Example: In the XI Technologies case, the company argued that it wasn’t foreseeable that the supplier would provide it with an unsafe machine. In essence, the company assumed that the equipment would be safe to use. But the appeals court explained that the OHS law required the company, as an employer, to take reasonable steps to ensure that such equipment was, in fact, safe to operate as intended. And there were “rudimentary steps” the company could’ve taken to do so. For example, the company should’ve asked the supplier for adequate operating instructions or a demonstration of the machine’s proper use, especially considering that it was completely unfamiliar with this equipment. This relatively simple step would’ve alerted operators to the fact that the machine wasn’t working properly. But instead of getting instructions or a demonstration from the supplier, the company chose to rely on its untrained employees to figure out how to safely run the machine.
The appeals court concluded that the company’s failure to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of its employees was a violation of the OHS law.
Translation: The appeals court ruled that the company’s failure to take reasonable measures to ensure the safety of its workers was a violation of the OHS law.
 The appeals court concluded that the company’s failure to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of its employees was a violation of the OHS law.


Translation: The appeals court ruled that the company’s failure to take reasonable measures to ensure the safety of its workers was a violation of the OHS law.