The fall protection equipment was on the job site. That detail matters — because it means the decision not to use it was a choice, not an oversight born of unavailability.
A worker was installing strapping across roof trusses on a barn under construction at a dairy farm in Thamesford. They were 30 feet above the ground, above the truss framing, without a harness, without a travel restraint system, without any form of fall protection. When they fell through the truss framing to the ground below, they sustained fatal injuries.
There was no supervisor on site. There were no fall protection procedures in practice — only a written policy that existed on paper but never made it to the job site.
What Happened
On December 7, 2023, Hendrik Jan Van Ginkel Construction was building a barn at a dairy farm located at 155532 15th Line in Thamesford, Ontario. A worker contracted by the company was performing work on the roof — specifically, installing strapping across roof trusses.
The worker was positioned approximately 30 feet above ground level, above the truss framing. At that height, a fall through the open framing would mean a drop of approximately 30 feet to the ground below — a fall distance well above the three-metre threshold that triggers mandatory fall protection requirements under Ontario's construction regulation.
The worker was not using any method of fall protection at the time of the incident. Fall protection equipment was available on site. No one was using it.
The worker fell through the truss framing to the ground below and sustained fatal injuries.
A Ministry of Labour investigation identified three compounding failures: no fall protection was in use despite the height and the available equipment; no supervisor had been assigned to this project; and although the company had a written fall protection policy, no formal fall protection procedures had been implemented for this job.
Hendrik Jan Van Ginkel Construction pleaded guilty in the Ontario Provincial Offences Court in Woodstock and was fined $60,000 plus a 25% victim fine surcharge.
What the Law Says
Section 26.1(2) of Ontario Regulation 213/91 (Construction Projects): "A worker who is exposed to the hazard of falling more than 3 metres shall be protected by a method of fall protection."
Basically, what this means is simple: at 30 feet — more than nine metres — fall protection is not optional. It is not subject to supervisor discretion, worker preference, or the pace of the job. It is the law. And under Section 25(1)(c) of the OHSA, the employer is required to ensure that the prescribed measures are carried out. That obligation does not disappear when a supervisor is absent. It disappears when the worker is protected.
A written fall protection policy in the office does not protect a worker on a roof 30 feet in the air. A harness in the back of a truck does not protect a worker on a roof 30 feet in the air. Only a fall protection system in use — properly attached, properly anchored, properly used — meets the legal standard.
In the court's view, this was not a tragic accident — it was a fatal and foreseeable outcome of sending a worker to perform work at height without supervision, without procedures, and without fall protection. The conviction and $60,000 fine reflect how seriously the court takes this failure.
Practical Actions for Supervisors
Every construction supervisor must understand that their absence from a job site does not suspend the law. Here's what the court expects you to do:
Keep asking: "Before anyone goes above three metres on this site — is their fall protection connected, is it anchored to an adequate anchor point, and have I confirmed this myself?"
- Never allow a worker to begin work at height without first confirming that fall protection is in place and properly attached — the equipment being on site is not the same as the equipment being used
- Assign a supervisor to every project where workers will be working above three metres — this is not optional; someone with supervisory authority must be present when elevated work is underway
- Conduct a fall hazard assessment before any roof work begins: identify every location where a worker could fall more than three metres, specify the required fall protection system for each location, and communicate it to the crew before work starts
- Confirm anchor points before workers ascend — a harness without an adequate anchor point is not fall protection
- Establish a site rule that any worker observed at height without fall protection engaged must stop work immediately — and treat non-compliance as a critical safety violation, not a minor infraction
Practical Actions for Employers
A written fall protection policy in a binder is not a fall protection program. Employers must build the system that actually protects workers at height. That system must include:
- Written fall protection procedures for every type of elevated work your crews perform — roof truss work, barn construction, agricultural structures — and procedures must be job-site specific, not generic
- A supervisory assignment requirement: every project involving work above three metres must have a named, qualified supervisor responsible for fall protection compliance on that site
- Pre-job fall protection plans for every elevated task — the plan must identify heights, anchor point locations, required equipment, and inspection requirements, and must be reviewed with the crew before work begins
- Equipment inspection and pre-use verification: workers must confirm that fall protection equipment is serviceable and properly attached before every elevation
- Training that goes beyond policy acknowledgement — workers must be trained in the correct selection, use, inspection, and anchor requirements for the fall protection systems used on your specific job types; barn and agricultural structure construction has distinct framing configurations that require specific planning
- Audit your current worksites: if fall protection equipment is "available on site" but not being used by workers above three metres, your program has failed — and this case is the outcome
Employers must demonstrate due diligence, meaning documented, proactive efforts to prevent falls. This case shows that having fall protection equipment on site is not a defense. The rule is clear, the equipment was there, and a worker died.
How to Use This Case in Your Workplace
This case is a powerful safety conversation starter. Use it during:
- Pre-job safety meetings before any roof, truss, or elevated agricultural construction work
- Fall protection training sessions for construction workers and supervisors
- Supervisory training on the obligation to be present during elevated work
- JHSC meetings reviewing fall protection compliance on active projects
Walk your crew through this case before any barn or agricultural structure project and ask:
- "Where on this structure will workers be above three metres, and what fall protection system is required at each of those locations?"
- "Is our fall protection equipment inspected, on site, and in the hands of the workers doing elevated work — not just in the truck?"
- "Who is the named supervisor for this project, and is that person on site when elevated work is happening?"
- "What is our stop-work trigger if we see a worker at height without fall protection engaged?"
This case reinforces a simple message: the equipment being on site is not the same as the worker being protected. Fall protection means fall protection in use.
Case Summary
- Hazard Type: Fall Protection · Fatal Fall · Agricultural Construction
- Root Cause: No fall protection procedures implemented for the project; no supervisor assigned; worker performed elevated truss work without any method of fall protection despite equipment being available on site
- Immediate Cause: Worker fell through roof truss framing at approximately 30 feet (over 9 metres) above ground — well above the 3-metre threshold requiring mandatory fall protection under O. Reg. 213/91
- System Gaps Identified:
- Fall protection equipment on site but not in use
- No supervisor assigned to this project
- No job-specific fall protection procedures implemented
- Written fall protection policy existed but had not been translated into worksite procedures
- No pre-job fall hazard assessment performed
- Key Teaching Point: Section 26.1(2), O. Reg. 213/91 requires fall protection for any worker exposed to a fall of more than 3 metres. At 30 feet, this requirement is unambiguous. A policy in a binder and equipment in a truck do not meet this standard. A supervisor's presence and a worker's harness in use do.
- Conviction Details:
- Who: Hendrik Jan Van Ginkel Construction, 324943 Norwich Road, Norwich, Ontario
- When: Offence December 7, 2023; Conviction March 5, 2026
- Where: Dairy farm at 155532 15th Line, Thamesford, Ontario
- Penalty: $60,000 fine + 25% victim fine surcharge ($15,000) = $75,000 total
- Court: Ontario Provincial Offences Court, Woodstock; Justice of the Peace Anne-Marie Tymec