- 23 -
Firearms are often used in the locations being investigated to kill animals.
Knives are also in regular use.
In each of the refusals the workers were operating in teams of two.
Existing protocols allow the investigators to call on local police
departments for assistance in pursuing their investigations.
The workers believe their ability to protect or defend themselves in a
conflict situation has been compromised as a result of removing the
pepper spray and firearm.
With respect to the two work refusals, the inspector concluded:
Under the Occupational Health and Safety Act section 43.3 a worker has
the right to refuse where workplace violence is likely endanger him or
The threat scenarios presented in the two work refusals refer to
hypothetical situations. In other words the workers were refusing on the
basis that a series of hypothetical events might occur which in turn might
lead of a conflict situation which might lead to an unsafe situation. This is
insufficient to meet the requirement of “Likely to endanger” as required by
the OHSA. This inspector finds that the circumstances reported in the
two refusals mentioned do not meet the requirements of the OHSA.
However, the inspector ordered that the employer do a risk assessment
On March 1, 2012 Mr. Moody requested the following from each of the AIs:
As I move toward compliance with the orders I will need your input to
ensure that all of the workplace violence risks associated with AIU duties
can be identified and assessed. To that end, please send me a list of all
the situations and locations that you think an AIU investigator could
reasonably find themselves in during the course of an investigation. This
means everything from routine business to higher end things like
executing search warrants etc. Think about the types and locations of
places you go, the times of day, people you deal with and the activities
they are engaged in. In each case, briefly describe the violence risk you
believe is associated with each location or situation. I would like separate
input from each AIU member so that I know everyone has had an
opportunity to provide their personal view.
An interim direction dated March 23, 2012 was issued to AIU officers in
response to the MOL order. Reviewing its provisions, Mr. Ridley’s opinion was
that most of it was newly written down, but not new in practice. He testified that
AIs still operate in accordance with this interim direction. With input from his
colleagues, he responded to the interim direction raising questions and
concerns. As examples, he said it uses the words “Risk” and “Threat”, but it had
never been explained to AIs what the difference between the two words are.