An Airdrie furniture and appliance retailer has lost its appeal of a $5,000 administrative penalty after failing to comply with five occupational health and safety orders stemming from a proactive inspection last fall.
In a July 23 ruling, the Alberta Labour Relations Board, acting as the statutory Appeal Body, summarily dismissed the appeal by Glamar Limited, which operates as Airdrie Appliance and Furniture. The Board found the matter was “without merit” and denied a request to introduce new evidence. The case is cited as Glamar Limited (Airdrie Appliance and Furniture) v Alberta (Occupational Health and Safety), 2025 ABOHSAB 15.
The penalty was issued February 25, 2025, after an Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) officer found the company had not complied with five outstanding orders issued following a September 16, 2024 inspection.
The inspection, conducted under a Wholesale, Warehouse and Department Store proactive initiative, resulted in six orders.
The Board said Glamar was cited for failing to:
-
conduct a hazard assessment and provide a written report;
-
establish an emergency response plan;
-
implement a workplace violence prevention plan;
-
implement a harassment prevention plan; and
-
designate a trained first aider at the worksite.
Only the sixth order—requiring a basic first aid kit—was fulfilled after the company provided a photo of the kit. The remaining orders were not met despite three deadline extensions and a final notice in January 2025.
“The Appellant does not suggest that it complied with the outstanding Orders, nor did the Appellant ever appeal the Orders,” wrote Vice-Chair Gordon Nekolaichuk.
The company was advised in November 2024 and again in January 2025 that administrative penalties could be imposed. According to the Notice of Assessment issued February 25, OHS levied five administrative penalties of $1,000 each. The Notice cited aggravating factors, including the company’s “failure to cooperate with the OHS Officer.”
Glamar filed its appeal on March 20. The company cited financial hardship and business closure plans. It also submitted that few hazards were present due to the nature of the business and stated it had no history of workplace violence or harassment.
The Board rejected both the new evidence request and the substantive appeal. “This is not an appeal of the Orders,” Nekolaichuk wrote. “It is an appeal of the administrative penalties imposed for failing to comply with the Orders.”
The Board ruled that the proposed evidence did not meet the standard under Rule 42 of the Appeal Body’s Rules of Procedure, which only allows new evidence in “exceptional circumstances” if it is directly relevant, would materially affect the outcome, and was not previously available with ordinary diligence.
“Rather, the evidence appears to pertain to whether the Orders themselves were reasonable,” the decision said.
Finding “no reasonable prospect of success even if the Appellant’s arguments were accepted,” the Board summarily dismissed the matter under section 45(5)(g) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, S.A. 2020, c O-2.2.
Sign up to get the latest local news headlines delivered directly to your inbox every afternoon.
Send your news tips, story ideas, pictures, and videos to news@discoverairdrie.com. You can also message and follow us on Twitter: @AIR1061FM.
DiscoverAirdrie encourages you to get your news directly from your trusted source by bookmarking this page and downloading the DiscoverAirdrie app.