This is an application under section $61(7)$ of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, R$.$S$.$O$.1990,$ c$.$ O$\mathrm{.}1,$ as amended $($the $$Act$)$ seeking the suspension of Orders No$.1$ to $8$ issued by Inspector Sue Clouse$-$Jensen in Field Visit No$.03631$FKZP$281$ on June $7,2012.$ The application to suspend Orders No$.1$ to $8($the Orders$)$ has been assigned Board File No$.1272-12-$HS$.$ An individual employed by Steam Whistle Brewing $($Steam Whistle$)$ has also filed an appeal of the Orders which has been assigned Board File No$.1107-12-$HS$.$ This decision deals only with the suspension request.

$2.$ For the purpose of this suspension request, there does not seem to be any dispute with respect to the underlying facts. On May $11,2012,$ Ms$.$ Clouse$-$Jensen, a Ministry of Labour ergonomist, accompanied a male delivery driver employed by Steam Whistle Brewing on a delivery route through downtown Toronto. During the course of that field visit, Ms$.$ Clouse$-$Jensen observed the following over the course of seven separate deliveries made by the driver that day:

$($a$)$ just under $4,000$ pounds of product were loaded into the delivery vehicle. The delivery driver advised that typical loads during the summer season are $4,500$ pounds;

$($b$)$ the load included $17$ full $50$ litre kegs, each weighing between $140$ and $150$ pounds;

$($c$)$ the load also included $10$ full $30$ litre kegs, each weighing $90$ pounds;

$($d$)$ during the $7$ stops, $13$ full $50$ litre, and $2$ full $30$ litre kegs were delivered;

$($e$)$ the worker lifted and lowered $50$ litre kegs to and from a double$-$stacked position in the delivery vehicle;

$($f$)$ the worker lowered $50$ litre kegs from the truck door to the ground;

$($g$)$ the worker lowered a full $50$ litre keg down a flight of stairs, walking backwards and partially supporting the keg with his thighs. He lowered it to the ground from the second step; and

$($h$)$ the worker carried a full $30$ litre keg up approximately $22$ stairs.

$3.$ The weights handled, the frequency with which they were being handled, and the manner in which they were handled was analysed by Mr$.$ Clouse$-$Jensen by reference to a recognized ergonomic standard, the Snook and Ciriello Tables. After doing so$,$ Mr$.$ Clouse$-$Jensen found that four of the keg handling tasks performed by the delivery driver exceeded the maximum acceptable weights for lifting, lowering and carrying by $75\%$ of the male population.

$4.$ As a result of the above findings, the Orders were issued by Ms$.$ Clouse$-$Jensen on June $7,2012.$ The Orders are summarized accurately by the Ministry in its submissions as follows:

$(1)$ The employer shall ensure that full $50$ litre kegs required to be lifted and lowered to a double stacked position in the delivery vehicle shall be lifted and lowered in such a way and with such precautions as to not endanger a worker;

$(2)$ The employer must prepare and submit a compliance plan for how they are going to comply with Order No$.1$;

$(3)$ The employer shall ensure that full $50$ litre kegs required to be lowered from the delivery vehicle to the ground shall be lowered in such a way and with such precautions as to not endanger the safety of a worker;

$(4)$ The employer must prepare and submit a compliance plan for how they are going to comply with Order No$.3$;

$(5)$ The employer shall ensure that full $50$ litre kegs required to be lowered from the second last step to the basement floor when descending stairs is lowered in such a way and with such precautions as to not endanger a worker;

$(6)$ The employer must prepare and submit a compliance plan for how they are going to comply with Order No$.5$;

$(7)$ The employer shall ensure that full $30$ litre kegs required to be carried up stairs shall be carried in such a way and with such precautions as to not endanger a worker; and

$(8)$ The employer must prepare and submit a compliance plan for how they are going to comply with Order No$.7.$

$5.$ When considering a request to suspend an Order, three factors have generally been considered by the Board:

a$)$ whether the suspension of the order $($or$,$ alternatively, the failure to suspend the order$)$ would endanger worker safety;

b$)$ the prejudice to the parties if the order is or is not suspended; and

c$)$ whether there is a strong prima facie case for a successful appeal of the order.

$($see The Regional Municipality of Hamilton$-$Wentworth, $[1998]$ OLRB Rep. Aug. $709).$ The onus lies upon the party desiring a suspension order to establish that such an order ought to issue.

$6.$ In this proceeding, Steam Whistle states that the suspension of the Orders will not affect the health and safety of its workers. Steam Whistle states that it has been delivering kegs since $2000,$ and has not had to

summarize your key learning points and take aways from this case study