FLHA template: use it at the worksite, not after the job

Direct answer. Use this field-level hazard assessment (FLHA) form to compare the planned work with the conditions the crew finds today. Record changed conditions, each step, the hazard, current and additional controls, a named action owner and an explicit proceed/change/stop decision. Work through it with the people doing the task before they begin and revisit it whenever conditions change. An FLHA is a site-level aid to a formal assessment, safe work procedure or permit, not a substitute for them. The label and form are common industry practice; legal duties and documentation rules depend on the relevant province, territory or federal jurisdiction. CCOHS field-level risk assessment guidance.

Copyable FLHA form

Fill in the fields at the work face. Delete example text before use. Add rows as needed, but do not make the form so long that the crew cannot use it to make a real decision.

A. Job and crew

B. What changed from the planned assessment?

If nothing changed, still verify that critical controls are present and usable. “No change” should reflect an actual check, not a box marked from the office. If the planned method cannot be followed, do not solve it by writing a new sentence that bypasses a permit, isolation or engineered control.

C. Step, hazard and control table

Do not use “be careful” as a control. State what physically or organisationally changes. For a vehicle/pedestrian interface, this could mean a barrier and controlled route; for uncertain electrical isolation, it could mean stopping until a competent person verifies the supply. CCOHS recommends identifying hazards step by step and deciding whether current controls are adequate before work proceeds. CCOHS risk assessment guidance.

D. Decision and authorisation

• Outcome: [ ] Proceed under confirmed controls [ ] Change the plan and rebrief [ ] Stop and escalate
• Critical unresolved issue: [Describe; if none, write “none identified after review”]
• Controls to complete before start/restart: [What, by whom, how verified]
• Person authorised to revise method/permit: [Name and contact]
• Other duty holders told: [Who, what changed and when]
• Crew review: [Names, date/time; note questions or disagreement]
• Supervisor confirmation: [Name/time and what was checked]
• Next review trigger: [Weather, site access, other trade, plant change, new task, incident, shift change]

The three outcomes are an editorial decision aid, not a province-wide official classification. A signature records participation; it does not certify that a hazardous method is safe. If a critical control is absent, the stop outcome must be real and supported by supervision.

E. Change/recheck log

Example: utility repair beside a loading dock

A crew arrives to repair a service line. The planned procedure assumed a closed loading area. The dock is active and delivery vehicles are reversing within a few metres of the proposed excavation. The FLHA records the changed traffic condition, identifies the worker–vehicle collision risk, and assigns the site contact to close or segregate the dock route before excavation starts. The utility supervisor verifies the barrier and confirms with the dock manager that vehicle movements have stopped or moved. If the dock cannot be controlled, the crew selects stop and escalate, not “high-visibility clothing and caution”. If the work method or permit changes, that document must be formally revised too.

This example illustrates how the form captures the difference between planned and actual conditions. It does not prescribe one traffic arrangement for every worksite. A competent person must decide whether the isolation, excavation and service controls are adequate for the real task.

How to use the form well

Bring the current formal hazard assessment, procedure and permit to the site. Observe the location with the crew, including other work that may overlap. Fill out sections A and B before jumping to a generic hazard list. Work through each task step aloud and ask each worker what can go wrong. Identify controls that are actually in place, then assign and verify anything missing. Do not let a coloured risk score turn an unresolved high-consequence hazard into permission to proceed.

For Alberta work, section 7 of the current OHS Code requires a worksite hazard assessment, a report of its results and controls, a date on the assessment, and reassessment under specified changes. Section 8 requires affected workers to be involved. Alberta also offers its own site-specific assessment template, which employers can use instead of this editorial form. Do not assume Alberta's exact Code wording applies in another province; check the local regulator.

Keep the completed record with the relevant task and version, and make the decision accessible to the next crew or supervisor. If the same “unexpected” hazard recurs, update the formal method or work plan; a repeated FLHA workaround is evidence that the planned controls are incomplete. The separate field-level hazard assessment guide in this programme covers the full decision process, subject to final route approval. The existing Canadian hazard-assessment article owns the general hazard-assessment overview.

The designated Complys Canada hazard assessment software page is a natural next step if the employer wants to organise assessments, owners and reviews. Confirm its live features before making claims about digital FLHA sign-off, automatic hazard detection or legal approval. This free template itself does none of those things.

Source and claim register — checked 5 October 2026