Consultant had no authority over contractors; didn't represent site owner
The Nova Scotia Labour Board has set aside two compliance orders and an administrative penalty issued a safety consulting firm following an incident at a Halifax construction site.
Bridge Safety Limited is a workplace health and safety consulting firm owned and operated by a single individual. Bridge was hired by a company called BANC Investments to be a health and safety consultant at a construction site it owned called The Elevation on Robie.
Bridge’s owner didn’t have an office onsite. He was retained to perform general site inspections every two weeks, co-ordinate the safety committed, conduct investigation, and provide consulting services to BANC. He could point out safety issues to the contractors, but he had no authority to direct, instruct, or discipline them.
Bridge’s owner developed a safety plan for the site, although it wasn’t implemented and each contractor was responsible for their own safety plan under BANC’s general construction health and safety policy. Bridge’s safety plan was drafted because BANC intended to use swing stages in the elevator shaft at the site but ultimately changed its plans.
Bridge’s owner recommended that BANC hire a safety co-ordinator as indicated in the safety plan, but BANC relied on him to fulfil some of the duties.
Workplace hazard
On April 17, 2024, an unsecured swing stage wire was lifted by wind near a power line, transmitting 25,000 volts through staging equipment. There were no injuries, but the incident prompted an investigation under the Nova Scotia Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA).
The province’s Director of Occupational Health and Safety issues several compliance orders against BANC and several contractors at the site. Bridge also received two compliance orders alleging that it filed to enforce BANC’s safety plan as the safety consultant and representative of BANC on the site, and it failed to provide safe job procedures to the swing stage trades and ensure standards with respect to the coiling of the wire were in place. Both alleged breaches were related to s. 20 of the OHSA.
Bridge appealed the compliance orders, arguing that the swing stage wire wasn’t under its authority and it had a limited role and responsibility at the worksite.
Safety consulting services
The board found that while Bridge provided safety consulting services to BANC at the worksite - including random site inspections and policy reviews – as an independent contractor, there was insufficient evidence to conclude that Bridge bore responsibility for securing or inspecting the swing stage wire. The board found that Bridge’s retainer with BANC limited its role to periodic inspections and safety consultations, and it didn’t include authority over site operations or enforcement capabilities – meaning it wasn’t acting as a representative of BANC at the site. In addition, Bridge’s safety plan wasn’t implemented at the site, and BANC’s policy was the one that was followed, the board said.
“[Bridge’s owner] was not supervising the work of trades... his function is of quality control... attending safety committee meetings and conducting random general inspections of the entire worksite,” said the board.
The board also determined that Bridge’s role as a provider of occupational health and safety services under s. 20 of the OHSA didn’t impose liability unless any harm resulted directly from the Bridge’s activities. There was no evidence that Bridge had knowledge of or failed to act upon the unsecured cable prior to the incident, and Bridge’s owner was at home at the time of the incident, said the board, adding that although Bridge’s owner had general knowledge of swing stages, he wasn’t retained to inspect swing stages and they didn’t fall within the scope of his retainer.
Furthermore, the Board found that the Director’s interpretation of s. 20 could result in disproportionate liability for safety consultants and could discourage professionals from accepting such roles due to risk of overextension of responsibility.
The board determined that Bridge had fulfilled its contractual and statutory obligations under the OHSA, and there was no legal basis for the compliance orders or penalty. The appeal was allowed and the compliance orders, along with their accompanying administrative penalty, were set aside. See Bridge Safety Ltd. (Re), 2025 NSLB 70.
