Charges laid in trench-collapse death of Edmonton worker last year

Two businesses and an individualare facing charges more than a year after anEdmonton labourer was killed on the job.

OccupationalHealth and Safety (OHS) confirmed to CBC News Monday that itlaid 21 charges againstthree parties: Haya Homes Ltd., Sahib Contracting Inc. and SukhwinderNagra.

• Prospects grim as Edmonton rescuers work to free buried man
• Fatality probe underway after worker buried in sewer trench

On April 28, 2015, the 55-year-old man had been working with a backhoe operator, digging a trench near 107th Avenue and 124th Street. He was working to connect a new sewer line to a nearby home.

The southwall of the trench collapsed, trapping the man for hours. Firefighters worked to free the man, but he was pronounced dead at 5 a.m. the next day.

According to a release,Sahib Contracting Inc., the employer, is facing seven charges, including:

• Failure to ensure as far as it was reasonably practicable to do so, the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of that employer.
• Failure to ensure that if work is to be done that may endanger a worker, to wit: excavation work, that the work is done by a worker competent to do the work.
• Failure to assess the work site and identify existing or potential hazards before work began at the work site.

Haya Homes Ltd., the prime contractor, is facing six charges, including:

• Failure to ensure, as far as reasonably practicable to do so, that the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the regulations and the adopted Code were complied with in respect of that work site.
• Failure to ensure, as far as reasonably practicable, that Sahib Contracting Inc. was competent to excavate in accordance with Part 32 of the OHS Code.

Sukhwinder Nagra, who was a supervisor for Sahib Contracting Inc.,is facing eight charges, including:

• Failure to take reasonable care to protect the health and safety of another worker present while he was working.
• Performing work that may endanger the worker or others when he was not competent to perform that work.
• Failure to ensure, as far as it was reasonably practicable to do so, the health and safety of a worker engaged in the work of that employer.

None of theallegations have been proven in court. The first court date for thecase issetfor Nov. 2.