A time-saving shortcut bypassed the guardrail system built to protect workers — and cost an Ontario dairy employer $80,000
A time-saving shortcut at a Guelph dairy plant ended in a worker’s fall from a milk truck and an $80,000 fine for Gay Lea Foods Co-operative Limited. Some workers at the plant walked across the tops of milk trucks to reach a second sampling hatch, rather than move the gantry that was built to protect them.
The dairy processing company pleaded guilty in the Provincial Offences Court in Guelph, Ont., and was convicted on September 18, 2026. The Ministry of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development announced the outcome in a court bulletin on October 6, 2026.
Two hatches, one gantry
Milk that arrives at the plant is sampled by milk receivers before it is unloaded. These workers collect the samples from hatches on top of the milk transport trucks.
To reach the hatches, the receivers use an elevated hatch access system, which is known as a gantry. The gantry has steps and guardrails that help prevent falls.
Some workers, however, did not reposition the gantry when they needed to reach the second sampling hatch on a truck. Instead, they stepped onto the top of the truck and walked across to the hatch so that the sampling process would take less time.
One step past the guardrail
On March 23, 2025, a milk receiver stepped from the gantry onto the top of a truck. At that point, the guardrail system no longer protected the worker.
The surface of the truck was wet, and the worker slipped, fell to the floor below and was injured.
Outside Canada, a California FACE report on a 2008 fatal fall from a tank trailer at a cement plant found that a guardrailed gangway still left a gap of 24 to 36 inches (about 60 to 90 centimetres) between the guardrail and the tanker.
A conviction under the general duty
A ministry investigation found that the employer had not provided adequate information, instruction and supervision on the safe setup and operation of the gantry. Gay Lea Foods was convicted under section 25(2)(a) of Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA).
Section 85 of Ontario’s Industrial Establishments regulation requires fall protection where a worker could fall more than three metres. The court bulletin did not cite that section, and the conviction rested on the general duty to inform, instruct and supervise.
Supervision has also figured in other recent fall convictions in the province. In March 2026, Hendrik Jan Van Ginkel Construction was fined $60,000 after a worker suffered fatal injuries in a fall of about nine metres (30 feet) through roof trusses. The ministry said the company had not assigned a supervisor or held formal safety talks for the project.
Penalties in perspective
Justice of the Peace Michael Cuthbertson imposed the $80,000 fine after the company’s guilty plea, and Judy L. Chan acted for the Crown. The court also imposed a 25% victim fine surcharge, which the Provincial Offences Act requires. The amount is credited to a special provincial government fund that assists victims of crime.
Earlier this year, the same Guelph court dealt with a fatal fall from mobile equipment at another local workplace. Ralston Metal Products Limited was fined $175,000 and its worker Louie Soligo was fined $20,000 following a fall incident at their worksite. The incident occurred when a truck driver stepped from a truck bed onto an order picker’s platform and fell as the equipment moved.
Falls from equipment in other sectors
In Ontario’s mining sector, Glencore Canada Corporation was fined $120,000 after a worker fell from the rear deck of a scissor truck at its Nickel Rim South Mine in 2023. The conviction related to muck that had not been cleared before the work began, and the workers had continued the task after they noticed a missing pin on the deck’s rear railing.
Nearly 40% of critical injuries in Ontario’s mining sector in 2023 and 2024 were related to slips, trips and falls. The figure prompted a ministry compliance campaign on mounting and dismounting mobile equipment, among other hazards.
Supervision on paper is not enough
The conviction adds to a pattern of Ontario enforcement actions where inadequate supervision and instruction — rather than equipment failure — has been the determining factor. Safety leaders overseeing operations that involve elevated access equipment should review whether their safe work procedures are documented, communicated, and actively enforced on the floor.
A procedure that workers routinely bypass is, in the ministry’s view, a procedure the employer has failed to implement.
