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable the health and safety of a worker, contrary to s. 3(1)(A)(I) of the OHS Act.
On its face, the charge did not identify any specific “reasonable step” that the employer allegedly failed to take. Under the law, particularly following the guidance in the 2018 Court of Appeal’s decision in Precision, charges under the general duty provisions of the OHS Act must be sufficiently particularized: the Crown must clearly identify what step the employer could have taken to prevent the hazard from manifesting. Simply stating that “an accident occurred” or that the employer “failed to ensure the worker’s safety” is insufficient.
Yet - here we were in 2025 - with the Crown continuing to lay and rely on such charges.
So what did we do?
Filed an application, of course. Not for particulars, but to strike the count. Specifically, we argued that the Count was defective and non-compliant with the principles set out in Precision, because it did not disclose the alleged offence in a way that allowed the employer to understand the case to meet. In other words, it provided no particulars of what the reasonable step was (and which the Crown was required to prove), leaving the employer unable to tailor a defence.
The outcome?
Immediately after filing our application, the Crown withdrew Count 1, recognizing that it did not meet the requirements under the Act or Precision.
This result highlights the importance of carefully reviewing OHS charges. Charges must:
Clearly identify the alleged breach
Articulate the reasonable steps that were allegedly omitted
Allow the employer to mount an informed defence
Count 1’s withdrawal is a reminder that employers are not insurers of workplace safety, and that the law requires clarity and precision in prosecuting alleged OHS violations.