Short answer
Albatross Roofing was fined $200,000 after a worker died falling through a roof on an Edmonton site, and Alberta's OHS Appeal Body dismissed another roofing firm's challenge to a fall protection stop work order.
Alberta's fall protection rules were tested twice in decisions dated October 28, 2026: a fatal fall prosecution that ended in a $200,000 fine, and a stop work order appeal that failed after the employer relied on a version of section 159 that was no longer in force.
A $200,000 fine after a worker fell through a roof
Albatross Roofing Ltd., an Edmonton roofing contractor, pleaded guilty on October 28 in the Edmonton Court of Justice to one count under the Occupational Health and Safety Act for failing to ensure the health and safety of a worker, as reported by Canadian Occupational Safety. The employer was fined $200,000, including the victim fine surcharge, and the remaining charges were withdrawn. The charge followed the death of a worker who fell through a roof at an Edmonton construction site on December 11, 2023.
The Alberta government also placed Albatross Roofing under two years of enhanced regulatory supervision, described in the reporting as a measure that requires a convicted party to complete action items to improve corporate or individual health and safety systems or knowledge.
The same incident produced a second prosecution. Arbutus Landscaping Inc., acting as prime contractor on the site, was separately fined $318,000 for failing to establish a system or process to ensure compliance with OHS laws, following a guilty plea in August 2026. Together, the penalties from the December 11, 2023 incident total $518,000. A prime contractor's duty to co-ordinate the health and safety activities of every employer working under it exists separately from each trade contractor's duties to its own workers.
A stop work order appeal that failed on both preconditions
In a separate ruling dated October 28, 2026, Alberta's OHS Appeal Body summarily dismissed Goodwin Roof Inspections & Consulting's challenge to a stop work order, as reported by Canadian Occupational Safety. An OHS officer had found two of the company's employees performing inspection work on a fifth-floor balcony with no guardrails and no fall protection, at risk of falling more than three metres, contrary to section 139 of the OHS Code. The order was issued verbally and lifted 20 minutes later, after the company prepared a fall protection plan.
The company argued that section 159 of the OHS Code allowed procedural controls in place of fall protection equipment, citing OHS guidance issued in 2006 and a version of section 159 no longer in force. Under the current provision, both preconditions must be met: it must not be reasonably practicable to use fall protection equipment, and the work must fall within a listed scenario, including roof inspection, emergency repairs, or installing and removing fall protection equipment.
The Appeal Body found neither met. The company argued the task was too brief to require fall protection; the Appeal Body held that necessity is not the standard in section 159(1)(a). The record also showed the workers were taking photos of balcony windows for quality control, not performing a roof inspection.
What employers should take from both
- Check the version of the OHS Code your plan cites. A fall protection plan built on repealed provisions will not survive an inspection or an appeal.
- Read section 159 narrowly. Procedures instead of equipment require the reasonably practicable test and a listed scenario, both.
- Treat enhanced regulatory supervision as a project. It requires completing action items to improve corporate or individual health and safety systems or knowledge.
- If you are a prime contractor, know your coordination duty. It exists independently of your trade contractors' obligations to their own workers.
Falls from height are the leading cause of traumatic deaths in Canada's construction sector, according to the Institute for Work and Health.
If your fall protection plan has not been reviewed against the current OHS Code, Salient Health & Safety can help. See our safety program development and safety training services, or book a free discovery call.
Frequently asked questions
What is enhanced regulatory supervision in Alberta?
Enhanced regulatory supervision is a measure the Alberta government applied to Albatross Roofing for two years. It requires a convicted party to complete action items to improve corporate or individual health and safety systems or knowledge.
Can an Alberta employer use procedures instead of fall protection equipment?
Under the current section 159 of the OHS Code, both preconditions must be met: it must not be reasonably practicable to use fall protection equipment, and the work must fall within a listed scenario such as roof inspection, emergency repairs, or installing and removing fall protection equipment. The Appeal Body also rejected the argument that a brief task makes fall protection unnecessary, holding that necessity is not the standard in section 159(1)(a).
Who can be held responsible when a worker is injured on a shared worksite?
More than one party can be prosecuted. In the December 11, 2023 Edmonton fall, Albatross Roofing was fined $200,000, and the prime contractor, Arbutus Landscaping Inc., was separately fined $318,000 for failing to establish a system or process to ensure compliance with OHS laws. A prime contractor's duty to co-ordinate health and safety activities is separate from each trade contractor's duties to its own workers.