Canadian OHS statutes do not read like a code of practice, and that is deliberate. They assign duties by role and then give workers three rights — to know, to participate and to refuse — so that the workplace corrects itself without an inspector present. That architecture is the internal responsibility system, and it explains why the acts are short on prescription and long on “every precaution reasonable in the circumstances”.
What it means in practice
- Responsibility is proportional to authority, and it is not transferable. A supervisor’s duty does not lift the employer’s; a worker’s duty to follow procedure does not dilute either.
- The three rights are the mechanism, not a slogan. Information about hazards, a joint committee or representative through which to participate, and a protected right to refuse dangerous work. Remove one and the system stops functioning as designed.
- The regulator audits the system. An inspection is as much about whether the internal machinery is running — committee minutes, hazard reporting, corrective action — as about the guard that was missing.
- It is the frame for a due diligence defence. Showing that the system worked, and that you resourced and supervised it, is the evidence a court looks for.
What it is not
It is not self-regulation. Duties are statutory, orders are enforceable and prosecutions happen. The internal system is where compliance is produced; it is not a substitute for the rules.
It is not a document. There is no “IRS policy” to write. It is visible in whether a worker who reports a hazard gets an answer, and in how quickly.
And it is not a shared duty in the European sense. France, Spain and Italy concentrate the obligation on the employer, with worker representatives consulted rather than co-responsible. Translating a Canadian responsibility matrix into a French organisation chart produces roles the Code du travail does not recognise — and leaves the employer’s own obligation looking delegated when it never can be.