A CNESST investigation found the work method failed to control a basic hazard, with fatal results
A flawed work method, not a mechanical defect, killed a foreman and seriously injured a colleague at a Montreal-area facility. The incident occurred on November 20, 2025, at SCV-Enercor in Anjou, Que.
The Commission des normes, de l'équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (CNESST) released its investigation report in late August 2026. Its finding: the method used to conduct a pressure test did not control the risk of workers being struck by the pipe under pressure.
What happened during pressure testing
Workers were conducting a pneumatic pressure test on a stainless steel pipe to verify it was leak-tight. The pipe was 25.6 feet long and weighed 618 pounds.
During the test, compressed air released suddenly. A collar fitting and a plug were ejected. The pipe was propelled forward and struck both the foreman and a co-worker. The foreman, standing around a metre from the pipe, died at the scene. The other worker sustained serious injuries.
There was no equipment failure. The CNESST concluded the method itself was the cause.
Why pneumatic pressure testing is more dangerous than hydrostatic testing
Pneumatic pressure testing uses compressed gas, not liquid, to verify the integrity of a pipe or vessel.
In Quebec, pressure equipment is regulated by the Régie du bâtiment du Québec (RBQ).
The RBQ enforces CSA B51 – Canada's national boiler, pressure vessel, and pressure piping code. Under that standard, pneumatic testing is treated as inherently more hazardous than hydrostatic testing under equivalent conditions of volume, pressure, and temperature.
The reason is stored energy. Compressed gas holds far more potential energy than liquid at the same pressure. When a fitting, plug, or collar fails during a test, that energy releases almost instantly, producing blast waves and turning components into high-speed projectiles.
A 618-pound pipe moving under that force leaves no margin for a worker standing one metre away.
What Quebec's pressure testing work method failed to control
The CNESST finding puts the failure in the planning stage, not execution. A work method for pneumatic pressure testing is only adequate if it addresses each of the following:
- accounts for the stored energy in the specific system under test
- identifies the failure trajectory of fittings, plugs, and the pipe itself
- defines mandatory exclusion zones for all workers
- requires regulatory review before testing begins in jurisdictions that mandate it
Under CSA B51, pneumatic testing requires documented justification and a formal safety procedure before work begins.
How CNESST investigations link deficient work methods to workplace deaths
CNESST investigations have repeatedly identified deficient work methods as a root cause of death across sectors. A recent CNESST investigation into a fatal Quebec floor collapse reached the same conclusion. Inadequate planning had exposed workers to a hazard the method did not control.
CNESST's investigation into an unsafe work method that killed a Quebec roof worker found the same. The method was the cause, not a lapse in the moment.
Across cases, the regulator's findings point to the same gap: a work method that does not eliminate the hazard leaves workers exposed to it.
What the Quebec coroner's inquiry found about workplace planning failures
Quebec's ongoing coroner's inquiry into four separate construction fatalities is examining how deficient planning leads to fatal outcomes across the province. The Anjou case adds pressure testing to that list.
For safety professionals managing pressure testing operations, the CNESST report raises one question. Does your current work procedure ensure no worker is ever in the path of a pressurised pipe?
