A review of what the environmental laws say about the costs of emergency environmental measures. We’ll also show you how the law applies in actual environmental emergencies.

Health and safety charges are being laid in increasing numbers against companies, corporate directors, supervisors and even workers. But, so far, one group has managed to stay out of the dragnet: safety coordinators. To some extent, this omission isn’t too surprising. After all, the OHS laws don’t mention safety coordinators. And, until recently, no Canadian prosecutor had successfully held one personally liable for a company’s safety violation.

As a safety coordinator, you know that if your company has a safety incident, it could be prosecuted and fined for any safety offences it committed that led to the incident. But what you may not realize is that, if the incident creates an environmental emergency—such as a major chemical spill—your company could also be forced to pay for certain costs government incurs in responding to the emergency. Liability for these costs is in addition to any fines and penalties that may be imposed on the company for committing safety and/or environmental violations that caused the emergency. And such liability can result even if the company isn’t prosecuted at all for an underlying offence in connection with the emergency. How?

WHMIS requires employers to protect their workers from the dangers posed by hazardous chemicals and substances called “controlled products.” The core of the WHMIS system is education and awareness. That is, the WHMIS requirements are designed to ensure that workers know which chemicals and substances in their workplace are dangerous, the hazards each one poses and how to protect themselves from these hazards. The employer’s responsibility is to develop a program to provide workers the WHMIS education and training they need.

The biggest headline of 2008 was the first conviction of a corporation under C-45. However, the size of a headline isn’t always the best way to judge the significance of historic events. So even though the conviction of the Québec manufacturer Transpavé for criminal negligence under C-45 is what people will remember, it’s the smaller events that didn’t make national headlines that will ultimately define the significance of the year in compliance.