b'The court found that although the City did conduct quality control inspections to see that contractual requirements were being satisfied, its inspections did not constitute control over the workplace and the workers on it.grader. A Ministry 2 investigationworkplaceortheworkers concludedthat,contrarythere; (ii) whether the ac-totherequirementsofthecused delegated control to OHSAsConstructionProjectsthe constructor in an effort Regulation,therewasnofenceto overcome its own lack of to separate the construction workskill,knowledgeorexper-from the public and no signallertise to complete the proj-present.TheMinistrychargedect in compliance with the both Interpaving and the City asRegulation;(iii)whether employersundertheOHSA.theaccusedtookstepsto Interpavingpledguiltytotheevaluatetheconstructors charges before trial. abilitytoensurecompli-ancewiththeRegulation Earlier Debate Aboutbefore deciding to contract Whether the City Was anforitsservices;and(iv) Employer whether the accused effec-tivelymonitoredandsu-The trial judge found the Citypervisedtheconstructors was an owner of the project butwork on the project to en-notanemployer,essentiallybe- sure that the prescriptions causeitwouldbeunreasonablein the Regulation were car-to require an owner (the City) toried out in the workplace.be responsible for workers hired byaconstructor(Interpaving)New Decision on when the City has no control overLiabilitythoseworkers. Fast forward and the ques-TheCrownsuccessfullyap- tion of whether the City was, pealed that issue to the Court ofinfact,dulydiligent,wound Appeal for Ontario, which foundits way back to court. Assess-the City to be an employer. Theingthefactorsidentifiedby SupremeCourtofCanadaup- the Supreme Court, the Supe-held the decision of the Court ofrior Court agreed with the trial Appeal applying a belt and brac- judge that the City had been es approach. 3 Specifically, that induly diligent and, as such, was order to protect health and safetynot guilty of any offence under intheworkplace,theOHSAthe OHSA.placesoverlappingresponsibilityControloverthework-onvariousworkplaceactors.Asplaceanddelegation:The such, a project owner will be anCrownarguedtheCityhad employer for the purpose of thecontrolovertheworkplace OHSA if it employs workers on ain a variety of ways. The court siteor contracts for the servicedisagreed and found the City of workers on the site, regard- did not have control over the less of control over the workers. workplaceandhaddelegated Thisinterpretationiscon- control to Interpaving.sistentwiththeplainlanguageFirst, the Crown argued the definition of employer under theCityhadinspectorsonsite, OHSA,whichdoesnotimportoverseeingtheproject.The arequirementofcontrol. Thatcourtfoundthatalthough said,thedegreeofcontrolmaytheCitydidconductquality berelevanttoaduediligencecontrol inspections to see that defence. 4Withinthiscontext,contractual requirements were fourjudgesoftheSupremebeing satisfied, its inspections Courtidentifiedthefollowingdid not constitute control over non-exhaustiveconsiderationsthe workplace and the workers regardingwhetheranowner/ on it.employer exercised due diligence: The Crown noted the City Relevantconsiderationswasresponsibleforarranging mayinclude,butarenotfor paid duty police officers to limitedto,(i)theaccusedsdirect traffic. The court reject-degreeofcontrolovertheed that argument on the basis ORN THE ONLY SOURCE FOR PROFESSIONAL ICI ROOFING CONTRACTORS IN ONTARIO ONTARIO ROOFING NEWSISSUE 3 202419'