Guard on Order, Worker Injured — Why 'We Ordered It' Is Not a Defence

The Guard Was Ordered — But a Worker Was Injured Before It Arrived

Let's talk about what happened at the Bell Creek Underground Mine in Timmins on September 30, 2023. An assistant driller for Orbit Garant Drilling Services Inc. was working near a drill rig when a water hose became caught on a drill rod. The assistant, working outside the protective fence around the rig, reached in to free the hose. At the same time, a driller rotated the drill. The rotating drill rod caught the assistant. The assistant was injured. A Ministry investigation found that the drill rig had an exposed moving part — specifically the rotating drill rod — that was not adequately guarded. Here is what made this case particularly instructive: the employer had already identified the guarding gap. The guard had been ordered. It just hadn't arrived yet. The rig was operating without the required guard while the company waited for delivery. Orbit Garant pleaded guilty in Timmins Provincial Offences Court and was fined $100,000 plus a 25% victim fine surcharge. The company was convicted under Section 25(1)(c) of the OHSA and Section 185(2) of Ontario Regulation 854 (Mines and Mining Plants).

What the Law Requires

Section 185(2) of Ontario Regulation 854 (Mines and Mining Plants) requires that every piece of machinery in a mine be guarded to prevent contact between workers and exposed moving parts that may endanger health or safety. Section 25(1)(c) of the OHSA requires employers to ensure that these prescribed measures are carried out in the workplace. Basically, what this means is simple: if a drill rig has an exposed rotating part that can injure a worker, it must be guarded before it is put into service — and it must remain guarded while it is in service. 'The guard is on order' does not satisfy the requirement. The regulation does not include a grace period for delivery timelines. The court found that Orbit Garant had identified the guarding deficiency — the fact that the guard had been ordered proves the employer knew a guard was needed. Operating the rig without the guard while waiting for delivery is the violation. If the guard is not available, the machine must not operate in a configuration that exposes workers to the unguarded rotating part. In the court's view, this was not a failure to identify a hazard — it was a failure to act on a hazard that had already been identified. The employer knew the guard was needed. The employer chose to continue operating without it. The $100,000 fine reflects that knowledge plus inaction is not due diligence.

What Supervisors Must Do

• Before any drill rig or rotating equipment is put into service in an underground mine, confirm that all required guards are installed and functioning — a 'guard on order' status means the rig is not ready to operate
• When you identify a guarding deficiency on any piece of equipment, tag the equipment out of service immediately and notify the employer in writing; do not allow production to continue while the guard is sourced
• Establish and enforce a positive lockout or exclusion zone around rotating drill components whenever workers need to access the drill string or adjacent equipment
• Communicate clearly to all crew members: no one approaches an operating drill rod unless the drill has been stopped and locked out — not just paused
• Keep asking: 'If a worker needed to clear something from that rotating part right now, what physical control prevents them from contacting it — and is that control in place?'

What Employers Must Do

• Implement a formal equipment commissioning process that includes a guarding compliance check against Ontario Regulation 854 before any drill rig or rotating equipment is placed in service at an underground mine
• When a guarding deficiency is identified, immediately restrict the equipment to operating modes that prevent worker exposure — or remove the equipment from service entirely until the guard is installed
• Develop an equipment guarding deficiency log; any identified guarding gap must trigger a written risk assessment and a clear decision: operate safely with the deficiency, or remove from service
• Do not allow operational pressure (production targets, contract timelines) to be a factor in the decision to operate equipment with a known guarding deficiency — document the decision explicitly
• Review all drill rig and underground rotating equipment configurations during your annual guarding audit; include O. Reg. 854 compliance as a specific audit criterion
• Train all supervisors and operators on O. Reg. 854 guarding requirements and on the company's stop-work authority for guarding deficiencies

How to Use This Case in Your Workplace

This case is a valuable safety conversation starter. Use it during toolbox talks for underground drilling crews, monthly safety meetings for mine supervisors and equipment maintenance staff, and pre-commissioning reviews for drill rigs entering service at any mine site. Walk your team through the equipment and ask: 'Are there any pieces of equipment on this site that have a known guarding gap — where the guard has been ordered or identified as needed but not yet installed?' 'If we found that guard deficiency today, would the equipment come out of service, or would we document it and continue operating?' 'Has every rotating part on every active drill rig been confirmed as guarded per O. Reg. 854 requirements this week?' This case reinforces a simple message: ordering a guard is not installing a guard. Operating a drill rig with an exposed rotating part while waiting for delivery is operating a non-compliant machine. Stop the machine, not the order.