Administrative Monetary Penalties (AMPs), historically part of the OHS enforcement landscape in other Canadian jurisdictions, will soon arrive in Ontario. AMPs are issued directly by inspectors and could significantly transform Ontario’s OHS enforcement landscape.

On November 27, 2025, Bill 30, the Working for Workers Seven Act, 2025, received Royal Assent. In this seventh bill amending legislation applicable to workplaces, the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act (“OHSA”) has been amended to provide a new tool to the enforcement arsenal of Ministry of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development (“MOL”) inspectors: the power to issue Administrative Monetary Penalties (“AMPs”) for violations of the OHSA and its regulations. This most recent change adds to earlier OHSA amendments that have, generally, expanded obligations and increased legal risks to employers and other regulated parties. Prior amendments have included:

• Increases in maximum fines that can be imposed on corporations and individuals;
• Introducing a $500,000 minimum fine for corporations that have more than one offence in a 2 year period;
• Aggravating factors to be used when sentencing a defendant convicted of an OHSA offence;
• Expanding the application of the OHSA to telework arrangements; and
• Requirements for workplace Naloxone kits.

Many important details about AMPs remain unknown because they will be the subject of an OHSA regulation that has not yet been prepared. In this Advisor, we discuss what AMPs are and some of the key issues the pending regulation will have to address.

What are Administrative Monetary Penalties?

AMPs are new to the Ontario OHSA but they are not a new enforcement mechanism.  They are often seen as an efficient, cost-effective, and flexible means of enforcement and are used to address non-compliance with workplace health and safety laws elsewhere in Canada. They are generally issued by OHS inspectors promptly, after investigation into the basic circumstances of an event or alleged non- compliance, and state a specific penalty to be imposed- triggering a party’s right to commence a proceeding to seek to review / appeal that penalty.

An AMP is a means of penalizing a regulated party without resorting to the court system. It is an alternative to prosecuting breaches of the OHSA or its regulations (which remains available) through the imposition of a penalty by an inspector rather than the courts.

Who Can Receive an AMP?

What is now section 69.1 of the OHSA provides that any person (a term which includes a corporation) found, by an inspector, to have contravened the OHSA or a regulation, an order or requirement of an inspector, or an order of the Minister of Labour, can receive an AMP. Therefore, it appears that any workplace party could receive an AMP: constructors, employers, officers and directors, supervisors, workers, engineers, architects, suppliers, and owners. It is safe to anticipate that MOL inspectors will have discretion to issue AMPs as they believe appropriate.

Can AMPs be Issued Right Now?  When Will They Start?

There are so many details about AMPs that need to be addressed through the pending regulation that AMPs cannot be issued right now. As for when they will become an enforcement tool available to MOL inspectors, that is harder to predict. The regulation will have to be prepared and, beyond, that, the MOL will likely have to amend its internal enforcement policies and procedures to account for AMPs, and inspectors will need to be trained on them. As such, they are likely coming to Ontario very soon, but are not, today, imminent.

When They’re in Force, Can We Receive an AMP and be Prosecuted?

No and yes. To explain, under the new amendments, receiving and paying an AMP means the recipient cannot “be charged with an offence under [the OHSA for] the same contravention or failure to comply”. This means AMPs create a limited protection from prosecution.  A party cannot receive an AMP and be prosecuted for the same violation. However, the government could choose issue an AMP or AMPs for some violations and be free to prosecute for others. For example, assume there has been a serious workplace accident. It could be that AMPs are issued for failing to post the required Health and Safety Policy and for shortcomings with the Joint Health and Safety Committee but charges are laid for alleged violations related to the accident. Only time will reveal exactly how the powers to penalize and to prosecute will be used by the government.

What Issues Will the Regulation Address?

Bill 30 has left many blanks to be filled in by the Ontario government. Nearly all substantive aspects of OHSA AMPs will be created by regulation – which will be prepared by the government and will not go through the Legislature.

a) The Violations That Can Result in an AMP

As noted above, Bill 30 provides for the issuing of an AMP for a violation of the OHSA or its regulations. It may be that any violation could receive an AMP. However, Bill 30 indicates that the AMP is to be imposed “in accordance with the regulation”. While that phrase likely incorporates various considerations, it does leave open the possibility that some OHSA violations might not be subject to an AMP. It is probably safe to expect that AMPs will be available for all violations of the OHSA or its regulations but that will not be known for certain until the regulation arrives.

b) Time Limits For Issuing an AMP

A key consideration for workplace parties, and for MOL inspectors, is the time limit for issuing an AMP.  Will there be a time limit set out in the regulation?  If so, will it be the same as the two year limitation period for laying charges or something shorter?  Bill 30 does not address a limitation period for AMPs which suggests the regulation will because the regulation can address “all matters necessary and incidental to the administration of a system of administrative penalties under [the OHSA]”.

c) The Amount of AMPs

The quantum of AMPs will be set by the regulation. The amounts that can be imposed will likely be telling of how the MOL plans to use AMPs. There are various approaches to AMPs in Canada. British Columbia uses them as the principal enforcement measure and the penalties can be very significant.  For 2025, the maximum AMP in BC is just under $800,000 and that amount will likely rise for 2026.  Other jurisdictions impose far more modest amounts. For example, occupational health and safety violations in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick can attract AMPs which vary in amount[1] but the maximum is $2,000. Alberta has a $10,000 maximum while Manitoba caps theirs at $5,000. The jurisdictions that impose more modest penalties tend to use prosecution as the most serious enforcement mechanism. To be clear, each jurisdiction sets a maximum AMP that may be imposed by an OHS inspector.  That is different from the fine that may be imposed in an OHS prosecution.

How will Ontario deploy AMPs?  We can’t know for certain now but it seems unlikely that AMPs will become the primary means of OHSA enforcement. The penalties will probably not be so high as to displace prosecution as the way more serious contraventions are addressed. Though possible, it would be surprising for the government to move to an entirely different enforcement approach after repeated recent OHSA amendments that increased maximum fines, introducing staggering mandatory minimum fines, and providing aggravating sentencing factors.

d) Calculation of the Penalties

The way in which the amount of the penalties is determined will have to be created. It could be as simple as set amounts or a more complex set of considerations could be used. These could include the size of a company’s payroll, the severity of the contravention, the risk of harm involved, or the compliance history of the involved party (previous orders, prosecutions, penalties, etc.). Bill 30 does suggest that some AMPs could have a prescribed range with the amount of the penalty being determined by the application of set criteria.

e) How to Challenge an AMP

Bill 30 provides that a party who has received an AMP can seek its review. However, numerous important details are left to the pending regulation. Bill 30 does not set out a time limit for seeking a review meaning the regulation will have to address how long the recipient has to make their request for a review. This is unlikely to be a very lengthy period – probably something in the order of 30 days.

Bill 30 also does not identify who will adjudicate the reviews. The Bill only provides that the review will be performed by “a person or entity prescribed for the purpose”. The regulation will have to identify the person or tribunal that will hear and adjudicate AMP reviews. Currently, OHSA proceedings that are not prosecutions (disputes about OHSA work stoppages, appeals of inspector orders or allegations of reprisal) are heard by the Ontario Labour Relations Board (“OLRB”).[2] These matters already generate a substantial workload for the OLRB, which adjudicates workplace disputes arising under a number of other statutes. The regulation will determine if the OLRB’s workload is going to grow or if AMP reviews will be directed elsewhere.

f) The Relevance of Due Diligence

In respect of challenges to an AMP, a key issue will be whether an ability to assert due diligence or reasonable care in the circumstances matters as a means to seek to dispute the AMP or its amount.  In some jurisdictions, the recipient of an AMP can provide evidence of due diligence when challenging the penalty. That evidence could, if sufficient, result in the revocation of the penalty or it could reduce the amount of the penalty. However, in other jurisdictions (notably for AMPs under the Canada Labour Code or CLC), due diligence is irrelevant. Under the CLC the penalty cannot be avoided or mitigated by evidence of reasonable care.

When due diligence is irrelevant, the only challenges to the AMP are that the violation did not occur or that there was an error in the calculation of the penalty. The regulation should reveal Ontario’s approach.

Notable Differences Between AMPs and Prosecutions

While prosecutions and AMPs may be seen as two ways to impose financial penalties, there are notable differences between them. Below a number of those differences are discussed.

a) Different Role for Government Lawyers

OHS prosecutions are conducted by Crown lawyers and are to be carried out in the public interest. This places a high professional onus on Crown counsel. They must fairly present relevant evidence, gathered by their OHS inspectors, to establish an offence. If they believe the prospect of a conviction has become unreasonable or if it is no longer in the public interest to pursue, they must stop the prosecution.

The professional obligations that attach to a prosecution are not engaged in an AMP proceeding. As such, counsel for the regulator could act more strategically in the review process, without having to assess whether the possibility of “conviction” remains reasonable. The government would, therefore, be much more like a regular advocate engaged in an adversarial process.

b) No Presumption of Innocence

In an OHS prosecution, the defendant is presumed innocent until the Crown proves a contravention of the OHSA and/or its regulations. The Crown, therefore, must lead its evidence first which provides a defendant an opportunity to challenge that evidence before calling its own – and an acquittal may be achieved without the defendant calling any of its own evidence. However, in an AMP review, the recipient of the AMP will be the applicant and will likely have to lead its evidence first. Essentially, the presumption will be that the penalty is appropriate until the applicant proves otherwise.

c) Contraventions May Be Easier to Prove

In a prosecution the Crown has the onus to prove the alleged OHS offence “beyond a reasonable doubt”. This means that the evidence must come much closer to certainty than it does if the burden was the normal balance of probabilities standard – which means more likely than not.

For an AMP, the evidentiary standard will be a balance of probabilities. The contravention may be easier to establish because, notwithstanding deficiencies in the evidence, the contravention may still be found more likely than not to have occurred. In essence, AMPs could provide an alternative means for the government to pursue a penalty where the strength of the evidence is insufficient for a successful prosecution.

d) Requirements for Pre-Hearing Production

Another strategic or procedural advantage applicable to OHS prosecutions, that is unlikely to exist in an AMP review, is the ability to keep the defence confidential until trial.  In a prosecution, subject to some exceptions, the defence does not have an obligation to reveal its defence until it is presented at trial. The government may, therefore, first hear, see, and have to react to defence evidence when elicited at trial.

However, we anticipate AMP reviews or appeals will be a proceeding before an administrative tribunal. The tribunal’s rules are likely to include obligations to set out detailed reasons for the appeal and pre-hearing production obligations through which the evidence of witnesses or the content of documents will need to be disclosed.  Further, the scope of documentary production is arguable relevance.  This could mean that documents and materials the applicant would not wish to produce are required to be included with the material given to the government before the hearing.

Concluding Thoughts

AMPs are now coming to the Ontario OHSA, and subject to determining specific important details, the changes could be sweeping.  Important details remain to be determined by a pending government regulation. However, what appears clear, is there will be an addition to the enforcement arsenal of the MOL that will need to be addressed by workplace parties.

Even if they do not become the principal means of OHSA enforcement, and even if the penalties are relatively modest amounts, they could still be significant matters for workplace parties to manage. They will likely be treated as a record of non-compliance that could aggravate the sentence imposed in a prosecution. Further, they stand to create reputational risk because Bill 30  authorizes the Minister of Labour to publish information about AMPs that have been imposed.

In light of these risks, and understanding their will be some time between now and when AMPs start being issued, employers, constructors, and other workplace parties should take the time to assess their health and safety programs for gaps. Included in this assessment should be documentation and record keeping practices relating to due diligence measures. If the positive steps individuals and the organization are taking are not being adequately documented, this should be addressed. MOL inspectors have discretion in how they use their enforcement powers. If a workplace party is able to demonstrate, through documentation, that compliance measures that have been taken, the inspector may decide enforcement action is unnecessary. Failing that, assessing health and safety programs and enhancing documentation would best position a party to assert a due diligence defence.

[1] Depending on whether the recipient is a corporation, owner, self-employed person, or an employee with or without supervision responsibilities.

[2] Note that, in a unionized workplace, a worker may have their reprisal complaint addressed through the grievance arbitration process.