Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute centered on whether the employer adopted a work method capable of preventing all potential damage to a gas pipeline.

• The CNESST argued that mechanical excavation near the exposed pipeline posed a foreseeable risk, regardless of actual damage.

• The worker manually lifted and moved the gas conduit while a mechanical excavator operated nearby, contrary to safety standards.

• The employer invoked reliance on industry guidelines (Énergir guide) to argue compliance with best practices.

• The Tribunal clarified that “preventing damage” under the Code must be interpreted strictly and preventively, not only reactively.

• Defense of due diligence failed as the employer lacked documented protocols, follow-up, and preventive measures after a prior similar incident.

Facts and procedural background

The case arose after an inspector from the CNESST visited a construction site managed by Excavations G. Larouche inc. following an incident where a buried gas conduit owned by Énergir had been damaged the previous week. During the site visit, the inspector observed a worker manually lifting an exposed gas pipe to allow a nearby excavator’s bucket to level the ground beneath it. The inspector claimed that the excavator’s movement brought its boom into contact with the conduit. He ordered an immediate work stoppage and later charged the company under section 236 of the Loi sur la santé et la sécurité du travail (LSST), alleging a violation of article 3.15.1 (2)(b) of the Code de sécurité pour les travaux de construction.

Legal framework and core issue

The case was prosecuted under a penal-administrative framework, where the CNESST only needed to prove that the employer failed to meet prescribed safety standards—actual damage to the pipeline was not required. The key issue was whether the method of work used by the employer was “propre à empêcher tout dommage” (suitable to prevent all damage) to the pipeline.

The tribunal emphasized that the preventive nature of the obligation means that any objectively foreseeable risk of damage is sufficient to constitute a breach. It further stated that the duty is not satisfied merely by avoiding contact with the conduit; the method must eliminate all foreseeable risk.

Employer's defense and tribunal's rejection

The employer argued it followed industry guidelines, particularly those published by Énergir, and maintained that no actual damage had occurred during the inspector's visit. Testimony from the worker suggested that the bucket never made contact with the conduit and that visual estimations were used to maintain the recommended distance.

However, the court found that the worker’s method—manually lifting and laterally moving the conduit while heavy machinery operated inches away—was inherently unsafe. The tribunal noted that such conduct ignored both the spirit and the letter of the Code, particularly given that only “soft” excavation methods are allowed within close proximity to gas lines.

Additionally, the tribunal found that the company failed to demonstrate due diligence. Despite a similar incident occurring just one week earlier involving the same operator, no clear changes were implemented. The replacement foreman on site was unfamiliar with the safety protocols, and there was no evidence of follow-up communication or formal preventive action. The judge found the employer had failed to implement proper oversight, education, and discipline measures.

Conclusion and outcome

The court found Excavations G. Larouche inc. guilty of the charged violation, holding that the company had not used a work method capable of preventing all damage to the gas conduit as required by law. It also concluded the company did not meet the standard of reasonable diligence. A sentencing hearing was scheduled for September 18, 2025.