Fire safety code trial begins

Company faulted for unqualified technicians

Okotoks-based Premium Fire Protection put the safety of Calgarians at risk by using unqualified technicians to maintain equipment, a city prosecutor said Monday.

Jenna Graham, in her opening address at the three-week trial of Premium on 24 Safety Codes Act charges, said while no one was injured or died, the risk was still there.

Graham told provincial court Judge Allan Fradsham she will call expert evidence, as well as testimony from former Premium employees, to establish the company failed to meet its duties while maintaining fire safety equipment at Calgary businesses.

“We expect that the witnesses will establish the Crown's theory that Premium Fire put profit before people, profit before employee safety and profit before the general safety and well-being of the public,” she said.

Premium has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

In a statement of agreed facts, Premium admitted employing unqualified technicians between 2017 and 2019.

But Graham said if the Crown can establish the employees actually conducted work for which they weren't qualified, Premium would then have the burden of showing it used due diligence in conducting its business to avoid guilty findings.

“My friend (defence counsel Brent Cooper) has conceded that most of the employees did not possess the certification required to work on the specific life-safety equipment,” she said, referring to the agreed facts.

Graham said that while Fradsham has heard some of the facts in pretrial motions, including a charter challenge by Premium over the seizure of company records, the full picture will come out in the trial.

“Up until now you have not heard the whole story about the actions of Premium Fire Protection,” she said.

The company conducts maintenance, installation and testing of fire extinguishers, special fire suppression systems and fire alarms throughout Alberta and beyond, Graham explained.

But the workers Premium sent out to commercial businesses in Calgary weren't qualified to conduct those activities.

“The Crown will need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the uncertified and unqualified employees were indeed at the locations alleged,” she said.

“We expect our experts to tell you just how onerous becoming certified is because working on life-saving equipment, your honour, is no walk in the park.”

And she said while no one was injured, or property lost, that didn't exonerate Premium of the charges.

“This may not be a case where there's loss of life, or loss of property (but) we expect that the evidence will show you that fire extinguishers, suppression systems and fire alarms that had not been serviced properly by a qualified technician had the potential to pose great danger.”