What happens when your professional engineering degree, your Master's in Industrial Safety, and decades of experience aren't enough to be considered 'qualified' by WorkSafeBC? This week on the BC Safety Briefing, we're looking at a case where that exact scenario played out.

Welcome to the BC Safety Briefing. I'm Michael Chen, and in this AI-generated podcast, we explore occupational health and safety in British Columbia. Remember, this show is for educational purposes only—it is not legal or professional advice.

Today, we're digging into a fascinating 2009 WorkSafeBC Review Division Decision, R0103636. It’s a case that pits impressive credentials against the quality of on-the-ground safety documentation, specifically for confined space entry. It raises a critical question: where does qualification on paper end, and demonstrated competence begin?

Let’s set the scene. The case involves the principal of an environmental services company, referred to as Dr. J. His resume is impressive: a PhD in Chemical Engineering, a Master of Science in Industrial Safety, registered as a Professional Engineer in BC since 1989, and a long history of managing safety in high-hazard environments like oil refineries. For the ten years prior to the inspection, he had supervised his company’s confined space program, which was entirely accident-free.

In January 2009, a WorkSafeBC Occupational Safety Officer, or OSO, inspected the employer’s worksite. The OSO reviewed two sample Confined Space Hazard Entry Assessments that Dr. J. had prepared—one for an asphalt tank and another for an oil-water separator.

The officer found what they considered to be significant deficiencies. The assessments didn't fully describe how the work would be done, the hazardous constituents of the materials involved, or the potential airborne contaminants. They lacked specific details on ventilation calculations and personal protective equipment. The OSO also noted conflicting information, and a hazard classification that seemed to contradict the required safety measures.

Based on these incomplete and inconsistent documents, the OSO came to a stark conclusion: Dr. J. was not qualified to perform these assessments. A formal order was issued under section 116 of the Act, requiring him to stop preparing confined space assessments and procedures until he underwent additional training.

Now, from a WorkSafeBC perspective, the OSO saw deficient documents and acted to protect workers. But for Dr. J., this called his extensive qualifications and experience into question. He and his company requested a review of the decision.

Their argument was twofold. First, they pointed directly to Section 9.11 of the OHS Regulation. That section explicitly lists a Professional Engineer as a 'qualified person' to prepare these assessments, provided they have experience in confined space hazards—which Dr. J. clearly had. Second, they argued the OSO’s conclusions about the deficiencies were based on incorrect assumptions, not facts.

And this is where the case really turns.

The Review Officer had to weigh Dr. J.’s official qualifications against the quality of the work he produced. The guideline for Regulation 9.11 does state that a deficient assessment can be an indication that an individual is not qualified, regardless of their credentials. So, the Review Officer had to examine the OSO's findings very carefully.

Here’s what the Review Officer found. Regarding the first assessment for the asphalt tank, the deficiencies were mostly a lack of sufficient detail. The Review Officer decided that while the document needed improvement, these issues alone weren't egregious enough to prove Dr. J. was unqualified.

The findings on the second assessment—the oil-water separator—were even more critical to the decision. The OSO had questioned why there was no hazard assessment for piping connected to the separator. Dr. J.’s response was simple: he had determined there was no piping connected. The OSO had written it was "very unlikely" for such a unit not to have piping, but had never actually inspected the site to verify. The OSO’s finding was based on an assumption, not evidence.

Similarly, the OSO challenged the "low hazard atmosphere" classification. But again, the OSO had not inspected the space or provided any evidence as to why that classification was incorrect.

Because the most serious allegations were based on unproven assumptions, the Review Officer concluded that WorkSafeBC had not established the necessary elements to find Dr. J. unqualified. The decision states, and I quote, "those problems and/or mistakes were not so egregious as to call into question his qualifications."

The order was cancelled.

So, what are the practical takeaways for us as safety professionals in BC?

First, your documentation is your evidence of competence. Dr. J.’s impressive resume couldn’t prevent this order. It was the quality of his written assessments that was put on trial. Your hazard assessments must be clear, detailed, and stand up to scrutiny on their own, without you there to explain them. They are a direct reflection of your qualification.

Second, evidence trumps assumption. The WorkSafeBC officer’s case fell apart because it was built on what was "likely" rather than what was verified. Whether you are writing an assessment or responding to one, stick to the verifiable facts on the ground. If you say there is no piping, be sure of it. If you believe a hazard exists, document the evidence.

Third, for employers, this case is a reminder that holding a qualification and demonstrating ongoing competence are two different things. Even with a Professional Engineer on staff, the company’s written program was found lacking. It’s crucial to ensure your qualified people are not only certified but are also producing high-quality work that meets current regulatory standards. That ten-year accident-free record was helpful, but it didn't stop the initial order.

And finally, this decision highlights that the review process works. It provides an essential check and balance, ensuring that regulatory orders are based on solid evidence and a correct interpretation of the Regulation.

This case isn't about an unqualified person; it's about a qualified person who produced documents that failed to adequately demonstrate his expertise. It’s a powerful lesson that in safety, it’s not just what you know—it’s how clearly and thoroughly you can prove it.

You can find more information on confined space entry in Part 9 of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation on the WorkSafeBC website. This decision, R0103636, is available in the Review Division’s online database.

Until next week, this is Michael Chen reminding you that safety is everyone’s responsibility.