Top three “easy” safety mistakes 

By Jamie Alyce Jurczak

Many employers do not realize that there are a lot of simple things that they can do—or fail to do—that make it difficult to prove due diligence when an accident happens. Many of these items are easy to fix, but failing to understand them can impact the ability to demonstrate the employer understands its safety obligations.

1. Confusing the Workplace Safety and Health Division with the Workers Compensation Board

The Workplace Safety and Health Division (WSH) and the Workers Compensation Board (WCB) are two completely different entities. The WCB provides workplace injury and disability insurance for both workers and employers, largely providing compensation and rehabilitation benefits to employees who have been injured at work. WSH is the regulator responsible for enforcing safety and health rules under the Workplace Safety and Health Act (“WSHA”). It is WSH that investigates accidents and makes decisions with respect to enforcement, including prosecutions.

Many employers have a misunderstanding that they are the same thing, and as a result, fail to follow the rules with respect to both. Confusing the two, particularly with respect to reporting accidents, can lead to significant problems.

For example, I have had many clients think that they reported an accident appropriately by reporting it to the WCB, only to find themselves faced with charges for failing to report an incident under the WSHA. This is because they did not report the accident to the WSH Division in accordance with the WSHA regulations.

Note that under new legislative amendments that came into force in June 2025, a failure to report a serious incident can result in administrative fines and penalties up to $5,000, and there is always the potential for prosecution for failure to report in serious circumstances. 

2. Failing to investigate work refusals in accordance with the process set out in the legislation

When an employee exercises their right to refuse dangerous work, there is a specific process set out in Section 43(1) of the WSHA that directs how the employer addresses this. Many employers do not realize that is the case, and fail to follow this process, only to find themselves facing administrative penalties or allegations of reprisal, simply because they did not follow all the required steps in the process.

Where a worker has exercised their right to refuse dangerous work, an investigation must take place to determine a resolution between the worker and the employer. If the employer and the worker(s) are unable to agree on a resolution, and the worker is not satisfied that an employer has taken necessary steps to remedy the dangerous condition, WSH is to be contacted to investigate to determine the issue.

If it is determined there is a danger, the employer may be issued orders to correct the issue. If WSH determines there is no danger, they will explain their determination to the worker and advise that the right to refuse exercised for the job task or situation is no longer valid. If the worker continues to refuse at that time, then and only then, would it be appropriate to consider any form of discipline.

While these determinations are being made, other obligations arise under the legislation, including advising other workers who are assigned to work that there was a refusal, and how workers exercising the refusal are to be paid or otherwise reassigned to other work.

Note that under the June 2025 amendments to WSHA, “dangerous work” is confirmed to be work involving an imminent risk of serious physical or health injury where reasonable controls have not been put in place.

3. Assuming the workplace safety legislation is the same everywhere

The workplace safety and health legislation differs from province to province, across the territories, and in the federal sector. Countless times, employers have approached me with a policy or procedure that was developed in another province, assuming that it is appropriate for Manitoba, only to learn that it is missing certain items that are required under Manitoba law. Having a policy or procedure that is missing critical items as set out in WSHA may result in an inability to prove due diligence when the regulator is examining whether or not the appropriate safe work procedure was in place to prevent an accident.

Assuming the law is the same can lead to other critical mistakes being made. For example, in the federal sector under the Canada Labour Code Part II, certain “hazardous occurrences”—which include certain accidents or serious incident—are to be reported within 24 hours, while others may be reported within 72 hours, and others within 14 days. However, in Manitoba, “serious incidents” (which would include some of the federal “hazardous occurrences”) must be reported immediately and by the fastest means of communication available.

A mistake like assuming you have 24 or 72 hours—or even 14 days—to report a particular incident, which should have actually been reported immediately, can result in a finding of a failure to report. Further, as different jurisdictions define “serious incidents” differently, an employer may fail to report something that should have been reported if they are considering the wrong legislation.

It starts with understanding

Ensuring understanding of these small but important measures is a simple way for an employer to demonstrate they are aware of their obligations under the legislation and thus taking safety seriously. 

DISCLAIMER: This article is presented for informational purposes only. The views expressed are solely the author(s)’ and should not be attributed to any other party, including Taylor McCaffrey LLP. While care is taken to ensure
accuracy, before relying upon the information in this article you should seek and be guided by legal advice based on your specific circumstances. The information in this article does not constitute legal advice or solicitation and does not create
a solicitor-client relationship. Any unsolicited information sent to the author(s) cannot be considered to be
solicitor-client privileged. 

Jamie Alyce Jurczak is a Partner with Taylor McCaffrey LLP in Winnipeg, experienced in all facets of labour and employment law, as well as being a skilled civil litigator.