The Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) has dismissed an appeal challenging an inspector’s finding regarding a workplace camera at Terrapure Environmental.
The case centred on a complaint by employee T.X., who questioned the placement of a video camera in a staging area at the company’s facility and sought a rephrasing of the inspector’s report.
The appeal was filed after an April 2024 inspection conducted by the Ontario Ministry of Labour, which investigated concerns that the camera installation might contravene the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA). Specifically, T.X. alleged that the camera could potentially capture images of workers in their undergarments, even though the room in question was not designated as a changing area.
The core issue of the case revolved around the inspector’s findings, which ultimately concluded that there was no violation of the OHSA. The inspector’s report noted that the camera had been installed in a room where supplies such as coveralls and batteries were stored and where individual lockers were available for workers. The report explicitly stated that workers did not change in this room, thus dismissing concerns about harassment or sexual harassment violations under the Act.
In its decision, the OLRB emphasized that the applicant, T.X., did not formally challenge the inspector’s ultimate finding that no harassment complaint had been made. Instead, T.X. sought to have the inspector’s narrative amended to reflect his concern that workers could still be captured on camera while in their undergarments. He requested that the inspector’s report be reworded to capture this nuance, arguing that the existing wording was misleading.
The board, however, determined that such a request fell outside the scope of an appeal under the OHSA. Citing its earlier ruling in Carruthers v. The Pepsi Bottling Group (Canada), the OLRB reiterated that “the content of the narrative report is not the proper subject-matter of an appeal; only the order itself is.” Since T.X. was not disputing the content of the order but rather the narrative attached to the inspector’s findings, the board found that there was no basis for the remedy sought.
“The relief sought by the applicant is not a remedy that the Board would be prepared to grant,” the decision stated, adding that the appeal did not make out a case for the orders or remedies requested. The ruling noted that the board’s Rules of Procedure, specifically Rule 39.1, allow it to dismiss applications without a hearing in situations where the case does not justify the requested remedies.
Further complicating T.X.’s appeal was the fact that Terrapure Environmental had removed the camera in question just one day after it was installed. This action, coupled with the absence of a formal harassment complaint, led the responding parties—Terrapure Environmental and a Ministry of Labour director—to request the dismissal of the application. Both parties argued that the issue had become moot and that the camera’s removal rendered the case academic.
In their submissions, Terrapure argued that T.X. did not have the standing to appeal the inspector’s findings, asserting that he was not “aggrieved” within the meaning of section 61(1) of the OHSA. The company also noted that a grievance related to the camera installation had already been resolved between Terrapure and the union representing its employees, further undermining the need for the appeal.
The Ministry of Labour director supported this position, stating that the case had been rendered purely academic and that no further action was necessary. The director also pointed out that T.X.’s request for the inspector to rephrase their report was improper, as the board does not have the authority to order such remedies.
Although the OLRB acknowledged these arguments, it ultimately decided the case based on the inapplicability of the remedy sought, rendering it unnecessary to address the other grounds for dismissal raised by the responding parties.
This ruling underscores the limitations of appeals under the OHSA, particularly in cases where the primary focus is the content of an inspector’s report rather than the issuance of an order. The board’s decision reinforces its earlier findings in similar cases, affirming that narrative reports from ministry inspectors are not subject to alteration through appeal unless the order itself is being contested.
As the OLRB stated in its final ruling, “the application does not make out a case for the remedies sought,” and the board dismissed the appeal without a hearing.
For more information, see Thomas Xavier v Terrapure Environmental, 2024 CanLII 81166 (ON LRB).
