Roofing Company Fined Again, Director Receives Jail Sentence
Convicted: Sunny Roofing (corporation), and Dong Mo (individual/director).
Location of Workplace: Toronto (North York) residence.
Description of Offence: Workers on a job site were observed not wearing fall protection (such as harnesses or hard hats) as required by Ontario Regulation 213/91, the Construction Projects Regulation.
Date of Offence: September 25, 2016.
Date of Conviction: November 22, 2017 in Toronto's Old City Hall court by Justice of the Peace Mark Conacher; Crown Counsel Graeme Adams. The trial was held ex parte (neither defendants attended court).
- Sunny Roofing was fined a total of $56,000 for six different contraventions of the OHSA and Ontario Regulation 213/91.
- Dong Mo was sentenced to 20 days in jail for failing to take all reasonable care to ensure the company complied with the OHSA and its regulations, and the orders and requirements of an inspector.
- The court also imposed a 25-per-cent victim fine surcharge as required by the Provincial Offences Act. The surcharge is credited to a special provincial government fund to assist victims of crime.
- Responding to a complaint about unsafe roofing activity, a Ministry of Labour health and safety inspector attended at a residence in North York. The inspector noted contraventions and issued orders for the corporation to comply with safety regulations.
- Despite multiple attempts to contact the corporation and its director to ensure continuing compliance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the orders issued under its authority, the company and its director ignored the Ministry of Labour inspector, which had the effect of obstructing the performance of an inspector under the OHSA (which itself constitutes a contravention of the law).
- The company and its director have been previously convicted of violating the OHSA, in Burlington (March 2017) and in Brampton (September 2015).The violations were similar to the current convictions: failure to ensure workers used protective apparel/fall protection, and obstructing an inspector in the performance of duties.
- As in previous incidents, workers fled when they saw the inspector approaching. Attempts to contact the company and its director were ignored.