“They’ve created one scheduled penalty. I think there are more to come. I would be very surprised if they only created a system for administrative monetary penalties that had one possible penalty.”

Why start with equivalency?

Ontario’s move to legally recognize ISO 45001 and the Certificate of Recognition (COR) as equivalent under the OHSA, first reported by Canadian Occupational Safety, was designed to address the widespread exclusion of ISO‑certified firms from municipal contract eligibility. At the time, Labour Minister David Piccini said, “municipalities are not moving fast enough,” when it comes to key construction projects, and that he had “heard from several contractors, Ontario contractors unable to bid, driving up costs.”

Warning describes the AMP as “a quick way of enforcing the requirement that doesn’t require them to go through the full prosecutorial process,” particularly given that the underlying issue “in and of itself does not endanger a worker.”

In practical terms, the province has a financial tool to push municipalities and broader public‑sector owners to align tenders with the OHSMS equivalency mandate.

More AMPs coming – and a possible shift away from prosecutions

O. Reg. 365/25 is drafted as a schedule that can list additional AMP‑eligible violations over time. While only one contravention is prescribed today, Warning expects more to follow once government settles the metrics that will determine penalty amounts – such as whether a worker was injured or endangered, the size of the organization and compliance history.

The first example already hints at the potential scale. Because a procurement‑only violation can attract a potential six‑figure AMP, “that at least indicates that the penalties that have yet to be scheduled could be significant,” he says.

If future AMPs land in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, he adds, “we could see a shift away from the prosecutorial mechanisms as being the principal means of Occupational Safety Act enforcement,” with inspectors relying more often on administrative penalties.

Procedural traps: AMP reviews vs order appeals

The regime also creates a tricky procedural landscape when a workplace party receives both an inspector’s order and an AMP.

AMPs can be reviewed by the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB), but the review must be filed within 15 days – half the time allowed to appeal an OHSA order. The OLRB can confirm, vary or set aside an AMP, but unlike OHSA order appeals, there is no explicit mediation process for AMP reviews.

Warning notes the evidence needed to challenge an AMP and to appeal an order will often be the same, yet the processes are separate and run on different timelines. That “seems to create a scenario where a workplace party who receives an AMP may have to move quite quickly and also appeal the underlying order…within 15 days, which is far faster than was required for an appeal of an order,” he says.

He also flags the risk of picking only one route: it is “unclear if you just appeal the order that you automatically get to set aside the [AMP] if you’re successful,” and failing to appeal the order could be used prejudicially in an AMP review as evidence that the contravention was accepted.

What safety leaders and procurement teams should do now

For municipalities and broader public‑sector owners, the immediate task is to update procurement templates and practices.

Contractors and safety leaders should watch for non‑equivalent tender language and be ready to raise concerns, knowing substantial AMPs can be issued for procurement violations.

“We’re still a little up in the air on this,” Warning says. “We have some indication of how the system is now going to work,” but key questions – including how AMPs will expand beyond procurement and how due diligence will factor into reviews – will only be answered as cases start moving through the system.