A cross-industry look at the ten OHS violations that show up most often in Canadian workplace inspections and audits, and what employers in Alberta, BC, Saskatchewan and Manitoba can do to close them before they become orders or non-conformances.
Most Canadian OHS violations are not exotic. Officers and auditors see the same dozen or so gaps over and over, across warehouses, manufacturing plants, oilfield service yards, agriculture operations, transportation companies and offices that send crews into the field. The problem is rarely a lack of safety culture on paper. It is a gap between what the program says and what actually happens on a Tuesday afternoon when a worker is under a deadline.
This list is deliberately general industry, not construction-specific. It draws on the violation and non-conformance patterns that show up repeatedly during provincial OHS inspections and during COR and SECOR audits across Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. If you run a shop, a plant, a fleet, or a service business with field crews, these are the gaps worth checking before someone else finds them.
What Counts as a Violation Here
Each province enforces its own legislation. Alberta's OHS Act, OHS Code and OHS Regulation are enforced by Alberta OHS officers. British Columbia's Occupational Health and Safety Regulation is enforced by WorkSafeBC. Saskatchewan's OHS Act is enforced jointly by the Ministry of Labour Relations and Workplace Safety and WorkSafe Saskatchewan. Manitoba's Workplace Safety and Health Act is enforced by the Workplace Safety and Health branch. A violation can mean a written order, a stop-work order, a ticket, or, if you are pursuing certification, a non-conformance flagged during a COR or SECOR audit through your provincial certifying partner, such as ACSA, Energy Safety Canada, or AASP in Alberta.
The 10 Most Common Violations Across Industries
- Missing or incomplete Field Level Hazard Assessments (FLHAs). Workers start a task without a documented on-site hazard assessment, or the FLHA gets filled out after the work is already done, as a formality rather than a planning tool.
- PPE non-compliance. PPE is not provided, not worn correctly, not matched to the actual hazard (the wrong glove class for a chemical, safety glasses instead of a face shield), or respiratory protection is used without fit testing.
- Hazardous energy control (lockout/tagout) gaps. No written isolation procedure exists for a specific piece of equipment, a worker uses a personal padlock without a documented lockout procedure behind it, or isolation points are not verified before maintenance begins.
- Supervisors without documented competency. A worker is put in a supervisory role without training on their legislated duties, and cannot explain, when asked, what those duties actually are.
- WHMIS 2015 gaps. Safety Data Sheets are missing or out of date, secondary containers are unlabelled, or workers have never received site-specific WHMIS training for the products they actually handle.
- A health and safety program that exists on paper but not in practice. The binder describes a program workers cannot describe back, and daily practice does not match what is written.
- Incident investigation and reporting failures. Near misses go unrecorded, root causes are not identified, or serious incidents are not reported to the regulator within the required timeline.
- Confined space entry without a permit system. No atmospheric testing, no attendant, and no rescue plan for tanks, pits, vessels, or other spaces that meet the legal definition of confined.
- Violence and harassment prevention gaps. No written policy, no risk assessment, and no process for a worker to report an incident without going through the person they are reporting.
- Working alone without a check-in procedure. Isolated workers, night shift staff, remote site crews, or single-person service calls operate without a documented monitoring or check-in system.
Where the Paperwork Breaks Down
Items 1, 4, 5 and 6 all come back to documentation that does not match daily practice. Hazard assessments, supervisor training records, WHMIS training logs and the written safety program are the first things a regulator or auditor asks to see, and the first place inconsistency shows up. A program built for a binder review rather than daily use tends to fail exactly when it matters, during an incident investigation or a COR audit.
The fix is not more paperwork. It is a program that field crews can actually describe, built around the hazards they actually face. A safety manual that reflects the real operation, not a generic template swapped in from another industry, holds up far better under review.
Where Physical Controls Get Missed
Items 2, 3 and 8 are physical controls that get skipped under time pressure. Lockout and confined space entry both require a documented procedure and a moment where someone stops to follow it, which is exactly what gets compressed when a job runs long. PPE gaps are often less about availability and more about fit testing, glove and eyewear selection for the specific task, and whether supervisors correct non-compliance in the moment or let it slide.
These are also the violations most likely to result in a stop-work order rather than a written warning, because they carry immediate risk of serious injury. They are worth auditing on their own, separate from the paperwork review.
Where People and Process Break Down
Items 7, 9 and 10 involve process gaps that only surface after something goes wrong, which is exactly why they get missed. An incident reporting process that nobody uses for near misses will not suddenly work for a serious injury. A violence and harassment policy that exists but has no confidential reporting path will not get used by the person who needs it. A working-alone program without an actual check-in schedule is not a program, it is a policy statement.
If a supervisor cannot explain, in their own words, why a specific FLHA changed the plan for a task that day, an OHS officer or auditor will notice before you do.
Turning This Into a Prevention Plan
COR and SECOR audits exist to catch most of this list before a regulator does. Alberta's WCB Partnerships in Injury Reduction program pays employers who maintain COR or SECOR the highest of three rates, 5 percent for maintaining certification (10 percent in the first certified year), up to 20 percent for improved safety performance, or up to 20 percent for below-average claim costs, capped at 20 percent overall. British Columbia pays 10 percent of base assessment premiums per classification unit under COR, with a minimum incentive of the lesser of $1,000 or 75 percent of premiums paid. Manitoba's WCB Prevention Rebate pays 15 percent of premium or $3,000, whichever is greater, capped at 50 percent of premium. Saskatchewan does not have a direct COR-linked rebate, though certification still supports experience rating.
If you supply to larger operators, these same ten items are usually what shows up as an open item on ISNetworld, ComplyWorks, Avetta or CanQual prequalification reviews. Digital form platforms like SiteDocs create a timestamped record of FLHAs, inspections and check-ins that is far harder to dispute than a paper form filled out at the end of the week.
On-Track Safety Solutions has worked with employers across Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba since 2008 to close these gaps before they become orders, non-conformances, or claims. If you want a second set of eyes on where your program stands, reach out through our contact page.