Worker Injured at Transformer Facility, Maple, ON Company Fined $50,000

Convicted: Northern Transformer Corporation, 245 McNaughton Road East, Maple, ON L6A 4P5, a company that manufactures electrical transformers.

Location of Workplace: 245 McNaughton Road East, Maple, Ontario

Description of Offence: A worker was critically injured while performing work at the company’s manufacturing facility.

Date of Offence: May 24, 2019.

Date of Conviction: October 1, 2021.

Penalty Imposed:

  • Following a guilty plea in provincial offences court in Newmarket, Northern Transformer Corp., was fined $50,000 by Justice of the Peace Karen Walker; Crown Counsel Alicia Gordon-Fagan.
  • The court also imposed a 25-per-cent victim fine surcharge as required by the Provincial Offences Act. The surcharge is credited to a special provincial government fund to assist victims of crime.


  • On May, 24, 2019, a worker employed by Northern Transformer Corp., was performing work at the company’s manufacturing facility in Maple, Ontario.
  • The worker was assigned the task of assisting in the repair and movement of an electrical transformer. A co-worker assisted.
  • The transformer was rigged with four slings attached to designated attachment points and was suspended from a single hook to an overhead rail crane.
  • While being moved, the transformer began to suddenly swing.
  • The worker attempted to stop the uncontrolled motion without using the guide ropes and was caught between the transformer being moved and a transformer being stored.
  • This resulted in a critical injury.
  • A Ministry investigation found the employer failed to ensure that one or more guide ropes was used to prevent rotation or other uncontrolled motion while the overhead crane was utilized.
  • The failure to use one or more guide ropes to prevent rotation or other controlled motion when operating a lifting device is contrary to section 51(2)(b)(ii) of Ontario Regulation 851 (Industrial Establishment Regulation) made under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
  • Accordingly, the defendant was found to have failed as an employer to ensure the measures and procedures prescribed by this section were carried out at the workplace, contrary to section 25(1)(c) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.