Skip to main content
Court Cases

A Two-Hand Control Defeated With a Tie-Wrap — Flexo Products Fined $90,000

WorkSafe Sounds · August 25, 2026 · 2 min read

Important: This is an educational summary of a complex legal proceeding and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified legal professional for advice specific to your situation.

A worker suffered a traumatic amputation when a point-of-operation hazard on a die-cutting press was activated while the worker's hand was within the danger zone. The two-hand control device — a safety device designed to require both hands to be on controls before the press could cycle — had been defeated by securing it in the activated position with a tie-wrap.

What Happened

  • The two-hand control device on the die-cutting press had been bypassed using a tie-wrap to hold it in the activated position
  • The bypass allowed the press to cycle without requiring both hands on the controls
  • No regular audit or inspection of safety device functionality had been conducted
  • Workers had not been instructed that defeating safety devices was prohibited
  • The employer had no formal procedure for verifying safety device integrity before each shift

The Outcome

Flexo Products Ltd. was convicted under the OHSA and O. Reg. 851 for failing to maintain the safety device on the die-cutting press in an effective condition. The company was fined $90,000 plus the victim fine surcharge.

Citation: 2015 ONCJ 280 · Penalty: $90,000

What This Case Teaches Ontario Industrial Employers

Safety devices must never be defeated, bypassed, or modified — and employers must audit equipment regularly to confirm that controls remain functional and unmodified. A pre-shift verification requirement for safety device integrity is a foundational element of an adequate machine safety program. Where a device has been bypassed, the pressing question is why — and that question must be answered before production resumes.


This summary is drawn from the reported outcome of an Ontario occupational health and safety prosecution. It is provided for educational purposes and is not legal advice.

TagsOntario Court CaseMachine GuardingProcess SafetyOHSAIndustrial

A Guard Removed for Cleaning, Never Reinstalled — Elgin Metal Casting Fined $100,000

A foundry worker suffered a traumatic degloving injury to his forearm when it was drawn into an unguarded nip point on a conveyor drive roller assembly during a production run. An interlocked safety guard on the assembly had been removed one week earlier to facilitate cleaning access and had not been reinstalled before production resumed. No permit system existed to track guard removals, and no worker had verified that all guards were in place before starting the equipment that shift.

Read the case →

Guarding Taken Off for Maintenance, Never Restored — GTAA Fined $300,000

A worker's hand was drawn into an unguarded conveyor belt at Terminal 1 baggage handling at Toronto Pearson International Airport, causing serious injuries. The guarding had been removed for routine maintenance and had not been reinstalled before the area was returned to operation.

Read the case →

The Stored Energy the Lockout Missed — Omega Mechanical Fined $120,000

A millwright suffered severe crush injuries to his dominant hand and forearm when a hydraulic press he was servicing re-actuated while he was still positioned inside the machine. An energy isolation (lockout/tagout) procedure had been posted for the machine, but it did not account for a secondary hydraulic accumulator that retained stored pressure after the main power supply was isolated. Workers had never been informed of this residual energy hazard, and the procedure had not been reviewed since the original machine installation.

Read the case →

Build a Safety Program That Holds Up

Use these lessons alongside our free tools, templates, and resources to strengthen your workplace safety program.