In November 2025 the Ontario government empowered Occupational Health and Safety Act (“OHSA”) inspectors to issue Administrative Monetary Penalties (AMPs) for violations of the OHSA and its regulations – a significant enforcement change. However, at that time, most of the relevant details were left to a pending regulation. In our previous Advisor, we identified numerous issues still to be addressed by the regulation, before employers could assess the potential impact of this new Ontario AMP regime.
On December 16, 2025, the government filed that regulation, which became effective January 1, 2026. As discussed below, the regulation addresses some of the questions and issues we posed but, for reasons identified below, the current regulation (O. Reg. 365/25, the “Regulation”) will likely be amended. We do not believe the current version creates the complete system of AMPs that will become available under the OHSA. Below we answer some of the questions and issues raised in our earlier Advisor article and address one or two new matters from our initial review of the Regulation.
Who Can Receive an AMP?
Section 69.1 of the Ontario OHSA provides that any person (which includes a corporation) could receive an AMP. However, the Regulation drafted currently only provides for AMPs in one very specific circumstance: failing to treat all accredited Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems (“OHSMS”) as equivalent during the procurement process. However, this obligation only applies to government or public sector organizations procuring or contracting for a construction project. Because this, effectively, excludes the majority of employers from receiving an AMP, we think it unlikely that this will be the only AMP available and anticipate future amendments to create additional AMPs.
Can AMPs be Issued Right Now? When Will They Start?
The Regulation took effect on January 1, 2026, meaning that AMPs can now be issued for prescribed violations. As noted, there is currently only one prescribed violation. We elaborate on that below.
What Violations Can Result in an AMP?
At the time of writing, an AMP can only be issued for a violation of section 3 of Ontario Regulation 364/25. That section requires government and other public sector organizations treat all accredited OHSMSs as equivalent. This means that public sector organizations cannot demand a specific OHSMS during tendering or as part of awarding a contract.
The Regulation is in the format of a list of prescribed penalties for contraventions. As discussed throughout this Advisor, we expect more contraventions and penalties to be added.
How Long Does an Ontario Inspector Have to Issue an AMP?
Under the Regulation, an AMP can be issued up to 1 year after a contravention first became known to the inspector. This is less time than the Inspector has to lay a charge under the OHSA – where the inspector has two years’ time after learning of a contravention.
What Will the Amounts of AMPs be?
We think that question remains largely unanswered by the Regulation. For the sole prescribed penalty (not treating all accredited OHSMSs as equivalent) the penalty is the lesser of $100,000 or 10% of the procurement contract.
While it is difficult to extrapolate from one named contravention, this does indicate AMPs could be significant. We note the current prescribed penalty is for a violation that does not relate to the injury or endangerment of a worker, yet a six figure penalty could still result. Future amendments of the Regulation will reveal the quantum of other penalties which, we anticipate will be calculated on factors different than the value of a tender or contract. As we previously noted AMPs in some other Canadian jurisdictions are very significant amounts.
Does the Regulation Address Reviews of AMPs?
We now know the recipient of an AMP can have it reviewed by the Ontario Labour Relations Board (“OLRB”). Under the Regulation that review must be filed within 15 calendar days of the penalty being received[1] – half the time permitted to appeal an order or decision issued by an inspector. It is not clear why the government chose to include a shorter deadline for a review of an AMP than appeal of an order or decision of an inspector. As we discuss below, appealing an order suspends payment of a related AMP and an AMP is not payable before the order appeal period expires. This suggests that, if the order is set aside, the related AMP will also be set aside but the Regulation does not explicitly say this. As such, unless clarification is provided, it appears there is some risk in only appealing the inspector’s order or decision, and not also seeking review of a related AMP.
Further, a review of an AMP may often involve a challenge to the inspector’s finding of a violation – the same issue that arises in an appeal against an inspector’s order or decision. In such cases, the considerations, preparations, and filings for a review of the AMP will likely require the same evidence and approach as challenging an order – but will need to be filed in half the time. The similarity in the potential issues and preparation involved in an AMP review and an order appeal further call into question why different appeal/review deadlines will exist- but the Regulation is now law.
The Regulation provides that the parties to an AMP review will be the recipient of the AMP, the inspector, and any other person specified by the OLRB. It is not clear if, for an AMP review, a person or organization representing workers will be a party. If not, that will also be different than an appeal against an order in which workers are entitled to participate as a party.
The OLRB’s powers in a review will be similar to those it has when addressing the appeal of an order. The OLRB may confirm, vary or set aside the AMP. However, there are a couple of notable differences in OLRB powers for AMPs. First, unlike in an order appeal, the OLRB will not have the power to enter premises as part of a review of an AMP. This power is not regularly exercised by the OLRB but it is interesting the government excluded it for AMP reviews. Second, and importantly, the Regulation does not provide for mediation of an AMP review. Normally, proceedings before the OLRB engage a mediation process. This is specifically provided for in appeals of orders under the OHSA (see subsection 61(3) to 61(3.2) of the OHSA). However, though the Regulation borrows certain procedural elements from order appeals, there is no mediation power provided by the Regulation. Therefore, it appears that all AMP reviews will be solely on an adjudication track at the OLRB- requiring a detailed written application for review, and an oral or written hearing with submissions to the OLRB.
Is Due Diligence Relevant to a Review?
It remains unclear what role due diligence will play in a review. Due diligence is not mentioned in the Regulation and there is, currently, no comment about compliance efforts being relevant to the validity or amount of the AMP. We note the OLRB has the power to vary an AMP but the Regulation does not comment on whether this power includes the power to vary the amount of the penalty. It may be that future amendments of the Regulation will clarify the scope of the variation power and/or the relevance of due diligence or compliance efforts to the amount of the AMP. Failing that, the OLRB will have to decide what relevance due diligence has to the review of an AMP. This is concerning given that in most other Canadian jurisdictions, the employer’s due diligence submissions can significantly mitigate, or result in relief against, an inspector-issued AMP.
Must the Penalty Be Paid While a Review is Pending?
No. Under the Regulation an AMP is to be paid as follows:
- Where the AMP relates to an order: 30 days after the expiry of the appeal period or, if the order is appealed, 30 days after the OLRB’s decision.
- Where the AMP does not relate to an order: within 45 days of receiving the AMP or, if a review is sought, 30 days after the OLRB’s decision.
In any circumstance, the AMP does not have to be paid before seeking a review. However, if an AMP is not paid however when required, it may be enforced against an employer or individual in the same manner as an unpaid penalty imposed on an OHSA prosecution.
Can the Government Publicize Workplace Parties Who Have Received an AMP?
Yes. The Regulation specifically authorizes the Minister of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development to publish, including on the internet, the name of any person against whom an administrative penalty has been imposed, the nature of the contravention or failure to comply and the amount of the administrative penalty.
Do We Have to Exchange Evidence With the Government Before an AMP Review?
Yes. AMP reviews are not prosecutions which, generally, place no disclosure or production obligations on a corporate or individual defendant who is charged. Proceedings before the OLRB typically require the parties to produce documents and other materials and detailed positions to each other before the hearing. The Regulation provides that the OLRB may order production of documents or things that may be relevant to the review and to do so before or during a consultation or a hearing. Even if not ordered by the OLRB, the OLRB’s Rules of Procedure require the exchange of relevant documents at least 10 days prior to a hearing. Those employers or others challenging an AMP will, therefore, have to provide at least their documentary evidence in advance of the review hearing.
Can This Current Regulation Be Changed?
This Regulation, like any legislation, can be amended. Regulations are easier to change than a statute (such as the OHSA) because amendments do not have to go through the Legislature. Almost all of the Regulations under the OHSA have histories of periodic amendments. We anticipate the current AMP Regulation will be amended. It seems highly unlikely that there will be only one violation for which an AMP can be issued. Expect amendments to the Regulation to add further prescribed contraventions and penalties.
Concluding Thoughts
The Regulation answers many of the questions that arose from the inclusion of AMPs as an enforcement option for Ontario OHSA inspectors. However, it appears incomplete with currently only one prescribed penalty. In addition, the Regulation is not clear, in many respects, about the relationship between orders and AMPs and their appeal or review. Also, and, importantly for workplace parties, the Regulation does not set out the relevance of due diligence in an AMP review. We expect numerous issues and concerns arise as Ontario’s system of OHSA AMPs develops. We have commented on some, but not all, of them here. If the government fails to provide clarification it may require the adjudication of cases in order to get clarity about all aspects of this new enforcement power.
[1] Under the Regulation, the OLRB has the power to extend this deadline where it deems it appropriate to do so.
