Instructions Assignment #4 In-class Writing Assignment - Report to Crown Counsel (RCC) Use the information provided...

Transcribed Image Text:

Instructions Assignment #4 In-class Writing Assignment - Report to Crown Counsel (RCC) Use the information provided below to fill out the three-page Report to Crown Counsel (RCC) form. You are the lead investigating officer for an accident that happened in Whistler, BC, at 4070 Cherry Lane, W2Y 7Y5. You are also the writer of the incident investigation report (IIR) - with investigation file number 2019-0088 that sets out the facts of the accident and that identifies the causes of that accident. The Manager of Fatal and Serious Injury Investigations approved your report, which you submitted on November 12, 2019. You are planning to attach your full report to the RCC as supporting documentation. Throughout your investigation, you relied on the expertise of WorkSafe BC engineer, Ms. Dorothy Lamour. Employers at the construction site The prime contractor for the construction of a three-storey office building in the Municipality of Whistler hired a subcontractor, Mr. Saad Fahim of Acme Construction Ltd. - 12 River Road, Richmond B.C. V7H 2N9 for the concrete and formwork (the forms that hold wet concrete in place until it sets). Mr. Fahim, in turn, hired Bloggs Engineering Ltd. to provide - Engineering drawings for the falsework (temporary framework used to support the main structure until it's strong enough to support itself) Engineering drawings for the re-shoring ("to shore" means to support or reinforce by means of "shores," usually wooden or metal beams) On-site inspection during construction of the falsework and re-shoring (vertical re-shore posts get installed between the concrete slabs or floors of a building to distribute the weight of the slabs so that they aren't overloaded) Authorization to pour concrete after confirming that the falsework and re-shoring complied with the engineering drawings Mr. Chlodovechus Bloggs is a professional engineer as defined by the Engineers and Geoscientists Act of BC. He is 46 years old - born on April 1 - and the CEO of his own engineering firm located in West Vancouver, 97 Heights Avenue, V7G 7G2. His WorkSafeBC employer ID is 654321. The WorkSafeBC industry classification for Consulting Engineering is 763037. The signed contract for engineering services is dated June 30, 2019. Writing Assignment Instructions - Assignment #4 - Report to Crown Counsel - 1 Sequence of Events / Incident Your IIR sets out the facts. Mr. Bloggs prepared engineering drawings for the following: Roof and stair formwork (signed July 10, 2019) Re-shoring to the underside of levels one and two of the building (signed July 12, 2019) On August 1, 2019, Mr. Bloggs authorized the pouring of the basement slab for the building. That concrete pour proceeded without incident. Two days later, he authorized the pouring of the level-one slab. This second concrete pour was also without incident. On August 4, the concrete and formwork contractor, Mr. Fahim, installed frames for the level-two scaffolding that were shorter than the height specified in the engineering drawings. He made up the remaining height by using screw jack extensions. As a result, the load-bearing capacity of the frames was 8,000 pounds rather than the 10,000 pounds specified in the engineering drawings. Mr. Fahim also removed one of the required frames to accommodate the slope of the roof slab. To compensate for the missing frame, he added several single shore posts. This work was completed on August 6, 2019. The next day, Mr. Bloggs and Mr. Fahim inspected the site together. Mr. Bloggs added some notes on one of the engineering drawings to show where some of the shoring had been changed from the original plan and where more shoring had to be installed. However, Mr. Bloggs did not note down all the formwork, falsework, and re-shoring that didn't conform to the engineering drawings - even though he saw those deviations and discussed them with Mr. Fahim. The formwork contractor later testified, in an interview with this investigating officer, that he had made changes to the shoring that Mr. Bloggs didn't note down. (A transcript of that interview, dated November 5, 2019, will be attached to the RCC.) Mr. Bloggs also failed to note down changes to the loadbearing capacity and the use of dimensional lumber instead of tubular cross-bracing. On August 10, Mr. Fahim spoke to Mr. Bloggs on the phone at about 8:30 a.m. and told him about the additional work he had done on the shoring. Mr. Fahim also told Mr. Bloggs that he wanted to pour concrete at the back of the level-two roof slab. Moments later, Mr. Fahim received a faxed authorization from Mr. Bloggs' West Vancouver office. The authorization had Mr. Bloggs' engineering stamp and signature on it, with the word "approved" written below the stamp. The concrete pour of the roof slab began on August 11, 2019. While it was being poured, a section of the shoring - about 20 feet wide and 80 feet long - failed, spilling 50 cubic metres of concrete onto the floor below. Four workers fell with the fresh concrete. Two of them were seriously injured: John Roberts, a concrete finisher, and Chuck Spence, a concrete labourer. The accident happened at around 10:30 a.m. Investigation findings You and the engineer employed by the Workers' Compensation Board, Ms. Lamour, arrived at the worksite two hours after the collapse to inspect the site. Ms. Lamour took photographs, which she added to her inspection report outlining her structural analysis of the falsework, formwork, and re-shoring. In her report - dated September 9, 2019 - she also assessed the completeness of the engineering drawings related to the falsework, formwork, and re-shoring. Ms. Lamour concluded that the spacing between the frames, the removal of one of the frames, and the use of shoring frames with less than 10,000-pound weight-bearing capacity led to the collapse of the shoring. Writing Assignment Instructions - Assignment #4 - Report to Crown Counsel - 2 Your investigation concluded, among other things, that the erection drawings were not as required - structurally complete. Changes to the designs shown on the erection drawings had not all been reviewed, signed, and dated by a professional engineer as required. Several changes were not reflected in the drawings. For example, the frame heights installed were different from the drawing, the spacing between the frames was not as shown on the drawing, and the actual locations of several of the single post shores were different from the drawings. Bloggs Engineering Ltd. was responsible for inspecting the concrete formwork and falsework. The opinion of the WorkSafeBC legal officer you consulted is that professional engineering companies meet the definition of employers in the Act and the Regulation. Bloggs Engineering Ltd. was ultimately in control with respect to whether the construction could proceed to the next phase of the concrete pour of the level-two roof slab. In other words, the firm was responsible for issuing an engineering certificate before the pouring of any concrete. The firm failed to ensure the issuance of an engineering certificate by a professional engineer which certified that the concrete formwork and falsework had been erected according to the latest approved engineering drawings. Mr. Bloggs knew that changes had been made to the formwork, falsework, and re-shoring. Moreover, when he made his inspection those structures hadn't yet been finished. Before approving the pouring of concrete, he failed to do a follow-up inspection. Regulatory requirements Under section 20.26 of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation, the employer must ensure that the engineering certificate contains three specific types of information: a) the area inspected b) that the formwork and falsework have been erected according to the latest approved erection drawings c) that specified re-shoring is in place No placement of concrete can occur until the "employer" ensures that a certificate contains these three pieces of information. Under section 20.17(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation, employers must ensure that any plans for formwork and falsework meet the requirements of the CSA standards for falsework and formwork. Those CSA standards require any changes to designs shown on the erection drawings to be reviewed, signed, and dated by a professional engineer to ensure that the drawings are complete. Bloggs Engineering Ltd. did not do that. Some of the changes hadn't been added to the drawings. Alleged offences You believe that your investigation provides strong evidence for three offences. First, Bloggs Engineering Ltd. failed to issue an engineering certificate to certify that the concrete formwork had been erected according to the most recently approved drawings. Second, Bloggs Engineering Ltd. failed to issue an engineering certificate to certify that the re-shoring for that structure was in place. These two violations followed from the firm's failure to inspect the concrete formwork before allowing any concrete to be poured. Third, Bloggs Engineering Ltd. failed to ensure that any changes to the erection drawings were complete as required by the CSA standards. Writing Assignment Instructions - Assignment #4 - Report to Crown Counsel - 3 All of the relevant sections of the Workers Compensation Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation including the sections that the engineering firm allegedly violated - are as follows: WCA s. 1 WCA s. 2.1 Regulations. 2.1 Regulation s. 20.26(1)(a) Regulation s. 20.26(1)(b) Regulation s. 20.26(1)(c) Regulation s. 20.17(1) From the list above, you will have to choose the ones to list in Part 4 (Alleged Offences) of the RCC. The question you will ask yourself about each of the provisions listed above is: Did Bloggs Engineering Ltd. violate this particular section of the Act or Regulation? Here are the provisions themselves - in case this helps you. WCA s. 1 "employer" includes every person having in their service under a contract of hiring or apprenticeship, written or oral, express or implied, a person engaged in work in or about an industry WCA s. 2(1) 2(1) This Part applies to all employers, as employers, and all workers in British Columbia except employers or workers exempted by order of the Board. Regulation s. 2.1 2.1 This Occupational Health and Safety Regulation applies to all employers, workers and all other persons working in or contributing to the production of any industry within the scope of Part 3 of the Workers Compensation Act. Section 20.26(1)(a)(b)(c) 20.26(1) Immediately before placement of concrete or other intended loading, the employer must ensure that the concrete formwork and falsework is inspected and an engineering certificate is issued by a professional engineer, which (a) indicates the specific areas inspected, (b) certifies that the concrete formwork and falsework has been erected in accordance with the latest approved erection drawings and supplementary instructions, and (c) certifies that specified reshoring is in place. Section 20.17(1) 20.17(1) The employer must ensure that a set of plans and specifications meeting the requirements of CSA Standard S269.1-1975, Falsework for Construction Purposes and CSA Standard CAN/CSA-S269.3-M92, Concrete Formwork is prepared for the formwork for each job and for all items of concrete work, the failure of which could cause injury. Writing Assignment Instructions - Assignment #4 - Report to Crown Counsel - 4 Part 1 Report to Crown Counsel (RCC) Lead investigating officer (print first & last name) Assignment # 5 Writing Assignment - Report to Crown Counsel (RCC) Investigation file number RCC date (yyyy-mm-dd) Signature: Incident outcome (serious injury or fatality) Worker (print first & last name) Worker's occupation Incident outcome (serious injury or fatality) Worker (print first & last name) Worker's occupation Name (print first & last name) Employer Responsible for Alleged Violations Date of birth (yyyy-mm-dd) Job title Workplace address Employer ID Industry classification Location of alleged offence Date of alleged offence (yyyy-mm-dd) Time of alleged offence a.m. p.m. Others involved - including witnesses & additional employers Name (print first & last name) Job title or role Address Name (print first & last name) Job title or role Address Writing Assignment Instructions - Assignment # 5 - Report to Crown Counsel - 1 Part 2 (5 marks) Sequence of Events facts & circumstances of the incident Part 3 (5 marks) Investigation Findings / Causes of Incident unsafe conditions, acts or procedures Writing Assignment Instructions - Assignment #5 - Report to Crown Counsel - 2 Part 4 (3 marks) Alleged Offences Statute or Regulation 1) 2) 3) Section, paragraph & sub-paragraph Part 5 (7 marks) Attachments listed chronologically from the earliest to the most recent Document title 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) Date (yyyy-mm-dd) Writing Assignment Instructions - Assignment #5 - Report to Crown Counsel - 3 Instructions Assignment #4 In-class Writing Assignment - Report to Crown Counsel (RCC) Use the information provided below to fill out the three-page Report to Crown Counsel (RCC) form. You are the lead investigating officer for an accident that happened in Whistler, BC, at 4070 Cherry Lane, W2Y 7Y5. You are also the writer of the incident investigation report (IIR) - with investigation file number 2019-0088 that sets out the facts of the accident and that identifies the causes of that accident. The Manager of Fatal and Serious Injury Investigations approved your report, which you submitted on November 12, 2019. You are planning to attach your full report to the RCC as supporting documentation. Throughout your investigation, you relied on the expertise of WorkSafe BC engineer, Ms. Dorothy Lamour. Employers at the construction site The prime contractor for the construction of a three-storey office building in the Municipality of Whistler hired a subcontractor, Mr. Saad Fahim of Acme Construction Ltd. - 12 River Road, Richmond B.C. V7H 2N9 for the concrete and formwork (the forms that hold wet concrete in place until it sets). Mr. Fahim, in turn, hired Bloggs Engineering Ltd. to provide - Engineering drawings for the falsework (temporary framework used to support the main structure until it's strong enough to support itself) Engineering drawings for the re-shoring ("to shore" means to support or reinforce by means of "shores," usually wooden or metal beams) On-site inspection during construction of the falsework and re-shoring (vertical re-shore posts get installed between the concrete slabs or floors of a building to distribute the weight of the slabs so that they aren't overloaded) Authorization to pour concrete after confirming that the falsework and re-shoring complied with the engineering drawings Mr. Chlodovechus Bloggs is a professional engineer as defined by the Engineers and Geoscientists Act of BC. He is 46 years old - born on April 1 - and the CEO of his own engineering firm located in West Vancouver, 97 Heights Avenue, V7G 7G2. His WorkSafeBC employer ID is 654321. The WorkSafeBC industry classification for Consulting Engineering is 763037. The signed contract for engineering services is dated June 30, 2019. Writing Assignment Instructions - Assignment #4 - Report to Crown Counsel - 1 Sequence of Events / Incident Your IIR sets out the facts. Mr. Bloggs prepared engineering drawings for the following: Roof and stair formwork (signed July 10, 2019) Re-shoring to the underside of levels one and two of the building (signed July 12, 2019) On August 1, 2019, Mr. Bloggs authorized the pouring of the basement slab for the building. That concrete pour proceeded without incident. Two days later, he authorized the pouring of the level-one slab. This second concrete pour was also without incident. On August 4, the concrete and formwork contractor, Mr. Fahim, installed frames for the level-two scaffolding that were shorter than the height specified in the engineering drawings. He made up the remaining height by using screw jack extensions. As a result, the load-bearing capacity of the frames was 8,000 pounds rather than the 10,000 pounds specified in the engineering drawings. Mr. Fahim also removed one of the required frames to accommodate the slope of the roof slab. To compensate for the missing frame, he added several single shore posts. This work was completed on August 6, 2019. The next day, Mr. Bloggs and Mr. Fahim inspected the site together. Mr. Bloggs added some notes on one of the engineering drawings to show where some of the shoring had been changed from the original plan and where more shoring had to be installed. However, Mr. Bloggs did not note down all the formwork, falsework, and re-shoring that didn't conform to the engineering drawings - even though he saw those deviations and discussed them with Mr. Fahim. The formwork contractor later testified, in an interview with this investigating officer, that he had made changes to the shoring that Mr. Bloggs didn't note down. (A transcript of that interview, dated November 5, 2019, will be attached to the RCC.) Mr. Bloggs also failed to note down changes to the loadbearing capacity and the use of dimensional lumber instead of tubular cross-bracing. On August 10, Mr. Fahim spoke to Mr. Bloggs on the phone at about 8:30 a.m. and told him about the additional work he had done on the shoring. Mr. Fahim also told Mr. Bloggs that he wanted to pour concrete at the back of the level-two roof slab. Moments later, Mr. Fahim received a faxed authorization from Mr. Bloggs' West Vancouver office. The authorization had Mr. Bloggs' engineering stamp and signature on it, with the word "approved" written below the stamp. The concrete pour of the roof slab began on August 11, 2019. While it was being poured, a section of the shoring - about 20 feet wide and 80 feet long - failed, spilling 50 cubic metres of concrete onto the floor below. Four workers fell with the fresh concrete. Two of them were seriously injured: John Roberts, a concrete finisher, and Chuck Spence, a concrete labourer. The accident happened at around 10:30 a.m. Investigation findings You and the engineer employed by the Workers' Compensation Board, Ms. Lamour, arrived at the worksite two hours after the collapse to inspect the site. Ms. Lamour took photographs, which she added to her inspection report outlining her structural analysis of the falsework, formwork, and re-shoring. In her report - dated September 9, 2019 - she also assessed the completeness of the engineering drawings related to the falsework, formwork, and re-shoring. Ms. Lamour concluded that the spacing between the frames, the removal of one of the frames, and the use of shoring frames with less than 10,000-pound weight-bearing capacity led to the collapse of the shoring. Writing Assignment Instructions - Assignment #4 - Report to Crown Counsel - 2 Your investigation concluded, among other things, that the erection drawings were not as required - structurally complete. Changes to the designs shown on the erection drawings had not all been reviewed, signed, and dated by a professional engineer as required. Several changes were not reflected in the drawings. For example, the frame heights installed were different from the drawing, the spacing between the frames was not as shown on the drawing, and the actual locations of several of the single post shores were different from the drawings. Bloggs Engineering Ltd. was responsible for inspecting the concrete formwork and falsework. The opinion of the WorkSafeBC legal officer you consulted is that professional engineering companies meet the definition of employers in the Act and the Regulation. Bloggs Engineering Ltd. was ultimately in control with respect to whether the construction could proceed to the next phase of the concrete pour of the level-two roof slab. In other words, the firm was responsible for issuing an engineering certificate before the pouring of any concrete. The firm failed to ensure the issuance of an engineering certificate by a professional engineer which certified that the concrete formwork and falsework had been erected according to the latest approved engineering drawings. Mr. Bloggs knew that changes had been made to the formwork, falsework, and re-shoring. Moreover, when he made his inspection those structures hadn't yet been finished. Before approving the pouring of concrete, he failed to do a follow-up inspection. Regulatory requirements Under section 20.26 of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation, the employer must ensure that the engineering certificate contains three specific types of information: a) the area inspected b) that the formwork and falsework have been erected according to the latest approved erection drawings c) that specified re-shoring is in place No placement of concrete can occur until the "employer" ensures that a certificate contains these three pieces of information. Under section 20.17(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation, employers must ensure that any plans for formwork and falsework meet the requirements of the CSA standards for falsework and formwork. Those CSA standards require any changes to designs shown on the erection drawings to be reviewed, signed, and dated by a professional engineer to ensure that the drawings are complete. Bloggs Engineering Ltd. did not do that. Some of the changes hadn't been added to the drawings. Alleged offences You believe that your investigation provides strong evidence for three offences. First, Bloggs Engineering Ltd. failed to issue an engineering certificate to certify that the concrete formwork had been erected according to the most recently approved drawings. Second, Bloggs Engineering Ltd. failed to issue an engineering certificate to certify that the re-shoring for that structure was in place. These two violations followed from the firm's failure to inspect the concrete formwork before allowing any concrete to be poured. Third, Bloggs Engineering Ltd. failed to ensure that any changes to the erection drawings were complete as required by the CSA standards. Writing Assignment Instructions - Assignment #4 - Report to Crown Counsel - 3 All of the relevant sections of the Workers Compensation Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation including the sections that the engineering firm allegedly violated - are as follows: WCA s. 1 WCA s. 2.1 Regulations. 2.1 Regulation s. 20.26(1)(a) Regulation s. 20.26(1)(b) Regulation s. 20.26(1)(c) Regulation s. 20.17(1) From the list above, you will have to choose the ones to list in Part 4 (Alleged Offences) of the RCC. The question you will ask yourself about each of the provisions listed above is: Did Bloggs Engineering Ltd. violate this particular section of the Act or Regulation? Here are the provisions themselves - in case this helps you. WCA s. 1 "employer" includes every person having in their service under a contract of hiring or apprenticeship, written or oral, express or implied, a person engaged in work in or about an industry WCA s. 2(1) 2(1) This Part applies to all employers, as employers, and all workers in British Columbia except employers or workers exempted by order of the Board. Regulation s. 2.1 2.1 This Occupational Health and Safety Regulation applies to all employers, workers and all other persons working in or contributing to the production of any industry within the scope of Part 3 of the Workers Compensation Act. Section 20.26(1)(a)(b)(c) 20.26(1) Immediately before placement of concrete or other intended loading, the employer must ensure that the concrete formwork and falsework is inspected and an engineering certificate is issued by a professional engineer, which (a) indicates the specific areas inspected, (b) certifies that the concrete formwork and falsework has been erected in accordance with the latest approved erection drawings and supplementary instructions, and (c) certifies that specified reshoring is in place. Section 20.17(1) 20.17(1) The employer must ensure that a set of plans and specifications meeting the requirements of CSA Standard S269.1-1975, Falsework for Construction Purposes and CSA Standard CAN/CSA-S269.3-M92, Concrete Formwork is prepared for the formwork for each job and for all items of concrete work, the failure of which could cause injury. Writing Assignment Instructions - Assignment #4 - Report to Crown Counsel - 4 Part 1 Report to Crown Counsel (RCC) Lead investigating officer (print first & last name) Assignment # 5 Writing Assignment - Report to Crown Counsel (RCC) Investigation file number RCC date (yyyy-mm-dd) Signature: Incident outcome (serious injury or fatality) Worker (print first & last name) Worker's occupation Incident outcome (serious injury or fatality) Worker (print first & last name) Worker's occupation Name (print first & last name) Employer Responsible for Alleged Violations Date of birth (yyyy-mm-dd) Job title Workplace address Employer ID Industry classification Location of alleged offence Date of alleged offence (yyyy-mm-dd) Time of alleged offence a.m. p.m. Others involved - including witnesses & additional employers Name (print first & last name) Job title or role Address Name (print first & last name) Job title or role Address Writing Assignment Instructions - Assignment # 5 - Report to Crown Counsel - 1 Part 2 (5 marks) Sequence of Events facts & circumstances of the incident Part 3 (5 marks) Investigation Findings / Causes of Incident unsafe conditions, acts or procedures Writing Assignment Instructions - Assignment #5 - Report to Crown Counsel - 2 Part 4 (3 marks) Alleged Offences Statute or Regulation 1) 2) 3) Section, paragraph & sub-paragraph Part 5 (7 marks) Attachments listed chronologically from the earliest to the most recent Document title 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) Date (yyyy-mm-dd) Writing Assignment Instructions - Assignment #5 - Report to Crown Counsel - 3