OK, lets talk about the reporter rights: In the circumstances she was in, she had the right to the protection of the criminal code and of any applicable municipal By-laws. That's it that's all.
Did she have a right to any protection under the OHSA? No, not from Hydro-One she didn't; not from Toronto FC she didn't; not from the owner of BMO field she didn't.
Her rights under the OHSA only bind her own employer and any person retaining the services of her employer. That's it and that's all.
Under OHSA or any similar legislation, If the employer conclude that a journalist (female or male) is in danger or will be exposed to improper treatment in any area where they send the journalists, they can do two things: Not send the journalist or provide the journalist with security apparatus appropriate to the circumstances. But they have no right to against the source of the "danger" other than those existing for the population at large.
Can a cop sent out to arrest criminal ask that the criminal be "enjoined" from using a gun? No. Can he ask his own employer for a bullet proof vest, a gun and back up? Yes.
Can an ambulance driver sent to a winter accident scene ask for the municipality to be ordered to clear snow and ice from his path? No. Can she ask for his ambulance company to provide her with chains for her tires? Yes.
There is BTW no such thing as the whole world being an "extended workplace" just because one of your employee works there. The whole City of Toronto is not Metro Police's "extended work place". Under OHSA, extended workplace is a remote workplace, other than the regular/owned/rented one of the employer, where the employer has control over the actual situation. The usual example is the place where a construction crew works. It's not the construction company's facility but it is a facility where the employer can and must deploy all the usual worksite safety measures.
So let's stop stretching non applicable concept of "workplace safety" here just to support a pet theory on employees (of Hydro-One) contractual obligations to their employers.
And, BTW, this guy was not "off-duty". You and I, in the military may be "off-duty"; a flight attendant traveling on her company's airline but not part of the crew may be "off-duty", but ordinary employees in an ordinary setting are NOT off-duty. The butcher at your local food store is or any other such employee is either at work or not at work, but not off'duty, a term that applies, IMO, to only those that work in fields where we owe a personal protection or safety service to others who are not our "clients", such as cops, fireman, soldiers, airline flight crew, doctors para-medics, etc.