The generator was a prototype. The hazard was as old as chemistry.
A crew at a Sarnia technology company was testing a four-cell aluminum-air galvanic generator, a device that makes electricity and, as a byproduct, gives off flammable hydrogen gas. They ran the test inside an enclosed fume hood, with a small water-filled bubbler meant to vent the hydrogen safely away. When the gas stopped venting the way it was supposed to, it did not disappear. It collected in the enclosed space, waited for an ignition source, and then it went off.
What Happened
On November 14, 2023, workers at AlumaPower Corporation were testing a prototype generator at the company's facility at 235 Henry Drive in Sarnia, on Aamjiwnaang First Nation land. AlumaPower develops, fabricates, and tests experimental electricity-generation technology. This was exactly the kind of frontier work the company was built to do.
The four-cell generator produces electricity through a chemical reaction and releases hydrogen gas as a byproduct. The test was set up inside a large enclosed fume hood, and the hydrogen was supposed to escape through a water-filled bubbler.
It did not. The hydrogen failed to vent as intended. Instead of leaving the enclosure, the gas accumulated inside it. Hydrogen has a very wide flammable range and needs almost nothing to ignite. Inside that enclosed hood, it reached a concentration that exploded, injuring three workers.
The Ministry of Labour investigation found the testing was not carried out in an area designed or rated for the hazard, and that the enclosed space contained several potential ignition sources. All three workers have since recovered. The company had no prior OHSA convictions.
What the Law Says
The charge came under Section 63 of R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 851 (Industrial Establishments), which governs processes that can produce flammable or explosive gases and the ignition sources around them. It was charged contrary to Section 25(1)(c) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the employer's duty to ensure that the measures and procedures prescribed by the regulations are carried out in the workplace.
Basically, what this means is simple: if your process can fill a space with an explosive gas, that process has to be run in an area rated for that hazard, with the ventilation to carry the gas away and with the ignition sources removed. The fact that the work is experimental changes nothing. Hydrogen does not care whether the generator making it is a prototype or a finished product.
AlumaPower Corporation pleaded guilty in the Provincial Offences Court in Sarnia and was convicted on April 20, 2026, for an offence dated November 14, 2023. The company was fined $90,000 by Justice of the Peace Waugh, plus a 25% victim fine surcharge.
Three Things This Case Teaches Ontario Employers
-
Innovative work does not get a pass on hazard rating. New technology feels like new rules, but the physics is the same as any gas job. Before a prototype that produces a flammable gas is ever energized, the test area has to be classified for that gas, with the ventilation, gas detection, and ignition control that classification demands. Ambition is not a substitute for a rated space.
-
Plan for the vent to fail, because it did. The whole incident turned on a single point of failure. The bubbler stopped venting and there was no backstop. Any system that relies on one path to carry away an explosive gas needs a monitored alarm and an automatic shutdown when flow drops. If the gas cannot leave, the process must stop before the space fills.
-
An enclosed hood concentrates the danger. People assume a fume hood is protection. For a heavier vapour drawn to the extract, it can be. For hydrogen that will not vent, an enclosure just becomes a container that holds the explosive mixture right next to your workers. Match the enclosure and airflow to the specific gas, and never assume a general-purpose hood handles a specialty hazard.
Take your most experimental process tomorrow and trace the gas. Ask exactly where the flammable byproduct goes, what happens the moment that path fails, and what would stop the process before the space became explosive. Then ask your engineers to name the ignition sources inside that enclosure. What they can account for, and what they never considered, will tell you whether your next test is controlled research or a countdown.