Occupational Health and Safety Training Requirements (O. Reg. 297/13)

Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) and its regulation O. Reg. 297/13, the Occupational Health and Safety Awareness and Training regulation, set out the mandatory training an employer must provide: basic awareness training for every worker and supervisor, working-at-heights training for anyone who may use a covered fall-protection method, certification training for joint health and safety committee members, and the records that prove it all happened. This page explains those rules in plain language and links each one to the official source.

One idea governs everything below. These are statutory minimums — a floor, not a ceiling. Meeting them is the start of an employer’s health-and-safety obligations, not the end: the OHSA’s general duties (including the duty to provide information, instruction and supervision and to take every reasonable precaution) continue to apply, and other regulations layer their own training on top. Clearing the rules on this page does not, on its own, make a workplace compliant.

Basic health and safety awareness training for workers: required topics and timing

Every Ontario employer must make sure each worker who does work for them completes a basic occupational health and safety awareness training program as soon as practicable — at the front end of the job, not someday — covering a fixed list of required topics set by the regulation.

The program is not free-form. To count, it has to cover a specific set of subjects:

• the duties and rights of workers under the Occupational Health and Safety Act;
• the duties of employers and supervisors under the Act;
• what workplace health and safety representatives and joint health and safety committees actually do;
• how the Ministry of Labour, the WSIB, and the entities designated under s. 22.5 of the Act each fit into the occupational health and safety system;
• common workplace hazards;
• the WHMIS information-and-instruction requirements for hazardous products (under Regulation 860); and
• occupational illness, including the idea of latency — that some illnesses surface long after the exposure.

There is one carve-out. An employer does not have to re-train a worker who has already finished a basic awareness program and provides proof of it — but only if the employer actually confirms that the earlier training met the same content requirements. The exemption rides on verifying it, not just filing the certificate.

The rule is keyed to anyone who performs work for the employer, so short-term and casual hires are not excluded. Common errors here are treating “as soon as practicable” as optional, accepting prior training without checking that it covers every required topic, or skipping the program for short-term and casual workers. One housekeeping note: section 11 of the regulation has been revoked, so older references to it should not be relied on.

Source: Occupational Health and Safety Awareness and Training (O. Reg. 297/13), s. 1. The WHMIS information-and-instruction requirement it references is set under Regulation 860.

The statute is the floor, not the ceiling. This regulation sets only the minimum awareness training. The OHSA’s general employer duty to provide information, instruction and supervision to protect a worker — and to take every reasonable precaution in the circumstances — is broader, so a workplace can satisfy O. Reg. 297/13 and still owe further job-specific and hazard-specific training under the Act.

Basic awareness training for supervisors: within one week of starting supervisory work

An employer must ensure any supervisor completes a basic health and safety awareness training program within one week of first doing supervisory work. The point is straightforward: before someone starts directing other people’s work, they should know the safety basics.

The supervisor program is not free-form either. To count, it has to cover a specific set of topics:

• the rights and duties workers have under the Act, and the duties employers and supervisors carry;
• the roles of health and safety representatives and joint health and safety committees;
• the roles of the Ministry, the WSIB, and the safe-workplace bodies designated under the Act;
• how to recognize, assess and control workplace hazards, and then evaluate whether those controls are actually working; and
• where to find good information on health and safety.

There is one exception worth knowing. An employer does not have to put a supervisor through the program again if they have already completed one before and provide proof of that completion. The catch is on the employer: they still have to confirm the earlier training actually covered the required topics. Proof alone is not enough if the old course was lighter than what the rule demands.

Common errors are treating a worker-level course as a supervisor course, or accepting a certificate without checking what was in it. The one-week window is short, so the safe practice is to build the training into onboarding rather than chasing it after the fact.

Source: Occupational Health and Safety Awareness and Training (O. Reg. 297/13), s. 2.

The statute is the floor, not the ceiling. The one-week supervisor program is a minimum baseline. A supervisor’s competence obligations under the OHSA — knowing the work and its hazards and being able to direct it safely — go beyond completing this awareness course, so the course closes the regulatory window but not the underlying duty.

Exemptions: prior equivalent training and portability between employers

The basic awareness training rule has two narrow exemptions, and both are about not making people repeat training they have already had — a grandfathered-supervisor exemption and a portable exemption that travels with the worker.

The grandfathered supervisor. An employer does not have to run the basic awareness training for a supervisor if two things are true: that person was already working as a supervisor for the employer before the regulation came into force, and they had completed — also before the regulation came into force — a basic health and safety awareness program that met the standard the regulation sets for supervisors. Both pieces matter. It is not enough that they were a supervisor on the old payroll; there has to be a real, equivalent program behind them, and the employer is the one who has to verify it.

The portable exemption. If a worker or supervisor was already exempt under that rule at a previous employer, the exemption can travel with them. The new employer is off the hook for that person — but only if they hand over proof of the exemption. No proof, no exemption.

Common errors are treating “they’ve taken safety training somewhere” as automatic — the exemption hangs on a program that actually met the regulation’s requirements and on verification or proof, not a vague recollection — and forgetting to keep the paperwork, because an employer who cannot show why someone was exempt cannot lean on the exemption. When in doubt, the safe move is simply to run the training: it is short, and it closes the question.

Source: Occupational Health and Safety Awareness and Training (O. Reg. 297/13), s. 3.

The statute is the floor, not the ceiling. These exemptions only switch off the requirement to repeat the basic awareness program; they do not relieve the employer of the OHSA’s broader duties to inform, instruct and supervise. A transferred or grandfathered worker may still need further training on the new workplace’s specific hazards.

Records of basic awareness training (including the six-month-after-departure rule)

An employer must keep a record of every worker and supervisor who has completed the required basic awareness training, keep a separate record of anyone covered by the transitional exemption, and provide written proof of completion or exemption on request — including for up to six months after someone stops working for them.

What must be kept.

• A record of every worker and supervisor who has completed the required basic awareness training.
• A separate record of anyone covered by the transitional exemption under section 3. That exemption is narrower than it sounds: it applies to supervisors who were already acting as supervisors before the regulation took effect and who had already completed qualifying training before that date, or to workers and supervisors transferred from another employer that held an exemption for them.

Written proof on request. Once someone finishes the training, they can ask for written proof of completion and the employer must provide it. The same applies to anyone covered by the section 3 exemption: if they ask, the employer owes them written documentation confirming that exemption status.

That duty does not end when someone leaves. If a former worker or supervisor requests their proof of completion or proof of exemption within six months of their last day, the employer is still obligated to hand it over.

The most common miss is not the training itself — it is the paperwork. Small employers often run a solid orientation and then keep nothing showing who took it and when. If a Ministry inspector asks, or a departing employee wants their documentation, the record has to be in hand. In practice, logging each person’s name and completion date as you go, and keeping any exemption records current, means a request never catches an employer flat-footed.

Source: Occupational Health and Safety Awareness and Training (O. Reg. 297/13), s. 4.

The statute is the floor, not the ceiling. These are the minimum records the regulation demands for awareness training. The OHSA and other regulations impose their own record-keeping (including for the higher-risk working-at-heights training below), so meeting this section is not the whole of an employer’s documentation obligations.

Working-at-heights training: who must be trained, approved programs and providers, and the automotive carve-out

Any worker who may use a fall-protection method listed in the regulation must have completed an approved working-at-heights training program whose validity period has not expired before they use the method — and the employer is responsible for making that happen. An old in-house “safety talk” or a generic course does not satisfy this rule.

To qualify, the program has to be:

• approved by the Chief Prevention Officer as meeting the working-at-heights training program standard in force at the time of the training; and
• delivered by a provider the Chief Prevention Officer has approved under the matching training-provider standard.

There is a carve-out for the automotive sector. The requirement does not apply to a worker doing work on a project at certain automotive workplaces — places where automobiles are made or assembled, where parts are manufactured or warehoused, where finished vehicles are marshalled for delivery, or where automotive research and development happens — but only if that worker is directly employed by the automaker that owns and operates the site. For this purpose an “automobile” includes a van or truck rated at 14,000 pounds (6,350 kilograms) or less. Training completed under Newfoundland and Labrador’s equivalent fall-protection rules can also satisfy the requirement, as long as it is still valid.

The application of this requirement is tied to the Construction Projects regulation. It engages for any employer whose workers are obligated, under O. Reg. 213/91, to use one of six recognized fall-protection methods: travel restraint, fall restricting, or fall arrest systems; safety nets; or work belts or safety belts.

Common errors are assuming an old in-house session or a generic course is enough, or letting a worker’s certification lapse. The training must be the approved program, from an approved provider, and current.

Source: Occupational Health and Safety Awareness and Training (O. Reg. 297/13), ss. 6–7. The six fall-protection methods are those required under the Construction Projects regulation (O. Reg. 213/91).

The statute is the floor, not the ceiling. Approved working-at-heights training is the minimum credential for fall-protection work; it does not displace the employer’s OHSA duty to take every reasonable precaution, nor the equipment, guardrail and procedure requirements set elsewhere — including in the Construction Projects regulation. A trained worker on inadequate equipment is still exposed.

How long working-at-heights training stays valid (three years)

An approved working-at-heights training program is valid for three years, measured from the date the worker successfully completes it. Once that window closes, the training has lapsed and the worker needs to retake an approved program before doing that work again. There is no top-up provision in the regulation — the clock simply restarts on successful completion.

There is one transitional wrinkle. For training successfully completed in the short window between February 28, 2017 and August 31, 2017, the validity period is four years, not three. An employer relying on older records should check the completion date before assuming someone is still current.

The regulation also recognizes certain out-of-province training. A fall-protection program completed under Newfoundland and Labrador’s 2012 occupational health and safety regulations is valid until the date indicated on the proof of successful completion issued to the worker under that province’s scheme — so whatever date appears on that document governs, not the three-year default.

Common errors are treating a training certificate as good forever, or losing track of completion dates so a worker quietly slips past the three-year mark. The safe practice is to keep dated proof of completion on file for each worker and diarize the expiry.

Source: Occupational Health and Safety Awareness and Training (O. Reg. 297/13), s. 8.

The statute is the floor, not the ceiling. The three-year validity period is the outer limit of how long the regulation treats a credential as current; it is not a statement that a worker remains competent for three years. If conditions, equipment or roles change, the OHSA’s general duties may call for retraining sooner than the validity period requires.

Working at heights on construction projects: O. Reg. 213/91 training stacks on top

On a construction project, the working-at-heights training required by O. Reg. 297/13 does not replace the separate construction training already required under O. Reg. 213/91 — both apply. One course does not cover everything.

The Awareness and Training regulation sets the working-at-heights requirement: before a worker uses certain fall-protection methods, the employer must make sure they have completed an approved working-at-heights program (or an equivalent recognized one), delivered by an approved provider, that is still within its validity period. The construction sector then carries its own, separate training requirement under subsection 26.2 (1) of the Construction Projects regulation (O. Reg. 213/91). The Awareness and Training regulation is explicit that this construction requirement applies in addition to the working-at-heights training — not instead of it. So on a construction project, an employer may be looking at both.

The common error is treating the heights course as a single box to tick and forgetting that the construction-side obligation still stands on its own. They stack: clearing one does not clear the other.

Two practical notes. The narrow carve-out from the working-at-heights requirement — for certain automobile manufacturing, assembly, parts and marshalling workplaces where the worker is directly employed by the automaker that owns and runs the site — is specific and unlikely to apply to a general contractor. And expiry dates matter: heights training is only good for as long as its validity period lasts.

Source: Occupational Health and Safety Awareness and Training (O. Reg. 297/13), s. 9, referencing subsection 26.2 (1) of the Construction Projects regulation (O. Reg. 213/91).

The statute is the floor, not the ceiling. Even with both the working-at-heights and the construction-project training in place, the Construction Projects regulation and the OHSA impose extensive further duties — equipment, procedures, supervision and site-specific precautions — so satisfying these two training requirements is necessary but not sufficient on a construction site.

Records of mandatory training, and showing them to an inspector

An employer who has to train workers under this regulation must keep a record of the required training and hand it over to a Ministry inspector who asks for it. “We definitely did the training” is not a record.

For the higher-risk working-at-heights training, the record has to capture four specific things:

• the worker’s name;
• the name of the approved training provider;
• the date the worker successfully finished the approved training; and
• the name of the approved training program they completed.

An employer does not always have to build that record from scratch. The regulation accepts certain proofs of completion as the record. A copy of the worker’s proof of completion issued by the Chief Prevention Officer counts. So does a copy of the equivalent fall-protection completion proof issued by the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission under Newfoundland and Labrador’s health-and-safety rules.

The common error is treating the course itself as the finish line and never filing the paperwork. The safe practice is to keep the certificates, log the four data points for working-at-heights training, and store them somewhere they can be produced on request — because the obligation to make the record available is not optional.

Source: Occupational Health and Safety Awareness and Training (O. Reg. 297/13), s. 10.

The statute is the floor, not the ceiling. This section fixes the minimum content and availability of training records under O. Reg. 297/13. The OHSA gives inspectors broad powers and imposes further documentation duties across the prevention system, so an employer’s overall record-keeping obligations extend beyond these four data points.

JHSC certification training: who provides it, who pays, and matching the Chief Prevention Officer's standard

An employer must provide the training programs a joint health and safety committee (JHSC) member needs to become certified, and the regulation makes clear that carrying out that training includes paying for it — the cost cannot be put on the member. The training also has to match the standards the Chief Prevention Officer sets.

Two points are worth being clear about:

• The training has to be the right training. It is not enough to send someone to any safety course. The programs have to meet the training and other requirements set by the Chief Prevention Officer (the provincial official who sets prevention standards). A program that does not match those standards does not meet the obligation.
• “Carry out” means the employer pays. The regulation spells this out so there is no argument: providing the training includes covering the cost of it. The bill cannot be passed to the member.

The certification requirement under O. Reg. 297/13 connects to the OHSA itself, where the duty to have a certified member on the joint health and safety committee originates. The committee structure and when one is required live with the Act, not this regulation.

Common errors are assuming a generic in-house safety session counts toward certification, or expecting the worker to fund their own certification on their own time. Neither holds up. Where a committee member is going for certification, the employer should build the cost and an approved program into the plan from the start.

Source: Occupational Health and Safety Awareness and Training (O. Reg. 297/13), ss. 5–6. The underlying requirement for a certified committee member sits in the Occupational Health and Safety Act itself — see the joint health and safety committee provisions on the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act page.

The statute is the floor, not the ceiling. This section sets who must provide and pay for certification training. The substantive role of a certified member — and the broader Internal Responsibility System the OHSA builds around joint health and safety committees — goes well beyond the training cost, so funding the course is the start of the obligation, not the whole of it.

---

This page is general information about Ontario occupational health and safety law, not legal advice. If you are unsure which training rules apply to a particular workplace, whether a worker or course still qualifies, or what your records must show, get advice on your specific situation before relying on any of the above.