Example #1: In Canadian Consolidated Salvage, previously discussed, the company argued that the prime contractor was responsible for supervising all workers—including the company’s—and complying with all safety requirements. So it had no duty to ensure the safety of its workers at that site. But the court said because the company was the injured worker’s employer under the OHS laws, it was responsible for ensuring his safety at the site. And there was no evidence that the company took “any steps whatsoever” to protect its workers.
Example #2: In the case of the United States Steel Corporation, the company argued that it was not liable for the injuries sustained by its workers because it had delegated the supervision of the workers to a subcontractor. The court said that the company was still liable for the injuries because it had a duty to ensure the safety of its workers, and it had failed to do so by delegating the supervision to a subcontractor. The court also said that the
subcontractor had a duty to comply with the safety regulations, and it had failed to do so by allowing the workers to work in unsafe conditions. Therefore, the United States Steel Corporation was still liable for the injuries sustained by its workers.


Example #2: In the case of the United States Steel Corporation, the company argued that it was not liable for the injuries sustained by its workers because it had delegated the supervision of the workers to a subcontractor. The court said that the company was still liable for the injuries because it had a duty to ensure the safety of its workers, and it had failed to do so by delegating the supervision to a subcontractor. The court also said that the
 subcontractor had a duty to comply with the safety regulations, and it had failed to do so by allowing the workers to work in unsafe conditions. Therefore, the United States Steel Corporation was still liable for the injuries sustained by its workers.