A mining company that contracted out truck maintenance has been ordered by the British Columbia Environmental Appeal Board to pay an administrative monetary penalty of $140,000 after a serious wheel explosion left a mechanic with “extremely significant injuries.”
The decision underscores that, under the Health, Safety and Reclamation Code for Mines in B.C., mine managers bear responsibility for ensuring all workers on the mine site — even those employed by outside contractors — are adequately trained.
The Appellant, Teck Coal Limited, had contracted MAXAM Explosives Inc. to provide specialized blasting services, equipment and maintenance at one of its coal mines in British Columbia. The Mechanic, employed by MAXAM Explosives, was replacing a flat tire on a 20-ton “prill” truck when the replacement wheel exploded. Tribunal documents note that two other employees “heard the explosion” and found the Mechanic with “severe injuries” on the workshop floor.
In investigating the incident, Teck Coal retained a research and testing firm, S-E-A, whose report concluded that the lock ring for the multi-piece rim was likely installed “backwards,” rendering the wheel assembly “conditionally stable” until it was subjected to a lateral force. Further inquiry revealed that hazards involved in changing these multi-piece rims had not been formally assessed by the mine’s management system. According to the tribunal, “risks for… tire handling and installation had not been formally assessed to identify critical control requirements to safely manage tire installation work.”
Following these findings, a provincial delegate under the Mines Act determined the Appellant contravened part 1.11.1(1) of the Code, which states that “The manager shall ensure that … workers are adequately trained to do their job or are working under the guidance of someone who has competency both in the job and in giving instruction.” The Delegate found that Teck Coal “did not adequately train workers” in how to recognize and avoid the specific hazards of multi-piece rims, concluding that this lack of training contributed to the Mechanic’s injuries. The Delegate imposed an administrative penalty of $140,000 against Teck Coal.
Who is a ‘worker’?
A central issue in the dispute was whether Teck Coal, as the mine owner, was responsible for training contract employees under Part 1.11.1(1). It argued that “worker” applies only to those directly employed by the mine, and not outside personnel. However, the tribunal disagreed, emphasizing that the Code’s definition of “employee” includes “all persons employed at a mine,” not merely those employed by the owner. It found that “an interpretation that results in two classes of workers… would be inconsistent with the legislative objective… of protecting employees and all other persons.”
The tribunal noted that section 25 of the Mines Act obligates both contractors and mine owners to ensure compliance with the Code “over which they have control.” Because the mine’s management structure and contractor agreement established Teck Coal’s operational control over the work, the tribunal found Teck Coal ultimately responsible for guaranteeing that the Mechanic and other contract workers received adequate safety training.
No due diligence defence available
Teck Coal also argued it had exercised due diligence by contracting with specialists and requiring them to abide by all safety laws. They pointed to the Mechanic’s red seal certification, along with a broader safety management system that included collaboration on a contractor Workplan. Yet the tribunal ruled there is no due diligence defence for administrative contraventions of the Code. The tribunal said the scheme is one of absolute liability, meaning once a violation is found, the owner cannot avoid liability by showing it took reasonable measures.
Even if a due diligence argument were permitted, the tribunal concluded Teck Coal did not do enough to ensure contract personnel were trained specifically on hazards associated with multi-piece rims. According to tribunal documents, “one of the Contractor’s employees reflected not only a lack of training but also a lack of awareness of the dangers associated with the work,” indicating that the hazard identification and mitigation steps had never been fully incorporated into the mine’s planning.
How the penalty was set at $140,000
The tribunal reviewed factors the Delegate used to calculate the penalty under provincial regulations. These included the gravity of the contravention, adverse effects of the incident, prior violations, and the Teck Coal’s “efforts to prevent the contravention.” While multi-piece rim hazards pose what the Delegate called “very high” potential adverse effects, Teck Coal did receive a partial reduction because it had a broader safety system in place, albeit flawed. Starting at a $200,000 “base penalty,” the Delegate applied downward adjustments totalling $60,000, ending at $140,000.
In its submissions, Teck Coal criticized the Delegate’s approach as a “checklist” method lacking justification. The tribunal rejected that claim, stating the Delegate followed a “rational process,” addressed every mandatory regulatory factor, and offered reasons linked to the evidence. The tribunal found no grounds to vary the amount or to rescind and order a fresh penalty determination.
Contractor not found liable under same code provision
Teck Coal argued that it was unfair that MAXAM Explosives was not also found to have contravened the same Code provision. The tribunal countered that the Code requirement under Part 1.11.1(1) is directed specifically at the mine manager, not the contractor. While section 25 of the Mines Act also requires contractors to ensure overall compliance, the tribunal concluded that the mine owner’s duty under Part 1.11.1(1) cannot be delegated. As a result, it found no inconsistency or unfairness in imposing liability solely on Teck Coal.
Costs request denied
The Respondent sought $500 in costs, claiming Teck Coal’s appeal was “fundamentally flawed” and amounted to “improper” conduct. The tribunal denied that request, citing no special circumstances. It noted that awarding costs should be an “extraordinary remedy” reserved for frivolous or vexatious conduct, which it did not find present here.
In the end, the tribunal upheld the $140,000 administrative penalty against Teck Coal, dismissing the appeal in its entirety. “Adequate training is a foundation of worker health and safety,” the Delegate wrote, adding that “contravening the training requirements…increases worker risk to injury.” The decision reinforces that mine owners must ensure every worker on their site—whether direct staff or contractor—is fully trained on site-specific safety hazards.
For more information, see Teck Coal Limited v Chief Inspector of Mines, 2024 BCEAB 45 (CanLII).
