Occupational Health and Safety Tribunal Canada

Decision Information

Canada Post Corporation

Collection Occupational Health and Safety Tribunal Canada
Date 1993-07-12
Neutral citation 1993 OHSTC 10
Other citations 93-010
Decision-makers Cadieux, Serge
Decision type Reasons for decision

Decision Content

CANADA LABOUR CODE Decision: 93-010

PART II

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH

 

 

Review under section 146 of the Canada Labour Code, Part II

of a direction issued by a safety officer

 

 

 

Applicant:Canada Post Corporation Cleveland Avenue Mail Facility Saskatoon, Saskatchewan Represented by: Mr. Harry Phillips Director, Safety, Ergonomics & Industrial Hygiene

 

Mis-en-Cause:Mr. Phil Wall Safety Officer Labour Canada

 

Before:Mr. Serge Cadieux Regional Safety Officer Labour Canada

 

On April 29th, 1993, safety officer Phil Wall issued a written direction to the Canada Post Corporation following an inspection of the Cleveland Avenue Mail Facility in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

 

The direction was given under subsection 145(1) of the Canada Labour Code, Part II. The safety officer was of the opinion that paragraph 125(a) of the Code and paragraph 2.9(1)(c) of the Canada Occupational Safety and Health Regulations were being contravened. Specifically, the contravention was described as follows:

 

"Every loading and unloading dock and ramp shall be fitted around its sides that are not used for loading or unloading with side rails, curbs or rolled edges of sufficient height and strength to prevent mobile equipment from running over the edge."

 

Canada Post requested a review of the direction on May 14th, 1993, fifteen days after the written direction was issued to the Corporation. Subsection 146(1) of the Code establishes a mandatory time limit of fourteen (14) days to request a review of a direction. To give the Regional Safety Officer the necessary authority to review the direction, this time limit must not have been exceeded.

 

According to the evidence submitted, the time limit has been exceeded. Mr. Phillips has confirmed that written and verbal communication with Mr. Wall, regarding a request for review of the direction, took place outside the fourteen (14) day time limit. Consequently, I find that I do not have jurisdiction to review the direction.

 

For the above reason, I hereby dismiss the request for review of the above-noted direction on the basis that it is untimely.

 

 

Decision rendered on July 12, 1993.

 

 

 

Serge Cadieux

Regional Safety Officer

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.