Trends in safety 2026

2025 is leading to a more interesting 2026. I can never cover everything I see, so I try to hit the high points. There is always a lot to talk about, even after doing this for twelve years. Other issues need their own article.

1. More emphasis on criminal prosecutions

In 2017, the Westray MOU was released and initially signed by police services organisations in Alberta. Other police services also signed on to the MOU over the subsequent months and years, including the RCMP. The United Steelworkers and organized labour strongly supported this initiative. This was really formalizing a framework to ensure that, where there was a serious injury or fatality in a workplace, police officers would investigate to determine whether there was any criminality in the event.

It can be said that there was a slow start, but in 2025, we saw criminal charges and convictions, along with acquittals, related to workplace incidents across Canada. Early 2025 saw the harshest sentence yet for criminal negligence related to a workplace incident, with a supervisor being sentenced to five years in prison for criminal negligence causing death in a truck crash.

Two high-profile cases were recently decided. One with a conviction and one with an acquittal. In a somewhat surprising turn, the British Columbia Supreme Court found three senior officers, including the foreman, collectively guilty of criminal negligence. The foreman was acquitted of an additional charge of manslaughter in the case. The case involved a trench collapse in Burnaby, BC, in 2012. The engineer who certified the trench admitted to unprofessional conduct and was fined prior to becoming a witness for the prosecution

In another highly anticipated case in Ontario, a supervisor was acquitted of the charge of criminal negligence in relation to the death of a young hedge trimmer in 2023. The young worker was trimming hedges when his trimmer contacted a 16,000-volt power line. The judge in the case indicated that the supervisor's conduct was not a marked and substantial departure from what a reasonable person would have done. The crown is appealing the acquittal.

We can expect more criminal prosecutions in the future as police forces and crown prosecutors become more comfortable with taking criminal cases to trial where there is a wanton and reckless disregard for the safety of employees. The court set a very high bar in cases involving criminal negligence, placing a heavy burden on the Crown.

2. Accountability seems focused at the supervisory level

I have long said that responsibility flows downward and organization and accountability flows upward. With the recent case in British Columbia, we see some senior personnel held accountable in a workplace fatality. However, criminal or civil charges tend to focus on supervisors. In the recent acquittal in the Ontario case, the company supervisor was charged. Most often, it is a supervisor who is charged. This is the case all across the country. In Newfoundland, a supervisor of a fish farm was charged in connection with a worker's death under the OHS legislation. In New Brunswick, OHS regulators charged a supervisor following a workplace fatality. In Ontario, a company owner was charged with the deaths of six employees and the serious injury of one in an explosion. The owner has already pleaded guilty to OHS offences.

The simplest explanation is that the supervisor is the most proximate to the incident and may also be making critical decisions on the ground. It is unclear when investigators will also turn their attention to those who create the environment in which supervisors and employees work. I have often commented that employees work in an environment controlled by the company. While the supervisor is the link between the employer and employees, the supervisor is also subject to the same pressures that can lead employees to make poor decisions. Some companies have a very high risk tolerance, leading to risk-taking at the work site and potentially serious consequences.

One thing that is clear is that the lack of training or claimed inexperience is not a defence for supervisors. This was an issue raised during the trial in the King case in New Brunswick, which concluded in 2023. Colin King raised the issue that he had not received any specific training from the company, and there was no safety plan in place. The judge accepted Mr. King's evidence that he had not received any training but indicated that he did not act as a reasonably prudent person and did not adhere to the directives in the act and regulations as would be expected of any reasonable site supervisor.

3. Toxic workplaces have a cost

Workplace harassment continues to be a major issue. However, it is an issue shrouded in secrecy, protected by non-disclosure agreements. It is present everywhere, from the governor general's office during the tenure of Governor General Julie Payette to the DND class action suit centered on workplace harassment and the more recent RCMP class action. It's no accident that all these are government institutions. Harassment tends to be more prevalent in government offices for a wide variety of reasons. In 2025, the city of Leduc, Alberta, paid $9.5 million to settle a class-action lawsuit over workplace sexual misconduct. This arose from an investigation conducted into harassment occurring within the City of Leduc Fire Department.

Harassment is often not taken seriously by organisations. I was personally involved in a case in which the CEO of an organization conducted investigations based on dubious evidence and even more dubious policies and ethics. The result was an embarrassing mess for the organization.

Harassment invokes a range of legal rights for both the complainant and the respondent. It is not an arena for amateurs or inexperienced individuals. A wide range of personnel become involved in these sorts of investigations, from police officers, lawyers, human resource practitioners, and safety professionals. These can be very good or very poor investigators, as their effectiveness as investigators largely depends on their experience and training. There is a frightening number of people who take a course and suddenly believe they are qualified investigators. The courts often beg to differ when someone claims to have conducted a proper investigation that adheres to the relevant legal principles and respects the parties' rights.

Harassment will continue to make the news as organizations grapple with toxic leaders who were formerly viewed as high performers. Organisations must become more proactive in handling workplace harassment, and that starts with having an appropriate process for receiving and vetting complaints, along with a clear investigative process. Disingenuous organisations often try to shield the final report and deny parties access to it, claiming it is confidential. There is certainly a lot of room for improvement on this front.

4. Fake certificates are still out there

There has long been an industry that sells fake certificates and certifications to all comers. These tend to be fake first aid, confined-space, H2S Alive certificates, and even forklift training records. A lot of people buy these certificates because they do not want to pay the cost to take these courses, which are required for a specific job or jobs. People also show up at work sites claiming to have certifications or expertise they do not have, and it often falls to supervisors to ensure that people are properly qualified.

An extreme case occurred in Barrie, Ontario, this past year. A man was operating a crane that he was not qualified or trained to operate. He had altered paperwork to make it appear as if he were qualified. His actions resulted in the death of another employee. The crane operator pleaded guilty to criminal negligence and was sentenced to a two-year conditional sentence.

5. Are fines the answer?

Ontario has joined other provinces in adding administrative penalties or fines to its toolbox. The new administrative monetary penalty regime is authorized for the Ontario Ministry of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development. There are a few details regarding what is being proposed, but other provinces do have a process in place for administrative penalties or fines issued by regulatory officers.

The effectiveness of these things all depends on how they are applied. If they are used as a deterrent and as immediate feedback, then they can be very effective. A record of fines can also be useful in any subsequent prosecutions against the company or its personnel. It is clear that Ontario does not seek to use administrative penalties as a replacement for prosecutions or regulating differently, as is the case in British Columbia.

Administrative penalties can provide regulatory officers with a more measured response to situations and a more targeted approach to violations they directly observe. However, as with the previously introduced double penalties for repeat offenders, we will have to wait and see how this plays out.

Is that all? Well, all I have room for. What do you say?