Audit, Compliance and Risk Blog

“Plans to protect air and water, wilderness and wildlife are in fact plans to protect man.”
Stewart Udall, 37th U.S. Secretary of the Interior (1961-1969)

With the inauguration of a new U.S. President and the changing of the guard in the Executive Branch of the government, there has been considerable discussion and concerns expressed about new directions that might be taken by the incoming administration. One area of heightened interest has been regulatory reform. This article discusses what regulatory reform might mean to one particular government agency – the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). To put things in perspective, first the history of environmental laws and regulations is discussed briefly. This is followed by an analysis of the historical growth of environmental regulations and how a January 30th Presidential Executive Order and certain other initiatives might impact that growth. And finally, a word of caution about gutting environmental regulations, lest we forget the Agency’s legislated responsibilities and substantial accomplishments in protecting human health and the environment.

Health care and social service workers suffer workplace violence at much higher rates than in most other sectors, because of the higher risk from their patients and clients. In response, worker protection laws and regulations have begun to require workplace violence prevention in these sectors. The California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (OSHSB) just adopted a new regulation, implementing 2014 legislation that expands state requirements for hospital security plans, to include specified workplace violence prevention programs. Compliance begins in phases during 2017-2018, and will be administered by the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA)).

The Federal Court of Appeal granted the Crown’s appeal from a Tax Court decision excusing two directors from liability for unremitted income tax deductions because there was evidence of their subjective intention to resign as directors (Gariepy v. Canada, 2016 FCA 236). Donna Elizabeth Gariepy and Sally Anne Chriss were directors of 1056922 Ontario Ltd. (“105”), a company whose affairs and business was managed by their respective spouses. The spouses had previously operated another company that had become insolvent and owed significant amounts to the Canada Revenue Agency. The spouses were aware that they could be liable as directors of the previous company for a two year period and prevailed on Gariepy and Chriss to become 105’s directors for those two years, despite their lack of involvement in the previous company and their reluctance to act as directors.

Every province and territory in Canada provides that an employee may take leave from work pursuant to legislated leaves of absence, and thereafter be reinstated to his or her former position or comparable employment. Some of the leaves commonly given across many provinces include: maternity and paternity leave, adoption leave, bereavement leave, sick leave, and jury duty leave. Other types of leave that may be less known but which are nonetheless recognized in some provinces include emergency leave, leave for reservists, organ donation leave, and, most recently, leave for victims of domestic violence.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has issued massive revisions to its regulations requiring most employers (“General Industry”, in OSHA parlance), to protect employees from slip and fall hazards in most workplace contexts, including:

The Internet continues to develop and evolve at lightning-fast speed, with new sites and platforms bursting into prominence as others lose their popularity and fade away. Meanwhile, the law, which is not known for its rapid acceptance of new ideas and technology, struggles to keep up, and so do those who must keep up with both the technological and legal developments.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has issued massive revisions to its regulations requiring most employers (“General Industry”, in OSHA parlance), to protect employees from slip and fall hazards in most workplace contexts, including:

Buzz, buzz. Ring, ring. Your eyes are instantly open as the sharp sounds of your smartphone alarm ring in your ears. After reaching over to quell the noise, you jump out of bed, eager to begin your first day as director of marketing for Tech, Inc. Your workday begins with HR orientation. Without much explanation, your hiring manager drops reams of paperwork on your lap. One of the documents is titled “Tech, Inc. Social Media Policy,” while another is a form seeking your personal social media account usernames and passwords. After orientation, you are escorted to your new office, which, to your chagrin, is a small cubicle instead of a plush corner suite. You are assigned your first task: to launch an advertising campaign comparing Tech to rival company, Widget, Inc., along with a promotion in which customers pick three numbers for $2 for a chance to win Tech’s latest gadget. You proudly squeeze promotional information, a slight jab at Widget, and a photo of the prize in a 140-character tweet. After a long first day of work, you arrive at home and post to Facebook: “First day of work. :-) HR sucks. Cubicle is tiny. :-) Thinking about complaining. #newjob #TechInc #funemploymentover #realworld.”

“The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government.”

Since last November’s election, reporters, pundits and rumor-mongers have all worked overtime trying to predict President-elect Trump’s actions. I’ve resisted joining that chorus. Environmental issues received only a tiny portion of candidate Trump’s rhetorical attention (I presented a compilation before the election here), and he had said and done little about these issues since the election.