Morgan Rowe will be celebrating the paperback launch of her book, Exploring Disability Identity and Disability Rights through Narratives: Finding a Voice of Their Own, on May 14, 2015. The book explores the relationship between disability, human rights, and personal identity in the lives of Canadians with disabilities. The book launch is being hosted by Octopus Books. More details about the event can be found here.
On May 14, 2015, Morgan Rowe and University of Ottawa Professor Ravi Malhotra celebrated the launch of the paperback version of their book, Exploring Disability Identity and Disability Rights through Narratives: Finding a Voice of Their Own. The event was a resounding success, with the first order of the book selling out before the end of the event. Morgan would like to thank everyone who came out and contributed to making the event such a success.
RavenLaw gratefully acknowledges the contribution to this blog by Taylor Akin, Student-At-Law
By now, many of us have heard of Jennifer Huculak-Kimmel, the Canadian mother who was billed $950,000 when she unexpectedly gave birth while on vacation in Hawaii. Her baby was delivered nine weeks early by emergency C-section and had to be hospitalized for two months. Prior to leaving for vacation, Huculak-Kimmel had purchased travel insurance with Blue Cross and was cleared to fly by her doctor. Blue Cross denied her coverage due to an alleged pre-existing condition. Huculak-Kimmel had contracted a bladder infection four months into her pregnancy and Blue Cross argued that this pre-existing condition made her pregnancy high risk and nullified her health insurance coverage.
In determining whether health insurance coverage is owed in these circumstances, recent Canadian judgments have applied the reasonable expectations doctrine. The British Columbia Supreme Court decided a similar (albeit less financially devastating) case that occurred in 2011. In Turpin v Manufacturers Life Insurance Company, 2011 BCSC 1162, Sandra Turpin experienced abdominal pain two weeks before a trip. She sought the advice of three different doctors and was prescribed antibiotics. She then purchased travel insurance and travelled to South California. Shortly after her trip began, Turpin felt unwell and attended a walk-in clinic. When a new prescription did not ease the pain, she spent 5 days confined to hospital. Upon returning to Canada, she underwent an appendectomy. The family incurred just over $27,000 in medical expenses while on vacation that the insurance company refused to cover due to the alleged pre-existing medical condition.
In evaluating Turpin’s entitlement to coverage, Justice Echlin considered the reasonable expectations principle. Although a clause in the health insurance policy excluded preexisting conditions, the court found that both parties reasonably expected Turpin to be covered on her trip. Justice Echlin followed the Ontario Court of Appeal’s earlier decision in Chilton v. Co-Operators General Insurance Company, (1997) 32 O.R. (3d) 161 (Ont. C.A.), where the Court of Appeal stated that “coverage limitations in insurance policies that conflict with reasonable expectations are not enforced even though the limitations are both explicit and unambiguous.”
Justice Echlin reached a similar conclusion: “Ms. Turpin was not eligible for medical coverage because she suffered an irregularity in her health, three days before the policy issued. The medical coverage is nullified. That is not what the parties expected. I find they expected that Ms. Turpin would be so covered.”
The question that arises in the Huculak-Kimmel case is whether the parties (that is, both the insurer and the insured) reasonably expected that the insured would be covered by her travel insurance in these circumstances. If so, does this reasonable expectation also extend to the insured’s baby? It will be interesting to see how her case unfolds given this recent judicial willingness to hold insurance companies accountable for that which is reasonably expected – despite exclusionary clauses.
[This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, which cannot be given without consideration of your individual circumstances.]
On February 10, 2015, Andrew Raven and Andrew Astritis wrote a guest blog post for the Broadbent Institute on the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent decision confirming the right to strike in Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v Saskatchewan. The blog post, available here, provides a summary of the Court’s decision and its broader implications for the labour movement.
On November 20, 2014, the Stronger Workplaces for a Stronger Economy Act, 2014 (formerly Bill 18), received royal assent in Ontario, but some of the enacted changes to the Employment Standards Act were delayed coming into force. Tomorrow, February 20, 2015, important changes to employment law legislation will take effect.
Previously, there was a $10,000 maximum cap on orders for unpaid wages to an employee under the Employment Standards Act. Pursuant to the changes in Bill 18, there is no longer a monetary limit on employment standards officers’ orders for wages, and employees will no longer be forced to pursue larger claims through the courts.
Additionally, the amendments in Bill 18 that are about to come into force will increase the time limits on when an employee can file a complaint to recover unpaid wages to two years from the previous six month limitation period. The time limit within which vacation pay can be recovered under the Act has also been increased to 12 months from six months. These changes are subject to a two-year transition period regarding claims that arose before these amendments came into effect.
If you believe you may have a claim for unpaid wages or vacation pay, you should consult the employment law lawyers at Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne & Yazbeck LLP to determine the best means of recourse, recognizing that these legislative changes may allow for a practical and effective means of recovery by bringing a complaint under the amended Employment Standards Act regime.
[This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, which cannot be given without consideration of your individual circumstances.]
On February 11, 2015, Arbitrator Randi Abramsky issued a decision interpreting the job posting provisions under the central agreement between Ontario Hospitals and the Ontario Council of Hospital Unions/CUPE. Specifically, Arbitrator Abramsky found that postings, whether electronic or paper, must be accessible to ensure that the purpose of these provisions – which is to ensure that Unions and employees are aware of available bargaining unit openings so they may apply for them and exercise their seniority rights – is met.
For over thirty years, the practice at the Health Sciences North (“Hospital”) was to post job opportunities on a physical bulletin board. In 2013, the Hospital unilaterally ended this practice and began posting job opportunities exclusively through a web portal that it had developed. The new system was complex and required employees to follow several steps before being able to access the job postings. The Canadian Union of Public Employees (“CUPE”), Local 1623, challenged the Hospital’s decision as many of its members were unable to access the new system.
Arbitrator Abramsky concluded that there was “evidence that some senior employees’ ability to exercise their seniority to apply for job postings has been diminished by the new online posting system. The system utilized requires at least a minimal level of computer-use knowledge to access job postings. It is far less accessible […]”
The arbitrator ordered the Hospital to use a posting system that employees are able to access and consequently, “for the time being and until a more accessible electronic system is devised, the Employer must continue to post job openings on the physical bulletin board, in addition to posting them online.”
CUPE, Local 1623 was represented by its President, Dave Shelefontiuk, and Wassim Garzouzi from our firm.
On February 13, 2015, Wassim Garzouzi spoke at the Network of Persons with Disabilities, organised by Reach Canada on the topic of “Duty to accommodate: Family Status.” The bilingual event was attended by over 250 participants from across the country.
Reach Canada has offered lawyer referrals and public education for individuals living with disabilities since 1981. Our firm is a long-term, proud supporter of REACH and its mission to improve the quality of life for citizens with disabilities.
The partners of Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne & Yazbeck are pleased to announce the selection of the successful 2015 Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne & Yazbeck Human Rights/Social Justice Internship candidate, Jacob Saltiel. Jacob is in his second year of studies at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law. Jacob has had excellent experience in Access to Justice issues as well as issues concerning refugee rights. He currently serves as Vice-Chair of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, uOttawa Chapter and is an assistant editor with the Ottawa Law Review. We congratulate Jacob on his achievement and look forward to working with him this summer when the internship takes place.
This is the tenth consecutive year that our firm has offered this Human Rights/Social Justice internship. Every summer, we provide paid employment to a student from the University of Ottawa Law School with placements in our firm and two social justice or human rights organizations. This year, Jacob will be working with the Workers History Museum and with the Broadbent Institute. Previous placements for our internship have included the International Development Research Centre, EGALE Canada, Amnesty International, the Ottawa Coalition to End Violence Against Women, the Council of Canadians, REACH Canada, and many other organizations which provide significant contributions in the areas of social justice and human rights.
On January 30, 2015, Adjudicator François Bastien, appointed pursuant to the Canada Labour Code, issued an important decision impacting all employees with supervisory duties working in federally regulated sectors.
Generally, employees who are unjustly dismissed can bring a complaint and have their grievance heard by an adjudicator appointed under the Canada Labour Code. Managers cannot avail themselves of this process.
In Timiskaming First Nation, the Employer brought a preliminary objection alleging that the employee, who worked as the Director General of the First Nation Government, was a manager. The Employer asked the Board to dismiss the complaint.
In dismissing the employer’s objection, the Board confirmed that “it is important to keep in mind that underlying it, is the notion underscored by the Federal Court […], that while undefined in the Code, ‘manager’ is a term that ought to be narrowly construed under that Code.” The Board further endorsed the fact that a broader interpretation of the term “manager” could exclude many employees from the benefits of the unjust dismissal provisions of the Code.
This decision underscores the importance of reviewing the particular context of every workplace before making a determination as to whether an employee can properly be characterized as a “manager” under the Code. The Board fully recognized that the employee in question performed many functions at a high level – but nonetheless dismissed the Employer’s objection on the basis that her role fell short of the test of independent action over a significant range of matters.
Through this decision, the Board provides all employees with supervisory duties working in federally regulated sectors much needed clarity with respect to their rights under the Code.
The employee in this case was represented by Wassim Garzouzi of Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne & Yazbeck LLP/s.r.l.
On March 11, 2015, Andrew Astritis presented a lecture to a class of third year students in Carleton University’s Legal Studies program on Human Rights and Employment Law. The lecture provided a broad introduction to the protections provided by human rights legislation in the employment context, including the obligations on employers to accommodate employees to the point of undue hardship.