Ontario proposes AMP scheme addition to the Occupational Health and Safety Act

Bill 30 introduces administrative monetary penalties (AMPs) to the Occupational Health and Safety Act—giving inspectors new powers to fine employers and supervisors for compliance failures.

Why it matters:

• Immediate risk: Inspectors can issue penalties based on their judgment, with unclear limits and appeal rights.
• Reputational impact: AMP details may be published, affecting both companies and individuals.
• Legal uncertainty: The process lacks clear protections for fairness and due process.

Bottom line:

Employers across Ontario should prepare for stricter, less transparent enforcement—and make their concerns known before Bill 30 becomes law.

On May 28, 2025, the Government of Ontario introduced Bill 30, Working for Workers Seven Act, 2025 (“Bill 30”). Among other significant legislative amendments to the Employment Standards Act, 2000, Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, and Occupational Health and Safety Act (“OHSA”), Bill 30 purports to establish an administrative penalty regime within the OHSA for the first time since the law was enacted on October 1, 1979. The focus of this article will be to provide an overview of the proposed amendments to the OHSA that would establish an administrative monetary penalty (“AMP”) regime, and its potential ramifications on health and safety enforcement and fairness to employers across Ontario. The authors’ concerns about procedural fairness, Charter of Rights and Freedom (“Charter”) protections, and reputational damage to employers will also be addressed.

The proposed AMP regime, in its current form, does not provide for the presumption of innocence. It is also unclear as to whether there is a meaningful right of appeal or judicial review if either an individual and/or corporation is aggrieved by a decision of an Inspector from the Ministry of Labour, Immigration, Training & Skills Development (“MLITSD”)  to issue an AMP.  For example, it remains unclear if an employer may appeal or judicially review an AMP to the Ontario Labour Relations Board (“OLRB”), or to the courts, respectively.

If/when the proposed legislation receives Royal Assent, Bill 30 would amend the OHSA by adding in “Part IX.1 – Administrative Penalties.” As it is currently drafted, these amendments would give MLITSD Inspectors the ability to impose an AMP against any “person” in law. Both a corporate employer and an individual supervisor may be the target of an AMP. All that is required is that the Inspector make a subjective determination that a person has “contravened or failed to comply” with a provision of the OHSA, OHSA regulations, an order or requirement from an inspector or director, and/or an order of the MLITSD.

The proposed legislation would permit MLITSD Inspectors to issue an AMP by way of a “notice”, which must contain or be accompanied by information setting out the nature of the contravention or failure to comply, the amount of the penalty to be paid, and any other information that may be prescribed later by the regulations. The current language of Bill 30 does not yet speak to the form or timelines regarding service of the “notice” by a MLITSD Inspector. It is unclear if there is a limitation period for the issuance of AMPs.

The general purpose of the AMP scheme is purportedly to promote compliance with requirements established by the OHSA and its regulations. It is unknown at this time what precise criteria will be used by MLITSD Inspectors to decide to issue an AMP, and/or how they will set the quantum of the AMP.  Bill 30 defers this to a future regulation, which allows the government of the day to set this range without the review and debate of the Provincial Legislature. Additionally, it is unclear at this point what the maximum range of penalties will be. Bill 30 simply states that “if a range has been prescribed for an AMP”, the Inspector must determine the amount of penalty in accordance with the prescribed criteria, which will likely be set out in the OHSA regulations.

Bill 30 also proposes language stating that if a corporation or individual pays an AMP, in accordance with the terms of the “notice” issued by an MLITSD Inspector, then that individual or corporation cannot be charged with an offence under the OHSA in respect of the exact same contravention or failure to comply. This may seem like a positive provision, but the authors disagree. With our tremendous expertise and experience in dealing with OHSA prosecutions, this provision may be used as a prosecution tactic by the Legal Services Branch of the MLITSD to discourage appeals or judicial reviews of AMPs, even if there have been prima facie contraventions of the OHSA or its applicable regulations.

Further, it is also important to appreciate that the proposed amendments can also carry with it the same business and personal (as the case may be) reputational damage consequences as a conviction under the OHSA would. Bill 30 would allow the MLITSD the ability to publish information about an AMP in accordance with the OHSA Regulations, which may cause significant reputational damage for both corporate employers and individual supervisors that receive AMPs.

Based on the current language proposed by Bill 30, it is unclear if an individual or corporation who is issued an AMP by an MLITSD Inspector has a full right of appeal to an independent and impartial tribunal. MLITSD Inspectors are human and do make mistakes. Therefore, since it is the Inspector’s subjective belief that will trigger the issuance of an AMP, the importance of a right of appeal by an independent and impartial body is essential to protect due process and the perception of fairness in the treatment of workplace stakeholders. The proposed legislation would allow for an individual or corporation who has been issued a “notice” of an AMP, to “request a review of the notice” by a prescribed person or entity. This “prescribed person or entity” then may, in accordance with the regulations, confirm, vary or set aside the “notice.”

It is of course unknown at this point who this “prescribed person or entity” will be, and this will likely remain unknown until the upcoming OHSA Regulations related to this section are added. However, in the interests of democratic accountability and transparency, this issue should be dealt with in Bill 30, and not in a future regulation that will not be subject to full legislative debates and review.  It is entirely possible, and within the power of the legislation as proposed, for the MLITSD to designate an internal individual, who is also an employee of the MLITSD, to be the “prescribed person or entity”. This, of course, would mean a significant lack of transparency and procedural safeguards, for both corporate and individual recipients of AMPs.  

It would be preferrable, in the authors’ view, that a right of appeal from an AMP be to the OLRB, an independent and impartial tribunal that already hears many OHSA related disputes.

For example, section 57 of the OHSA allows MLITSD Inspectors to issue orders for “contraventions of the OHSA or the OHSA Regulations”. The corollary of an Inspector’s right to issue an order under the OHSA is the section 61 right to appeal the order to the OLRB within 30 days of the order being issued, to ensure that an independent adjudicator confirms the legal validity of the Inspector’s conclusions.  Since the proposed wording of Bill 30 states AMPs can also be imposed for “contraventions of the OHSA or OHSA Regulations”, it may follow that individuals and corporations may also be able to avail themselves of the right to appeal to the OLRB under section 61. This, however, remains uncertain, given the absence of the answer in Bill 30, and the delay in issuing the proposed regulation until after the Bill receives Royal Assent.

The potential proposed addition of an AMP scheme to the OHSA provides insight into the future methods of OHSA enforcement strategies of the MLITSD. Bill 30 gives MLITSD Inspectors more power to enforce the OHSA,but with a lack of clarity in terms of oversight, transparency, and accountability. On the one hand, AMPs do not protect the procedural and Charter rights, including the presumption of innocence, of those targeted with that type of enforcement and financial exposure at the discretion of just one MLITSD inspector.

On the other hand, the imposition of an AMP scheme may signal a less aggressive, prosecution-based model of addressing workplace safety contraventions, that imposes pecuniary penalties rather than threatening the liberty of individuals for such contraventions. The introduction of AMPs may also, perhaps, open the door for other methods of resolution (even for prosecutions). Bottom line, employers across all provincially regulated industries should be alive to the serious risks of the introduction of AMPs in the OHSA, and it should ensure that its views and concerns be made known to the Ontario Government.