The estimated total cost of work on a construction site is a key factor in determining the extent of the principal contractor’s health and safety obligations. It is therefore important to know which costs to include in the calculation of the total cost of work within the meaning of the Act respecting occupational health and safety (the “AOHS”).
Section 215.1 of the AOHS requires the principal contractor to assign a full-time health and safety coordinator (an “HSC”) to a worksite when the total cost of the work exceeds $12 million. This provision raises the question of whether the cost of acquiring and installing production equipment should be a factor in the calculation. Two decisions by the Administrative Labour Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) shed light on the criteria used to clarify the scope of the “total cost of work”.
The Arbec case
In the case of Arbec, Bois d’œuvre inc. and BGA Construction inc. (2025 QCTAT 1596), Arbec was the principal contractor for the redevelopment of a former pulp and paper mill. A notice of opening of construction site sent to the Commission des normes, de l’équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (“CNESST”) indicated that the cost of the work was approximately $6.4 million.
However, a CNESST inspector estimated the project’s value at approximately $42 million, including production equipment. She concluded that a full-time HSC must be assigned. The inspector’s view was upheld on administrative review on the grounds that the principal contractor had to incorporate into the total cost any equipment “permanently installed and forming part of the building”, since it was essential to the purpose of the work.
The principal contractor challenged this ruling, arguing that the total cost of the work did not exceed $12 million, since production equipment should not be included in the calculation.
The criterion regarding the number of workers was not at issue, as no more than 100 workers were present on site at any one time. The analysis concerns the calculation of the “total cost of work”. The Tribunal noted that, for the purposes of a notice of opening of construction site, the estimate must be prepared at the start of the project and based primarily on (a) the contract between the owner and the principal contractor, and (b) the proposed work, although the project’s value may change as it progresses. Case law recognizes that the concept of total cost of work includes all construction-related costs, whether direct, indirect, or incidental.
Based on the evidence, the Tribunal found that the principal contractor’s contract covered the renovation of an existing building, including roofing work, office fit-outs, the installation of windows and garage doors, and the addition of sprinklers, a heating system, and lighting. The purchase and installation of production equipment were the subject of separate contracts between the owner and other parties, including the manufacturer. The principal contractor had “no contractual relationship” with the manufacturing, purchase, or installation of this equipment. The Tribunal also noted that this equipment was manufactured during the building’s renovation, and installation began when the renovation was approximately 99% complete.
In this case, based on the invoices submitted as evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the project costs should be broken down as follows:
| TYPE OF COST | ACTUAL COST |
| Civil engineering and construction | $6,489,080 |
| Equipment purchases | $21,545,303 |
| Equipment assembly/installation | $3,974,081 |
The Tribunal found that the renovated building had an existence and utility independent of the production equipment and formed an envelope that is both capable of serving various purposes and complete without such equipment. The evidence also showed that this equipment could be moved and installed elsewhere without compromising the building’s structural integrity. The Tribunal concluded that, even if certain equipment was essential to a factory’s purpose, it did not necessarily constitute an integral part of the building.
The Tribunal therefore distinguished between movable property attached to the building and property that “is used to carry on a business” when calculating the total cost of the work.
Finally, the Tribunal noted that the evidence did not support the CNESST inspector’s $42 million estimate; it was derived from a public announcement about the project’s overall investment, reported by several media outlets. Instead, the Tribunal relied on the documentary evidence submitted, including the contractual agreements and invoices issued.
This decision underscores the importance of clearly understanding what is included and excluded in the concept of “total cost of work” within the AOHS. The analysis must be based on the contractual reality of the worksite and the nature of the work being carried out, which sometimes means distinguishing between construction work and investments related to the company’s future operations.
This question frequently arises in industrial projects, where the value of production equipment can exceed that of the building’s construction.
The GFL Environnemental case
A similar situation recently arose in the case of GFL Environnemental inc. (2025 QCTAT 3411). In this case, the CNESST inspector estimated the total cost of the work at approximately $45 million, including the supply and installation of industrial equipment valued at nearly $36.5 million, while the construction contract represented only $7.8 million. On this basis, the CNESST concluded that the threshold set out in the AOHS had been met and that the duty to assign a full-time HSC to the worksite applied.
GFL contested the CNESST’s decision, arguing that only the work covered by the construction contract should be taken into account in calculating the total cost of the work, as the industrial equipment was covered by a separate contract.
As part of its appeal, GFL asked the Tribunal to grant a stay of the CNESST’s decision in order to temporarily suspend the requirement to assign a full-time HSC, pending a decision on the merits regarding the total cost of the work. The Tribunal has not yet ruled on this matter. However, it granted the requested stay, finding that the appeal raised a serious issue and that immediate application of the requirement could result in significant, unrecoverable costs for the employer should the employer prevail. The Tribunal also took into account GFL’s efforts to ensure workers’ health and safety, despite the appeal.
Key takeaways
Ultimately, the concept of “total cost of work” cannot be separated from the realities of the construction site. In industrial projects, where production equipment often plays a significant role, the distinction between what pertains to construction and what pertains to the site’s future operation remains central.
Recent case law shows that this issue continues to evolve and must be examined in light of the evidence specific to each case. What remains determinative is the actual classification of the work under review, not the project’s overall value. Careful planning can help prevent health and safety disputes and ensure compliance with the applicable regulatory framework.