Picture the moment. A serious incident has happened. An investigator is in front of you. Photos on the table. Statements in a file. And the question isn’t, “Do you care about safety?” The question is, “Walk me through exactly how you made this work safe, and prove it.”
That’s the whole point of the message in your attached piece: due diligence is not your intentions. It’s your decisions, on a real job, on a real day, under real pressure.
Most workplaces don’t fail because people are evil or careless. They fail because work is messy. The plan shifts. The crew is short. The weather turns. The client pushes. The lift is “only one quick pick.” Someone says, “We’ve done it a hundred times.”
And that’s exactly when the real safety system gets tested: not when the conditions are perfect, but when they’re changing.
When things go wrong, investigators and courts tend to care about a few practical things: what hazards you recognized, what controls you chose, whether those controls were actually used, and whether someone verified the controls were in place and effective. In other words, can you show a chain of reasonable steps that made harm unlikely?
A lot of leaders think “due diligence” means having documents. Policies. A binder. A stack of sign-in sheets. Those things help, but only if they connect to real control in the field.
A stronger way to think about it is this: due diligence is a chain you can prove.
You identified the hazard that mattered today.
You assessed the risk in the conditions that actually existed.
You chose controls that reduced exposure, not just controls that looked good on paper.
You assigned responsibility so the controls didn’t depend on “someone will do it.”
You verified the controls were in place and functioning before people were exposed.
You corrected drift when the work changed.
You documented the decision and the reason behind it so it can be defended later.
That last point is the secret sauce. If you can’t explain “why we chose this control” and “why it was reasonable in these circumstances,” you’re leaving a huge gap.
The best part of your attached piece is the micro-tip examples. They’re short, practical, and written the way real work happens: action plus reason.
“Reviewed lift plan, assigned spotter, confirmed tag lines, and set an exclusion zone—because load shift risk and line-of-fire exposure were high.”
“Verified guardrails and safe access, found a missing mid-rail, and stopped work until it was installed—because a fall would be high consequence.”
“Confirmed competency by having the worker demonstrate lockout steps and verify isolation—because stored energy was present and unexpected start-up risk was real.”
“Selected chemical gloves and face shield during transfer—because splash exposure was possible based on the product hazards.”
That format is gold because it does two things at once: it proves action, and it proves judgment. It shows you recognized the hazard and you took a reasonable step to prevent harm.
If you want one habit that improves your defensibility fast, it’s this: write your safety notes as “what we did” plus “because.”
“Because” is where you show you were thinking like a risk manager, not a checkbox operator.
Because the load could swing.
Because a fall would be catastrophic.
Because stored energy can kill.
Because the product can splash.
You’re basically documenting a mini risk assessment in one sentence. Not an essay. Not a thesis. Just enough to show that your controls were chosen on purpose.
This also forces better decisions in real time. If you can’t confidently finish the sentence after “because,” that’s a warning sign that your controls might not match the hazard.
In my experience, the due diligence chain snaps in two common places.
First break: the hazard assessment doesn’t keep up with change.
The job starts one way and ends another. A scope change, a new piece of equipment, a different access point, a rushed timeline, a different crew mix. The hazard picture changes, but the controls don’t.
Second break: controls are assumed, not verified.
Someone “assumes” the guard is in place. Someone “assumes” the lockout was done properly. Someone “assumes” the worker is competent because they’ve been around. Assumption is not a control. Verification is.
If you’re a supervisor, your job is to be the verification step in the system. That’s not micromanaging. That’s leadership.
You do not need to write a novel. What you need is a consistent pattern that captures the core logic of safety decisions.
Use bullets only when you need speed and clarity. Here’s what to capture:
If you’re logging this in a field note, a pre-job, a shift handover, or a supervisor journal, you’re building evidence that your system actually operates.
A lot of workplaces document to satisfy an internal requirement. That’s better than nothing, but it’s not the end goal.
The end goal is proof.
Proof that hazards were recognized.
Proof that controls were selected and implemented.
Proof that supervision and verification happened.
Proof that issues were corrected, not tolerated.
If your documentation can’t show those four things, it’s easy for it to be dismissed as paperwork that didn’t prevent harm.
And yes, that means “You have to fix the problem” isn’t just a motivational line. It’s literally what due diligence looks like in real life: when something is wrong, you stop the exposure and correct it.
Let’s make it concrete.
A mid-rail is missing. You can do one of two things.
Option A: “Be careful,” step around it, and keep moving.
Option B: stop work in that area, install the mid-rail, and document the reason.
Option B is defensible. Option A is a gamble.
Same for lockout. If a worker can’t demonstrate isolation verification, you either coach and verify, or you let the job proceed with a deadly gap. The “demonstrate and verify” approach is not only safer, it’s also the kind of decision you can explain with confidence later.
This is exactly the kind of “field reality meets due diligence” work we help clients with at Calgary Safety Consultants.
If you’re trying to level up your OH&S program so it works under pressure, here are practical ways we can support:
We build hazard assessment and job hazard analysis tools that match real work, not ideal work. That includes templates and coaching so supervisors know when and how to update hazards after scope changes.
We design critical control verification that is simple enough to use daily. Not a giant form. A small set of checks tied to your highest-consequence hazards (falls, energy isolation, lifting operations, confined space, hazardous substances, mobile equipment).
We review and tighten your documentation so it proves decisions and verification, not just activity. That often includes rewriting field note expectations, inspection formats, and supervisor accountability checklists.
We train supervisors on how to lead with “contain, correct, prevent, and communicate.” If a hazard is found, what do you do in the next five minutes, not the next five days?
We support COR readiness and audit preparation by ensuring your system is actually implemented in the field, because COR success (and defensibility) depends on performance, not binders.
If you want to put this into practice in your workplace, visit https://calgarysafetyconsultants.ca and reach out. We focus on practical Canadian OH&S that stands up under scrutiny.
I like this message because it does something most safety messaging fails to do: it frames safety as decision-making under pressure, not slogans.
The hook is strong and memorable. “Defend your safety decisions in court tomorrow” forces a leader to picture accountability in a way that a generic “work safe” message never will.
The micro-tip section is the best part. Those examples are exactly how leaders should write safety notes: action plus reason. Short, specific, and tied to real hazards.
If I had one critique, it would be this: the message could go even further by explicitly pushing verification as the leadership differentiator. The examples imply verification, but spelling out “assumption is the enemy, verification is the control” would make the takeaway even sharper.
Overall, it’s a solid, practical piece that can be used as a daily coaching tool. It’s not just motivational. It’s operational.
Connect with us here and let us help you improve your OH&S practices.
Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety (CCOHS) – Due diligence and “every reasonable precaution” overview: https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/legisl/legislation/how_to_read_legisl.html (CCOHS)
Government of Canada, Justice Laws – Criminal Code of Canada, section 217.1 (legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm): https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-217.1.html (Department of Justice Canada)
Alberta OHS Laws (official search tool) – Occupational Health and Safety Act, supervisor obligations (general obligations section): https://search-ohs-laws.alberta.ca/legislation/occupational-health-and-safety-act/part-1-general-obligations/ (Search OHS Laws)
Supreme Court of Canada – R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (1978), foundational decision on regulatory offences and due diligence: https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2605/index.do (SCC Decisions)
Government of Alberta – Employer responsibilities (plain-language summary of employer duties): https://www.alberta.ca/employer-responsibilities (alberta.ca)
Due diligence means being able to show you took every reasonable step to prevent harm, based on the hazards and conditions that existed at the time.
Not by itself. Documentation helps only when it proves real hazard recognition, control selection, ownership, verification, and corrective action.
Critical controls are the few high-impact controls that prevent or greatly reduce the likelihood of severe harm (for example: energy isolation verification, fall protection systems, exclusion zones for lifting).
Calgary Safety Consultants is here to help you ensure compliance, enhance safety, and streamline your OH&S program. Don’t wait—fill out the form, and we’ll connect with you to discuss how we can support your business. Let’s get started!
Calgary Safety Consultants delivers game-changing COR Audits and OH&S consulting designed to keep your business safe, compliant, and accident-free. With 30+ years of expertise in high-risk industries like oil & gas, construction, and manufacturing, we understand the unique challenges you face. We offer tailored safety solutions that not only meet regulatory standards but also reduce operational risks and protect your workforce. From conducting thorough safety audits to implementing comprehensive safety management systems, we ensure your team is fully supported. Our hands-on, collaborative approach means we're with you every step of the way, helping you achieve a safer, more efficient workplace. Let us handle the heavy lifting so your team stays protected, and your business thrives!
