New accommodations facility at CFB Esquimalt and plan to build more homes on military bases

[lenaitch]

Death/ injury of a worker, environmental issues.
Industry follow OH&S laws, codes etc.
Industry recommended practices have been used to find negligence in operations, building etc. Most are civil proceedings. But they have included recommended practices as standard procedures.
IRP have been used to prove companies have not follow established procedures in conducting business including building codes.

Two cases I was involved with providing information.
One included injury to a worker, a company did not follow the IRP for procedural precedence. They stated they followed OH&S rules/ requirements. Which were very vague of the requirements due to covering a general practice. At the time the approved IRP for the job task had just started to come out in detail but the procedures had been accepted as the normal way to operate by the majority of companies. The employer was found negligent for the workers injuries due to not following IRP. This set in motion a change in practice to ensure company and operators understood their legal liabilities in regards to operating equipment.

The other case where a manufacturer who did not build/ test the equipment to Industry specifications was found guilty in court and had to pay costs of the fixes/upgrades that were originally expected. This almost bankrupted the company. I was banned from their premises for two years until they realized I had given them all the requirements they needed to build the proper equipment and safeties, but they failed to take the advice given for IRP.

Negligence is a civil finding unless it is Criminal Negligence (or one of the related sections). To be found guilty, the company must have violated an offence created in a piece of legislation (not all laws create offences). The Ontario OH&S Act creates offences, as I suspect those of most provinces do.

By your very brief description, I would suggest the company was found negligent, not guilty, unless there is some specific law that said the manufacturer had to do something and they didn't.

There has been some references to product or manufacturing standards. I was unaware that a building code addresses this; I thought that was the purview of certification bodies such as CSA, ETL, UL, etc. The Ontario Building Code says how I have to build my deck, but it doesn't grade the lumber that it says I have to use.

 

[lenaitch]

Anyone who has read the CFHA Occupancy Handbook knows that they don't.

Many things that would not pass civi side for builds, renos, or repairs are A-Ok for CAF/DND buildings.

While it might make sense for CAF/Federal government to voluntarily adopt a local building, another issue that just struck me is, if the location is considered a secure facility, how would a local building inspector have the security clearance to view it?

 

[Bluebulldog]

While it might make sense for CAF/Federal government to voluntarily adopt a local building, another issue that just struck me is, if the location is considered a secure facility, how would a local building inspector have the security clearance to view it?

In the case of inspections like ESA. They have cleared personnel who typically attend for the purposes of inspection under permit.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

While it might make sense for CAF/Federal government to voluntarily adopt a local building, another issue that just struck me is, if the location is considered a secure facility, how would a local building inspector have the security clearance to view it?

Depends on the stage in which the inspection occurs. Most new builds aren't given their security zoning until well after a structural inspection would take place.

Additionally, from the COMSEC side of the house, we are pretty far down the line from building inspector to FOC that we can and do recommend hardening of physical infrastructure before we do our install.

In some cases, we even downgrade spaces after they're built because "that apartment building can look right into your Security Zone, boss. Plate glass skylights were a bad idea..." Until there is a mitigation that brings it into compliance, no fancy stuff.

 

[Good2Golf]

In some cases, we even downgrade spaces after they're built because "that apartment building can look right into your Security Zone, boss. Plate glass skylights were a bad idea..." Until there is a mitigation that brings it into compliance, no fancy stuff.

…or like having a Chinese-owned Canadian contractor build a SCIF?

 

[rmc_wannabe]

…or like having a Chinese-owned Canadian contractor build a SCIF?

That's and ADM(IE) fail. I only worry about what is put in the box AFTER it's gone through TSIT

 

[Good2Golf]

That's and ADM(IE) fail. I only worry about what is put in the box AFTER it's gone through TSIT

Yup, IE…the gift that keeps giving.

 

[dapaterson]

Consolidation of real property under ADM IE has had the same success as consolidation of IM/IT under SSC, and for the same reasons.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Consolidation of real property under ADM IE has had the same success as consolidation of IM/IT under SSC, and for the same reasons.

Those are two amazing understatements…

 

[lenaitch]

In the case of inspections like ESA. They have cleared personnel who typically attend for the purposes of inspection under permit.

Fair, but the ESA operates province-wide so it would make more sense to have one or two cleared. Not so much with a local municipality, but others have explained how it works.