At a London bar, a worker was injured during an incident of workplace violence. That is all the Ministry bulletin says about what happened.
The company had no procedure for what the worker should do in that moment. No radio to call for help. No security guard on duty. And no violence risk assessment — despite previous incidents at the same location.
What Happened
On November 5, 2023, a worker was injured during an incident of workplace violence at 645 Richmond Street in London. That workplace is operated by Richmond Street Warehouse Restaurant Ltd. as El Furniture Warehouse. The bulletin does not describe how the incident unfolded. Accounts of a host being asked to remove a patron come from press reporting, not from the Ministry.
The Ministry of Labour investigation found that Richmond Street Warehouse Restaurant Ltd. had, at the time of the incident: no procedures for summoning immediate assistance when workplace violence occurs; no radios or communication devices for workers in that role; no security guards on duty; and no completed workplace violence risk assessment — even though previous incidents of violence had occurred at the same location.
Richmond Street Warehouse Restaurant Ltd., based in Vancouver, British Columbia, pleaded guilty in London Provincial Offences Court and was fined $55,000 plus a 25% victim fine surcharge under Section 32.0.2(2) of the OHSA.
What the Law Says
Section 32.0.2(1) OHSA: "An employer shall develop and maintain a program to implement the policy with respect to workplace violence required under clause 32.0.1 (1) (a)."
Basically, what this means is simple: a workplace violence policy is only the starting point. The program that implements it must include real, operational procedures — including a clear way for workers to summon immediate help when violence is imminent or occurring.
Three Things This Case Teaches Ontario Hospitality Employers
- A violence policy is not a violence program. Section 32.0.2(2) requires a program that includes specific procedures for summoning assistance. A policy document doesn't tell a worker what to do at 1 a.m. when someone is swinging at them.
- Previous incidents of violence are documented evidence of a foreseeable risk. An employer who knows about prior incidents at a specific location and still hasn't completed a violence risk assessment or developed a program has no credible due-diligence argument.
- Communication tools are a control, not a convenience. Radios, panic buttons, or equivalent communication devices that allow workers to call for immediate help are program requirements in environments with foreseeable violence risk — especially for workers who interact directly with patrons in conflict situations.
If you operate a bar, restaurant, retail location, or any customer-facing environment where patron conflict is foreseeable, review your workplace violence program. The full analysis is in the WorkSafe Sounds article linked above.