Builder’s “good faith” return to site during active SWO draws $1,000 penalty upheld on appeal
Alberta’s labour board dismisses a construction firm’s appeal of a $1,000 penalty for breaching a stop work order, Vice-Chair Wassila Semaine rules November 10, 2026.
PrimeFrame Construction Inc. appealed the administrative penalty issued by Alberta Occupational Health and Safety on November 25, 2025, for contravening section 139(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Code (PrimeFrame Construction Inc. v Occupational Health and Safety, 2026 ABOHSAB 21). The penalty followed an inspection of a residential construction site in Calgary where an OHS officer found workers framing a two-storey dwelling at a roof edge height of 6.48 metres with no fall protection plan and no guardrail protection for work above three metres.
The officer issued a stop work order halting all work at heights over three metres along with seven additional compliance orders. The stop work order stated that work was stopped “until such time as the Stop Work Order is lifted by the OHS Officer or their designate.”
One email, no answer, back to work
The company’s representative emailed the officer on November 10, 2025, stating all orders had been completed and asking when the stop work order would be lifted. The officer was unavailable until November 16, and an automatic email reply directed the sender to the OHS Contact Center with a phone number provided.
The company did not contact the OHS Contact Center or any other OHS officers. Instead, it returned to the site and completed the remaining work while the stop work order remained active. When the officer contacted the company on November 17, 2025, it confirmed it had finished the job despite the order.
The officer conducted a re-inspection that day and verified the work had been completed during the stop work order period. The officer could not validate that workers had been protected from fall hazards while that work was carried out. The company also had not yet demonstrated compliance with one order requiring proof that all workers were trained in fall protection systems, though it completed approved in-class training after being advised its online course did not meet regulatory requirements.
“Not up to the party” to decide
The company argued it had acted in good faith, made reasonable efforts to reach the officer, and faced incoming heavy snowfall that risked site deterioration. It submitted that no hazardous work was performed during the brief return and all safety measures were in place. It also contended the $1,000 penalty was disproportionate given its first-time status, immediate corrective action, and full cooperation.
The appeal body rejected these arguments. The board found that “it is not up to the party subject to an SWO to self-determine when it can proceed with work, based on its unilateral reasoning and perceived need to get the work done notwithstanding.” The board also noted the company never explained why it did not contact the OHS Contact Center when the officer was unavailable.
On the company’s claim that its non-compliance was unintentional, the board found the evidence did not support that contention, as proceeding despite the stop work order “appears to have been a deliberate choice.” Even if it had been unintentional, the board noted that unintentionally breaching the OHS regime is not a mitigating factor where finding a breach does not require intentionality.
A restrained amount, a clear message
The board found the $1,000 penalty reasonable given that administrative penalties under the Occupational Health and Safety Act can reach $10,000 per contravention per day. The officer had considered that the company had no history of non-compliance and had not demonstrated an unwillingness to comply. However, the board observed that the OHS regime contemplates penalties for a single first offence and that cooperating with an OHS investigation is a statutory obligation rather than a mitigating factor.
The company’s argument that no risk or harm resulted from the work carried out during the stop work order drew pointed comment. Rather than being mitigating, the board found those arguments “suggest a lack of acknowledgment of the seriousness of contravening a live OHS issued SWO and a lack of appreciation that the SWO was put in place to address a dangerous work situation.”
The appeal body dismissed the appeal and the company’s request to introduce new evidence consisting of first aid and CPR training certificates, finding they were “not relevant to the basis for the AP issuance” and “would not make a material difference to the Appellant’s challenge of the AP.”
