apr 15 monttor first call
on zoom, mark joined first
then janet maybe 90 sec late, audio crackly first 30 sec
me + mark + janet
typed as we went, picking up midstream

[start ~1003am]

Mark: ok hey marcus, thanks for jumping on
Mark: this is janet mannella, shes uh helping us out on the safety side
me: hi janet good to meet you
JM: hello, can you hear me ok? im sorry there was some
JM: (audio glitch)
me: yeah youre good now
JM: ok thanks. let me give you a quick intro of who i am before we
JM: get into anything because i think context matters here
JM: i find it helps to set expectations up front rather than
JM: discovering them in week three

Mark: yeah janet always does that ha
Mark: she did it on our first call too

JM: marcus i hope you dont mind, i tend to be direct
JM: it saves everyone time later

me: no please, direct is good

[she introduced herself, going to try to capture verbatim]

JM: so im a canadian registered safety professional, crsp, through bcrsp
JM: i have an mba in health and safety leadership out of university of fredericton
JM: i did the ohs certificate at what was then ryerson, now tmu
JM: my current role is vp operations at the canadian centre for occ health and safety, ccohs
JM: that is the federal nonprofit, were based out of hamilton
JM: ive been at ccohs since november 2019
JM: prior to that i was the safety manager for the faculty of health sciences at mcmaster
JM: covering roughly 8000 employees across multiple sites
JM: and before that i was at an ontario college, manager of occupational safety, also instructing in their ohs cert program
JM: that was 2010 to 2018
JM: i did a stint on coosha as co chair 2016 to 2018
JM: before all that i was at durose manufacturing in guelph, hr and safety, 2006 to 2010
JM: so thats me
JM: with mark im on a 90 day retainer to help him sort through the current situation and identify what an implementation partner would need to deliver

me: thats helpful thanks
me: i should say, im senior account exec at ez pz, weve done safety adjacent work but
me: (i trailed off here, didnt want to over claim)

[mark jumped in]

Mark: yeah marcus and i have known each other a few months now
Mark: weve had a couple of dinners, met at the cco event in feb i think
Mark: ez pz feels right size to me, ive been burned by the bigs before

JM: ok. so mark do you want to give marcus a sense of why were here

Mark: sure. uh so monttor we do mid rise commercial, retail fit outs, some light industrial
Mark: all in the gta mostly
Mark: 180 staff give or take, $45 mil revenue last fy
Mark: we had an incident, well a near miss, back in
Mark: when was it [pause]
Mark: february? early march?

JM: mark i would suggest we keep incident specifics out of a first call
JM: marcus we can get into that under nda
JM: the headline is they had a near miss, no injury, no critical injury report
JM: but the cgl carrier picked it up in their loss runs review
JM: and a risk control audit is now a condition of next year insurance renewal

me: got it
me: so the audit is on a clock

JM: yes
JM: marks renewal date is [I think she said] july 31

Mark: yeah end of july
Mark: which is why we want someone moving by june

JM: thats where im hoping you can help
JM: i can do the gap audit piece
JM: monttor needs an implementation partner for the corrective actions
JM: that work runs roughly august through october in my view
JM: with discovery in may, proposal in june, kickoff in july

me: ok thats helpful framing
me: appreciate you laying the timeline out
me: that gives me something concrete to work back from

Mark: yeah and marcus
Mark: the carrier is the part that doesnt move
Mark: end of july is end of july
Mark: i dont get to negotiate that

JM: correct
JM: which is why we cannot afford a long procurement cycle
JM: typical rfp would eat 8 weeks of that window
JM: i am explicitly trying to avoid that

me: makes sense
me: can i ask, what does the current safety program look like

JM: [exhale]
JM: their manual is v3 last revised april 2024
JM: that is 24 months stale
JM: in those 24 months we have had
JM: the ministry rename to mlitsd, which i still see firms calling mol
JM: the consolidation of reporting under o reg 420 21
JM: the bill 88 fines increase to 1.5 million for directors and officers
JM: the naloxone requirement under ohsa s 25.2, in force june 1 2023
JM: none of which is in their current manual

me: ok
me: (i was writing fast here, hopefully got the section numbers right)
me: [I think she said o reg 420 21?]

JM: correct, o reg 420 21
JM: that consolidates the s 51 critical injury reporting, the 48 hour written report flow
JM: the jhsc notification, the health and safety rep notification

Mark: marcus this is the kinda stuff i dont know
Mark: i dont know what i dont know which is why janet is here

me: yeah totally
me: mark can i ask about jhsc

JM: i can answer that, on the jhsc
JM: monttor has 180 workers so theyre well above the s 9 threshold
JM: they have a jhsc not a rep
JM: my understanding is at least one of the co chairs is overdue on their part 2 construction certification
JM: that is a 3 year refresher cycle
JM: i need to verify that with the certificate of training
JM: but if i am right it is a finding

me: ok so jhsc cert refresh is one work stream

JM: yes
JM: working at heights is another
JM: refresher cycle is also 3 years under o reg 297 13
JM: there is no grace period
JM: my read is monttor has lost track of the rolling expiry dates

Mark: weve got [inaudible] in a spreadsheet somewhere

JM: which is the problem

Mark: yeah ha
Mark: yeah

me: ok one more on jhsc
me: meeting cadence, are they meeting

JM: at least once every three months is the floor
JM: my read is theyve been meeting closer to twice a year
JM: thats from looking at the minutes mark shared

Mark: that is uh
Mark: that is accurate yes

JM: minutes also incomplete
JM: action items not closed out
JM: no worker member doing the monthly inspections
JM: again a finding

me: noted
me: ok the third stream you mentioned was

me: just to make sure i caught that
me: working at heights, three year refresher, o reg 297 13
me: jhsc cert part 2 construction, three year refresher
me: thats two different three year clocks

JM: correct
JM: easy to conflate
JM: theyre independent clocks
JM: a worker can be current on one and expired on the other

me: ok

JM: and on working at heights specifically
JM: the regulation requires workers on construction projects who use a fall protection system
JM: to complete a cpo approved program
JM: cpo is chief prevention officer at mlitsd
JM: not every working at heights course in the wild is cpo approved
JM: i have seen training records that look fine on paper
JM: but the course wasnt on the approved provider list
JM: another finding hazard

me: ok thats a verification step in the audit

JM: yes
JM: i will be pulling the actual certificates and cross checking against the cpo provider list

me: makes sense
me: ok question about fall protection systems generally
me: any sense of how monttor is doing on the hierarchy

JM: not yet, that requires site visits
JM: but i can tell you what id expect to find
JM: o reg 213 91 s 26 series sets out the hierarchy
JM: guardrails first, travel restraint second, fall restricting systems third, fall arrest fourth, safety nets fifth
JM: most mid sized constructors default to fall arrest because its familiar
JM: when guardrails were practicable on the same task
JM: that is a documented finding pattern across the sector

me: noted
me: fall protection hierarchy not documented, defaulting to fall arrest where guardrails were practicable
me: that sounds like an exact phrase

JM: it is an exact phrase
JM: ive written it more times than id like

[laughed]

me: ok
me: i want to go back to subcontractors

JM: yes
JM: subcontractors is the third one and probably the biggest
JM: monttor is the constructor under ohsa s 23 on most of their projects
JM: which means they carry overall responsibility for compliance on those sites
JM: including the work performed by sub trades
JM: when i asked mark for his current sub pre qualification process there isnt really one
JM: theyre asking trades for wsib clearance certs and an insurance certificate of liability
JM: and assuming safety from there

Mark: that is roughly accurate

JM: that is not a pre qualification system
JM: that is a procurement check
JM: a real pre qual covers ohs policy, jhsc structure, training matrix, incident history, supervisor competency
JM: cor aligned firms do this as standard
JM: monttor does not

me: ok
me: question
me: are any of your subs cor certified

Mark: uh
Mark: [missed this bit, mark fumbling through papers]
Mark: i dont know off the top of my head
Mark: i can check

JM: from what mark shared with me last week, two of eleven active subs have cor or equivalent
JM: nine do not

me: ok thats a number

JM: it is
JM: and those nine include some high risk work
JM: roofing in particular

Mark: yeah uh the roofing sub
Mark: gta roofing co
Mark: theyve been with us for years
Mark: but janets been [inaudible]

JM: ive flagged them
JM: gta roofing co has had two recent fall incidents on other constructors sites
JM: not on monttor sites
JM: but the history is relevant to pre qualification
JM: roofing sits in wsib rate group 728
JM: $12.98 per $100 of payroll
JM: thats nearly ten times the provincial average rate
JM: not because gta roofing co specifically is high risk
JM: because roofing as a category is

Mark: ten times
Mark: i did not know that

JM: it is one of the highest rates in the schedule

me: so the premium math tells you where the risk is

JM: in a rough way yes
JM: it is a useful starting heuristic
JM: not a substitute for actual hazard assessment

me: ok
me: (writing fast, gta roofing co, two recent fall incidents, flag)

JM: and another sub mark mentioned, peel mechanical ltd
JM: theyre more established, ive seen their program
JM: they should be straightforward
JM: but they are still being asked the same questions as everyone else
JM: pre qual is a process not a vibe check

Mark: ha
Mark: ok that one stung
Mark: fair
Mark: but you know what janet
Mark: weve worked with peel mechanical for what 8 years
Mark: i know their owner
Mark: i know their site super
Mark: i know how they run

JM: that is fine and that is real
JM: relationship knowledge is valuable
JM: it is not pre qualification
JM: if you cannot produce a current pre qual document for peel mechanical
JM: when an mlitsd inspector asks
JM: relationship does not help you
JM: paper does

Mark: yeah
Mark: yeah i hear you

JM: i mean it as a process comment not a mark comment
JM: most mid sized constructors are in the same place
JM: monttor is not unusual here, it is just not where the regulator expects you to be
JM: if there is an mlitsd field visit tomorrow this is the first thing they will ask for

me: question on that
me: how likely is an mlitsd visit in the window before renewal

JM: hard to predict
JM: the 2024 to 2025 enforcement plan was falls from heights and struck by
JM: about 1300 sites targeted across the construction blitz
JM: monttor has not been visited in that window per marks records
JM: they are statistically possible at any time
JM: that should not be the planning assumption either way
JM: the planning assumption should be that the controls need to be in place regardless

Mark: yeah

me: question on the manual
me: you said v3 last revised april 2024

JM: yes
JM: i have it open in front of me actually
JM: let me run through whats missing
JM: section 3 of the manual lists roles and responsibilities
JM: it still refers to the ministry as mol
JM: the rename to mlitsd was june 2021
JM: that alone tells you nobody has touched section 3 in years

Mark: who wrote that section

JM: a consultant we will not name
JM: in 2022 i think

Mark: ok

JM: section 6 hazard inventory does not include naloxone or opioid response
JM: ohsa s 25.2 came into force june 1 2023
JM: requires a naloxone kit where there is a risk of opioid overdose
JM: that risk assessment has not been done at monttor
JM: which means either you do the assessment and confirm no risk
JM: or you assess the risk and equip accordingly
JM: not doing the assessment is not a defensible position

me: ok

JM: section 11 incident reporting
JM: still cites the old fragmented regulations
JM: o reg 420 21 consolidated all of that effective july 1 2021
JM: the manual has not been updated

Mark: i had no idea about any of this

JM: this is what 24 months stale looks like
JM: each individual update is small
JM: cumulatively the manual reads like it is from a different decade
JM: the rewrite is non trivial

me: how long does a manual rewrite typically take

JM: in a 90 day window
JM: skeleton in week 2, drafts by element through weeks 3 to 6
JM: internal review weeks 7 to 8
JM: jhsc consultation weeks 8 to 9
JM: final approval and rollout weeks 10 to 12
JM: training rollout on the changes weeks 11 to 13
JM: it is tight

me: it is tight
me: that helps me sequence the proposal

JM: i would also flag
JM: working for workers act, bill 88, brought in the higher fines
JM: directors and officers up to 1.5 million
JM: that is a board level fact
JM: marks board chair will want to know it
JM: the manual does not mention it

Mark: i can imagine that conversation

JM: yeah

JM: marcus do you have any questions for me at this point

me: yeah a few
me: first
me: when you say gap audit, against what

JM: good question
JM: against ohsa, o reg 213 91 for construction projects, o reg 297 13 for working at heights
JM: o reg 420 21 for the reporting flow
JM: and against the csa management system standards, primarily z1000 and z1002
JM: those are the yardsticks
JM: not csa z45001 directly though we will reference it
JM: i mention this because some firms walk in pitching iso 45001 alignment as the headline
JM: monttor is not ready for iso 45001
JM: they need the canadian regulatory baseline first

me: ok understood
me: that helps me scope this without overreaching
me: id rather do the canadian regulatory baseline well than chase frameworks

JM: that is the right answer
JM: a lot of firms have iso 45001 on their website
JM: very few have implemented an ohsms that would pass an audit against it
JM: monttor will get there eventually
JM: not in 90 days

Mark: marcus can i interrupt
Mark: when janet says ohsms what is that

JM: occupational health and safety management system
JM: csa z1000 is the canadian baseline standard
JM: iso 45001 is the international version, csa z45001 is the canadian adoption
JM: the audit will rate monttors current state against z1000
JM: my expectation is monttor sits at maturity 1 or 2 out of 5
JM: which is normal for a firm at your stage

Mark: 1 or 2 out of 5 doesnt sound great

JM: it isnt great
JM: it also isnt unusual
JM: the goal of a 90 day engagement is not to move you to 5
JM: the goal is to move you to a defensible 3
JM: with a roadmap to 4 over the following 12 months

Mark: ok

me: ok question two
me: who does the audit report go to

JM: the audit deliverable goes to mark
JM: monttor shares relevant findings with the cgl carrier as needed for renewal
JM: it is not a public document
JM: i write to a standard structure
JM: executive summary, scope and methodology, findings by element, compliance gap register
JM: corrective action plan with owners and verification methods, root cause analysis on systemic findings, management response

me: got it
me: so the implementation partner is working from your findings register

JM: correct
JM: every corrective action will trace back to a numbered finding in the gap register
JM: the partner closes the findings
JM: verification of closure is documented before the finding is reclassified
JM: that pattern is non negotiable for me, it is how i show due diligence to the carrier

me: makes sense
me: that gives the partner a clean workplan basically

JM: yes
JM: and removes the temptation to do work that isnt traceable to a finding
JM: scope creep prevention by design

me: ok
me: question three is more for mark
me: mark what does success look like in your head

Mark: honestly
Mark: success is i get to renewal without the carrier pulling the policy
Mark: success is i dont have to do a board agenda item every quarter explaining safety to the chair
Mark: success is i can stop carrying this around in my head

JM: i would add to that
JM: success is monttor has a defensible internal responsibility system
JM: in the event of an mlitsd field visit
JM: their constructor s 23 obligations are met visibly
JM: workers know who their competent person is on each project
JM: and the records can be produced in 24 hours

Mark: yeah what she said

[mark laughed]

Mark: actually marcus one more thing on success
Mark: the board chair is asking for a quarterly safety update now
Mark: post the near miss
Mark: i need to be able to put something in front of him that has actual numbers on it
Mark: leading indicators, not just lagging

JM: that came up in our last conversation
JM: monttor currently reports lagging only, lost time injury frequency rate, recordable rate
JM: there is no leading indicator reporting
JM: leading indicators would include things like
JM: percent of planned site inspections completed
JM: percent of toolbox talks delivered against schedule
JM: percent of subs with current pre qualification on file
JM: number of near misses reported per month, treated as a positive signal not a negative
JM: percent of corrective actions closed within target date

Mark: i would love that
Mark: that gives me something to walk into the board with

me: ok board reporting templates, noted
me: should that be in scope for the implementation partner

JM: i think yes
JM: it is a small lift compared to the rest
JM: maybe two templates, one for the board, one for the executive team monthly

me: ok
me: one more
me: budget
me: do you have a working number

Mark: i shouldnt say a number on a first call but
Mark: weve got room
Mark: more than 50, less than 150
Mark: in that band somewhere

JM: marcus this is mark not me on the number
JM: my retainer is separate

me: yeah understood
me: thats helpful, gives me a band to work within
me: id rather come in with a defensible scope at a specific number
me: than play games on price

Mark: yeah i hate that game too
Mark: just give me a real number for real work

JM: agreed
JM: and marcus, on that
JM: if your scope changes after discovery the number should change
JM: i would rather see a tight scope with a tight number
JM: than a kitchen sink scope with discount language
JM: that always falls apart at month two

me: heard
me: i will write it that way

JM: thank you
me: ok i think that gives me enough to put together a preliminary scope
me: i want to come back in roughly a week with
me: a written scoping document
me: and id like to bring someone on our side who has construction safety background

JM: id like that
JM: my preference is we keep this small
JM: not a presentation with five of your people
JM: two of you, three of us, that is the right size

me: agreed
me: do you want to schedule the second call now or

Mark: lets do
Mark: how about tuesday next week
Mark: same time

me: works for me, ill send the invite
me: janet anyone else from your side

JM: monttors interim safety lead will join
JM: his name is [I think she said dave? doug?]
JM: hes covering the day to day while mark figures out the longer term director piece
JM: hes been in the seat about 6 weeks
JM: hes a contractor not a fte

Mark: yeah hes been good for what we needed in the moment
Mark: not the long term answer

JM: i should also flag, mark and i have been talking about
JM: whether the implementation partner could include interim director of safety services
JM: until monttor hires a permanent person
JM: thats a separate question, not for today

Mark: yeah park that for now
Mark: i raised it
Mark: i dont want to muddle this call with it

me: ok parking it
me: ill flag it on the discovery agenda so we can address yes or no clearly

me: ok
me: cool

Mark: marcus before we hop
Mark: thanks for not pitching me
Mark: ive had three other firms in the last two weeks
Mark: all of them spent the first 30 minutes telling me about their methodology

me: ha
me: i mean we have a methodology too
me: ill bore you with it next time

Mark: ha
Mark: ok

JM: marcus before we hop one more thing
JM: i want to be clear about scope and ethics
JM: i operate within the bcrsp code of ethics
JM: i will not endorse a scope of work that asks any party to operate beyond their professional practice limitations
JM: that applies to me and it applies to anyone we bring in
JM: i mention this because some firms try to bundle services that should be separated
JM: for example combining the audit and the implementation under one provider creates a conflict
JM: thats why im doing the audit and were looking for an implementation partner
JM: i want that to be transparent

me: thats fair
me: appreciated

JM: ok thank you marcus
JM: talk tuesday

Mark: thanks marcus

me: thanks both

[ended ~1018am, so ~15 min as billed]

[end of typed notes]

post call notes to self
ok so big takeaways
1 janet is the gatekeeper, not mark
2 mark is the buyer, mark is friendly, mark has budget room
3 the trigger is cgl renewal end of july, that is the deadline
4 the audit is janets, the implementation is ours, scope separation is a hard line for her
5 jhsc cert refresh + working at heights + sub pre qual are the three explicit work streams she named
6 manual rewrite is implied not stated
7 she expects me to know ohsa section numbers, do not show up to call 2 without homework
8 budget band 50 to 150, real number probably 80 to 90
9 timeline discovery may, proposal june, kickoff july, delivery aug to oct
10 do not pitch on call 2, bring a scoping doc and listen

things to verify before call 2
- gta roofing co fall history, can i confirm from public sources
- peel mechanical ltd, ihsa records or cor status
- the interim safety leads actual name, mark said it but i didnt catch clean
- naloxone section number, i wrote 25.2 of ohsa, double check that
- o reg 420 21 actually called notices and reports under sections 51 to 53.1, verify
- working at heights regulation o reg 297 13, verify

people to bring to call 2
- darryl, ex ihsa, joined ez pz apr 7, perfect background
- maybe priya if darryl cant make it
- not ed, ed will overplay it

dont be the firm that spent 30 min on methodology
janet will hate that
mark already flagged it
listen first, scope second, pitch never on call 2
