Appeal period for Alberta machine shop lapses

Alberta employer Inland Machining Services Ltd. (IMS) can no longer file any appeals on the court decision finding it liable for the death of one worker back in 2019.

That’s because the 30-day period to file further appeals has expired, reported The Canadian Press (CP).

The incident happened on Aug. 16, 2019, when Hupinder Singh Ubhi, an IMS employee, was polishing a rotating workpiece that was attached to a manual lathe. Ubhi was polishing the workpiece with an emery cloth while wearing gloves and long-sleeved coveralls. 

His clothing got caught on the workpiece, and he was pulled in with great force and killed. The Lion Lathe had an emergency stop but no other safeguards at the time of the accident.

The emergency stop was not accessible to Ubhi during the accident, according to the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta. IMS had three other manual lathes on its premises at the time, which also did not have any additional safeguards. As a result of the accident, IMS was charged with breaching various provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA).

IMS faced 13 charges. Eight of the charges IMS was found guilty of were conditionally stayed.

The Court of King’s Bench of Alberta fined IMS $420,000 inclusive of a 20 per cent victim fine surcharge.

IMS had previously lost its appeal in the case.

“IMS’ evidence showed a system that left workers to their own devices, and a failure to implement any system whatsoever that might have showed due diligence,” according to the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta, dismissing the company's appeal in its entirety.

“These findings were readily available to the trial judge based on IMS' own testimony."

The company must now pay the $420,000 fine, CP ported in the article posted in Global News.

In the initial decision, trial judge Justice H.A. Lamoureux made several more findings of fact relevant to IMS’ defence of due diligence, including:

1. The workplace philosophy at IMS was laissez faire, allowing employees to make their own decisions and manage their own workplace;
2. IMS did not require or have any formal proof of Mr. Ubhi’s training as a machinist;
3. IMS did not undertake any type of hazard assessment to assess the risk of the manual lathes prior to the accident;
4. IMS did not establish any formal safety procedures, print any safety manual, or document any safety meetings for employees;
5. IMS admitted that prior to the accident their safety protocols were rudimentary; and
6. While IMS denied having no reasonable administrative controls or training for its employees, the evidence established the opposite, namely that “IMS abandoned responsibility and control of the workplace, to its employees”.

IMS offers machining, welding, fabricating, or mechanical repair services.