In a recent decision, the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board found that an employer’s actions, which made it more difficult for an employee to participate in a health and safety complaint hearing, were reprisals and in violation of the Canada Labour Code.

The employee had been summonsed to attend as a witness for a two-day hearing before the Occupational Health and Safety Tribunal. Because he worked an afternoon shift, the employee requested a shift change so that he would not have to return to work after the hearing. The employer, Canada Border Services Agency, denied the request and ordered the employee to return to the workplace immediately after the end of the hearing. The employee followed this direction but received a one-day suspension because he did not arrive in the workplace by 5:25PM, as the employer preferred.

The Board concluded that both the refusal to allow the employee a shift change and the suspension were reprisals for the employee’s participation in the health and safety hearing. These actions therefore violated the provisions of the Canada Labour Code which protect employees from being penalized for testifying in a proceeding under the Code.

Specifically, the Board found that the decision to deny the shift change was inconsistent with the employer’s practice for other employees who were allowed shift changes to attend hearings. It also held that the imposition of a 5:25PM return-to-work time was arbitrary and in bad faith as the employee had no control over when the hearing would end. Given the unreasonableness of the employer’s actions in both circumstances, the Board concluded that it was not convinced that the employee’s participation in a health and safety hearing played no part in the employer’s decisions to penalize him.

The complainant and the Public Service Alliance of Canada were represented by Morgan Rowe.

Ravenlaw gratefully acknowledges the contribution of this post by articling student Simcha Walfish

Paramedics working for Oneida Nation of the Thames EMS will not be subject to Ontario’s strict caps for increases in salary and compensation. In a recent arbitration for the Union’s first collective agreement, arbitrator John McNamee ruled that the paramedics employed by Oneida Nation of the Thames EMS are not subject to Bill 124, Ontario’s public sector wage restraint legislation. Had they been subject to Bill 124, it would have resulted in the Oneida Nation of the Thames EMS workers being paid less than other paramedics. The arbitrator reasoned that paying paramedics working in an Indigenous community less than other Ontario paramedics would be discriminatory.

Bill 124 became law in Ontario in November 2019 and imposed caps of 1% on increases—a rate lower than inflation—to compensation for a wide range of public sector workers. A coalition of unions is challenging the legislation in court. Bill 124 exempts Indigenous communities and employers controlled by Indigenous communities from the legislation. This was the first reported decision on the exemptions for Indigenous communities, as the paramedics at Oneida Nation of the Thames EMS sought increases of over 1%.

The EMS is fully funded by the province through an agreement between the Government of Ontario and the Oneida Nation. The EMS operates on the Oneida Settlement, land purchased by a group of Oneida who moved to Ontario from New York State in the 1840s. The Oneida Nation of the Thames has 2172 residents and 6270 members. Because the land was purchased by the Oneida and not “reserved” by the government, it is not a reserve. However, it has been treated by the Canadian government as a reserve.

The employer argued that Bill 124 applied because the Oneida Nation of the Thames EMS is a distinct entity that employs the paramedics; they are not employed by the Oneida Nation itself. It further argued that the ambulance service is not, itself, an Indigenous community and so it should be subject to the legislation.

The arbitrator rejected the employer’s argument. He found that, with the “extremely broad” definition of Indigenous employers and the fact that majority of the EMS’ members are chosen by the Oneida Nation, the legislation clearly did not apply. Further, he reasoned that this situation was exactly what the exemption was created for—that is, services funded by Ontario but carried on by an Indigenous community.

The arbitrator accepted that Ontario’s financial condition is “not at all healthy” but did not believe that this, nor the stresses of COVID-19, meant giving a reasonable award to these 18 employees, would “strain the government’s finances to the breaking point.” While COVID-19 did “immeasurably” worsen Ontario’s financial condition, he added that it also poses serious health hazards to the employees as paramedics.

The arbitrator took notice of the social context of the collective agreement, that Indigenous peoples have “not been well-served by the country as a whole, and have struggled to maintain their identity and culture in a society which has, by and large, treated them as irrelevant.” For this reason, creating EMS services by and for Indigenous people, staffed mostly by Indigenous people, is clearly a good thing. Further, any idea that employees of Indigenous communities should be paid less than EMS employees that work elsewhere is “in and of itself, discriminatory.”

As the fight against Bill 124 goes through the courts, this decision is an encouraging sign that arbitrators will not take a narrow approach to the exemptions. It is also a strong statement on the necessity for pay equity for Indigenous workers.

[This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, which cannot be given without an assessment of your individual circumstances.]

You are disabled and cannot work.  Your workplace provides Long Term Disability (LTD) coverage as part of your health benefits package.  If you are unable to work for health reasons, the LTD insurance benefits coverage should provide you with income protection while you are unable to work for reasons related to your illness or disability.  You apply for LTD benefits but the insurance company denies your claim.  What can you do?

1. Do not give up!

First and foremost, do not give up.  A high percentage of LTD claims are denied for a variety of reasons.  Insurance companies save money when individuals simply accept the denial or do not have the resources to contest their decision.  Most LTD insurance policies provide for an internal appeal process which must be started within a specific time frame, usually 60 days.  An individual may also choose to proceed immediately to litigation.  We recommend consulting with legal counsel to discuss your available options.

2. Internal Appeal

As stated above, most LTD insurance policies provide an internal appeal process where individuals can contest the insurance company’s denial of their claim.  It is important to remember that because this is an internal process, the insurance company is reviewing its own decision. It is therefore unsurprising that a significant amount of appeals are denied.  We often do not recommend proceeding with the internal appeal process unless you have new, additional medical information to provide to the insurance company during the appeal process.  A repetition or reframing of information already provided is unlikely to be successful in convincing the insurance company to reverse its initial decision.

Federal public servants have access to an additional step in the appeal process.  Depending on whether they are covered by the Public Service Management Insurance Plan (for non-unionized employees) or by the Disability Insurance Plan (for unionized employees) individuals may request an independent review of their case.  The Board of Trustees of the PSMIP or the DI Plan Board of Management then have the ability to make recommendations to the insurance company regarding the case. The insurance companies responsible for these plans most often accept the recommendations following these reviews.  If you are unionized, contact your union to see if they are able to assist.  If you are not unionized or if your union is unable to assist, we recommend you contact experienced legal counsel for advice.

3. Litigation

Your best option to successfully challenge the denial of your LTD claim and enforce your rights may be to sue the insurance company in court. This can be done immediately after the initial denial or following an unsuccessful appeal. Filing a Statement of Claim against an insurance company starts a legal process where various steps are required to be taken by both parties prior to trial.

While proceeding with litigation may be a daunting process, it is important to know that the litigation process is designed to encourage the parties to settle the case.  For example, in Ontario, mediation is mandatory. Mediation is a process for resolving disputes where the parties meet with an independent mediator who assists the parties in reaching an agreement. It is our experience that many cases settle at mediation.  However, if a mutually satisfactory agreement cannot be reached, the case proceeds to the next step of the process.  There are further opportunities to discuss settlement throughout the litigation process, up until trial.

4. The clock is ticking…

Regardless of how you decide to challenge the insurance company’s denial of your LTD benefits, it is very important to keep track of your timelines.  Proceeding through the internal appeal process does not necessarily stop the clock for starting a legal action in court.  Generally, you have two (2) years from the initial denial of your LTD claim to pursue legal action though there are exceptions to this general rule.  It is important to review the LTD insurance policy and applicable provincial limitation period to understand the time limits for your particular case.

If your LTD benefits are denied, we recommend that you seek advice from competent experienced lawyers as soon as possible following your initial denial in order to be properly advised of your rights and the options available to you to obtain a satisfactory resolution.

We are here to help navigate the LTD application process. Consult one of our experienced Disability lawyers at Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne and Yazbeck LLP if you are considering making a claim for disability benefits or if your claim for benefits has been denied.

[This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, which cannot be given without consideration of your individual circumstances.]

An employer must reimburse employee relocation expenses if it does not have specific evidence that it could have staffed a vacant position through other means, according to a recent Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board decision.

The decision dealt with two grievances filed by Border Services Officers with the Canada Border Services Agency. Both employees had requested to move to a new city in order to fill a vacant position. Under the NJC Relocation Directive, employees who request a move to fill a vacant position are entitled to reimbursement for a wide range of relocation expenses, unless the employer can establish that it could have filled the vacant position without relocation expenses.

In both cases before the Board, the employer alleged that it could have filled the vacancies in issue with a freshly-trained recruit. At hearing, however, the employer’s witnesses testified that there were more vacancies than available recruits at the time of the grievances and that they had no way of knowing if the vacancies in issue would have, in fact, been filled if the grievors had not relocated.

The Board found that this evidence was insufficient to meet the employer’s obligation to prove that it could have filled the vacant positions without relocation expenses. As the Board concluded, the employer’s assertion that it could have filled the vacancies “must not be a hollow statement; there must be some facts behind it to back it up.” The Board therefore ordered that CBSA reimburse both grievors for their eligible relocation expenses, as the employer’s reason for refusing to do so was “without factual underpinning.”

The grievors and the Public Service Alliance of Canada were represented by Morgan Rowe.

On May 29, 2020, Ontario made new regulations under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 to address the legal effects of widespread layoffs. These layoffs arose both from employers having a lack of business and the need of many to take time off work due either to the direct or downstream effects of COVID-19 and the measures taken to lessen the spread of the coronavirus.

The Employment Standards Act, 2000 already allowed for emergency leave for employees who were infected, under mandated isolation, or caring for a close family member. The new regulations primarily provide new rights to employers who lay off employees due to coronavirus.

The regulations allow employers to avoid the  temporary layoff provisions of the Employment Standards Act which convert a temporary layoff into a termination of employment after a certain time period has elapsed. The regulations provide relief from employers by converting the temporary layoff into infectious disease emergency leave as opposed to a termination. The regulations also allow employers to stop contributing to employee benefit plans while employees are on infectious disease emergency leave.

The regulations were released on May 29, 2020, meaning that employers who laid off employees in early March will be exempt from the application of the 13-week and 35-week thresholds required for a layoff to be deemed a termination of employment.  They also deem any complaints that were filed with the Ministry of Labour alleging termination or severance of employment due to a reduction in hours caused by COVID-19 not to have been filed.

How do these new regulations affect my rights?

These new regulations primarily affect your ability to assert that your employer has constructively dismissed you by reducing your hours or not allowing you to work for an extended period of time due to COVID-19. The regulations are fairly clear that such a claim cannot be asserted against your employer with the Ministry of Labour Training and Skills Development Employment Standards Branch.

These regulations risk severely curtailing the remedies available to the some of the province’s most vulnerable workers who may face practical challenges to accessing court-ordered common-law remedies.

However, these regulations appear to only affect the Employment Standards Act, 2000, and not the common law which also provides entitlements for employees in certain situations. As a general rule, the Employment Standards Act, 2000 does not affect an employee’s ability to bring a common law claim against their employer. You may still be able to assert a constructive wrongful dismissal claim at common law if you have been laid off work or if there has been a reduction in your hours (to learn more about what you could claim, see What is Reasonable Notice?). In Popescu v Wittman Canada Inc the Ontario Superior Court confirmed that a constructive dismissal can occur despite the preconditions for constructive dismissal under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 not having been met, meaning it does not have to be a constructive dismissal under the Act to be a constructive dismissal at common law.

These new regulations may also influence the interpretation of existing employment contracts. It is possible that common-law courts will develop their own doctrines to deal with the impact of COVID-19 on employment contracts. Your ability to assert a constructive dismissal will depend heavily on the terms of your employment contract and your individual circumstances. You should seek legal advice before deciding what to do.  

[This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, which cannot be given without consideration of your individual circumstances.]

Many individuals have long term disability (LTD) benefit coverage through their employer.  These are group policies that apply to all employees in the workplace.  A group policy is a legal contract often containing technical language which may be difficult to understand.  Insurance companies will use this technical language when denying or terminating long term disability benefits.  We have identified some of the commonly used terms and have attempted to demystify them here for you.  It is always important to remember, however, that this does not replace legal advice and if you have any questions about your policy or specific situation, you should contact an experienced long-term disability lawyer.

Qualifying Period

This is the amount of time an individual must be an employee before he or she can make a claim for LTD benefits.  The qualifying period can vary depending on the policy.

Elimination Period

This is the amount of time an individual must wait between the first day he or she is unable to work due to disability, usually the first day of sick leave, and the first day they are eligible to receive LTD benefits.  The elimination period can vary depending on the policy.  Individuals who do not have access to paid sick leave or short term disability benefits can apply for EI Sickness Benefits.

Total Disability or Totally Disabled

In order to qualify for LTD benefits, an individual must meet the definition of total disability in the contract.  It does not mean that an individual must be absolutely physically or mentally incapable of doing anything related to her or his own occupation. At the outset, being totally disabled generally means that an individual is unable to perform the regular duties of her or his own occupation.   In the majority of LTD group insurance policies, the definition of total disability changes 24 months after the end of the elimination period.  At this point, in order to continue receiving LTD benefits, an individual must be unable to perform the duties of any occupation.

Own Occupation

This is the work an individual performs at the time she or he becomes disabled. The insurance company does not look at the specific job, but the occupation in general. If the insurance policy defines total disability as being unable to perform the regular duties of your own occupation, an individual is not required to find employment in a different field even if she or he can perform other tasks that are not related to her or his own occupation.  For example, a dentist would not be required to work as a clerk even if she or he can sit at a desk and use a computer.

Any Occupation

As mentioned above, most insurance policies provide a change in the definition of total disability 24 months after the end of the elimination period.  In order to continue to receive LTD benefits, an individual will be required to show that she or he is unable to perform the regular duties of any occupation.  It will be important to refer to the terms of the insurance policy as any occupation may be further defined with additional language.  Often policies will refer to any occupation for which an individual is reasonably qualified based on education, training or experience, or any occupation for which an individual may reasonably become qualified by education, training or experience.  At this point, an individual may no longer qualify for LTD benefits if she or he can perform duties of another position for which they are qualified or can become qualified. For example, if the dentist could no longer physically work as a dentist, he or she may be qualified and able to teach courses.

If you are unable to work and are applying for LTD benefits or if your benefits have been denied or have been terminated, please contact an experienced long-term disability lawyer for advice.

We are here to help navigate the LTD application process. Consult one of our experienced disability lawyers at Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne and Yazbeck LLP if you are considering making a claim for disability benefits or if your claim for benefits has been denied.

[This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, which cannot be given without consideration of your individual circumstances.]

If you’ve settled, or are in the process of settling, a legal case against your employer, you may have been asked to agree to what lawyers call a “non-disparagement clause”. These clauses come in many different forms but at their core, they all ask the individual employee to agree, going forward, not to “disparage” their employer or former employer. In fact, some go further and also prohibit individuals from disparaging other employees who are also employed by the employer.

But what does a non-disparagement clause actually mean, and what does an employee give up by agreeing to one?

What is Disparagement?

On their face, non-disparagement clauses look severe. “To disparage” means to criticize or belittle someone or something or to represent them as being of little worth. Put simply, it means saying, doing, or writing something about someone that could cause a third-party to view that person in a negative way.

Disparagement is a lower standard than defamation. While defamation requires someone to have said something false and damaging, disparagement can also capture something that is true but still damaging.

Non-disparagement clauses can also apply to indirect actions, such as where an individual who has signed a non-disparagement agreement encourages someone else to make disparaging statements. Even statements made in later lawsuits have, in some cases, been found to be a breach of a prior non-disparagement agreement (see e.g. Antoncic v Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services)).

Limitations on Non-Disparagement Clauses

There are limits to non-disparagement clauses, however. An obvious but important limit is that non-disparagement clauses do not cover statements made before the clause was agreed to. This can be particularly important when the clause is agreed to as part of a settlement at the end of a long, combative legal fight, where both parties have likely already made negative statements about each other.

Another key limitation is that purely factual statements have often been found not to equal disparagement. For example, in Ibrahim v Hilton Toronto Hotel, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that a statement that an employee “lost his [human rights] case and did not receive a penny” was an incorrect summary of what had happened in the employee’s case but did not actually disparage the employee.

Other similar decisions have found that simply saying that a case was settled or that one person had sued another does not amount to disparagement. These decisions indicate that, where statements are factual and do not inherently imply anything negative about a party, they do not result in the breach of a non-disparagement clause.

The Cost of a Breach

Even though there are limits, once you agree to a non-disparagement clause, it is important to be careful to avoid violating that agreement. If a clause is breached, a decision-maker will often have the power to enforce the non-disparagement clause and award a remedy to the other party for the breach.

Many non-disparagement clauses will identify a specific penalty for a violation, such as returning any money that has been paid to you as part of the settlement.

Where no specific penalty is identified or where no money has been paid, a decision-maker will typically award general damages for the harm caused by the breach. The amount of damages will be determined on a case-by-case basis and will depend on the level of harm caused to the opposing party. In cases where no real harm has been caused, decision-makers have still awarded damages for the breach of the settlement agreement itself.

Conclusion

Although there are limits on what qualifies as “disparagement”, employees should think carefully when deciding whether to agree to a non-disparagement provision in a settlement. While these clauses will not harm employees in many cases, they will impact what employees can say about their employers or former employers, and it is important to fully understand that impact before signing off.

Where possible, employees should consider getting legal advice before agreeing to a non-disparagement clause or before taking any steps that they are worried might breach an existing clause. An employment lawyer may be able to help you negotiate different language for a non-disparagement provision or guide you on how to avoid an unintended breach.

News publications have officially declared the “death of the office”, as most of us adjust to the realities of working from home. While working from home, often referred to as telework or telecommuting, had been steadily increasing in recent years, the amount of people working from home has obviously exploded in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. With unprecedented numbers of employees working from somewhere other than their employer’s physical premises, an important question arises: if you are injured while working at home, is that injury covered by workers’ compensation?

Surprisingly, given how common telework has become, the Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Board has not published a formal policy addressing injuries that arise while working at home. However, WSIB’s general law and policy, as well as its few cases adjudicating claims for telework injuries, confirm that an injury sustained while working at home will be treated like any other injury—all the circumstances will be considered to determine if the injury is work-related.

Ontario’s workers’ compensation legislation, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, only allows for compensation for accidents that occur on an employer’s premises. However, that term is defined very broadly, as “ the building, plant, or location in which the worker is entitled to be…” To be eligible for compensation, an accident must also have occurred while the worker was performing an act incidental to her work or employment obligations.

The Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) has adjudicated very few claims for injuries sustained during telework. However, in the few cases it has decided, it has effectively taken for granted that a telework injury is not excluded from the workers’ compensation regime.

The WSIAT has granted compensation to workers who were injured in their home offices. For example, in 2019 ONWSIAT 1873, a customer service worker performed her job in her home office and developed carpal tunnel syndrome due to an increased workload. The WSIAT found that the claim had the necessary five points to be eligible for compensation: “an employer, a worker, personal work-related injury, proof of accident, and compatibility of diagnosis to accident history.”

This is similar to the approach taken by workers’ compensation boards in other jurisdictions. Some, like WorkSafeNB in New Brunswick, and the Workers’ Compensation Board – Alberta, have published policies or fact sheets specifically addressing when a telework injury will be considered eligible for benefits.

While telework injuries clearly can be eligible for workers’ compensation, the fact that your injury occurred while working from home may, in some cases, make it more difficult to establish that the injury is work-related. There are a wide variety of situations that are on the borderline between work and personal activities. That line between your work and personal life is likely even harder to define when you are working at home.

The Workers Compensation Appeals Tribunal of British Columbia commented on this difficulty in a 2010 decision:

…work activities and home life do not always occur in a clearly defined and distinct sequence.  It might be that a worker is at one moment in the course of employment while in the home office, but at another moment in the role of homeowner when responding to a neighbor knocking at the front door.  It is where an injury occurs in the transition between work life and personal life that coverage under the Act may be at its most complex.

So, while the fact that your injury occurred while working from home does not, in itself, disqualify you from workers’ compensation coverage, you may face added challenges in your claim, particularly if the injury occurred somewhere in that “transition” between your work life and your personal life. If you have such a borderline claim, you may want to receive advice and assistance from an employment lawyer.

[This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, which cannot be given without an assessment of your individual circumstances.]

A federal employer is required to appoint a competent person to investigate a workplace violence complaint, even if it believes the allegations in the complaint do not relate to or amount to workplace violence, according to a recent decision the Occupational Health and Safety Tribunal of Canada.

In this case, the worker had suffered through an accommodation process that he felt was inadequate. He believed that representatives of the employer, the Canada Food Inspection Agency, were deliberately holding up the process and interfering with accommodations granted to him in order to cause him harm. He also made general claims about bullying and harassment and alleged that employer representatives had raised their voices with him.

After meeting with the worker, the employer concluded that his complaint was not actually about workplace violence and decided not to appoint a competent person. Before the Tribunal, it argued that the employer could exercise a screening function and did not have to appoint an independent investigator to look into workplace violence claims that it felt were obviously unsupportable.

The Tribunal rejected this argument and confirmed that the employer’s role in a workplace violence process is limited to trying to facilitate a resolution of the complaint. Where that is not possible, the appointment of a competent person is required unless it is plain and obvious on the face of the complaint that it does not relate to workplace violence.

In the case before it, the Tribunal noted that it was enough that the worker’s complaints themselves explicitly referred to “workplace violence”. This language made it clear that the complaints “related to” workplace violence. The Tribunal also concluded that it was not plain and obvious that no finding of violence could ever be made if the worker’s allegations were investigated. The employer was therefore required to appoint an investigator.

This decision is further confirmation that the employer’s role in a workplace violence complaint is limited to attempting to facilitate resolution. The employer does not have any screening function and cannot examine the factual allegations in the complaint to determine if they can be proven. If the complaint cannot be resolved at an early stage, a competent, independent investigator must be appointed.

The Public Service Alliance of Canada was represented by Jessica Greenwood, with assistance from Zachary Rodgers.

Ravenlaw gratefully acknowledges the contribution of this post by summer student Emily McBain-Ashfield.

Asked to work but feeling ill? Your job is protected

As some regions in Ontario enter Phase 2 of re-opening, more people will be asked to return to work. If you are one of those people being asked to return to work, you may be wondering: what will happen to my job if I feel sick, but do not have any sick days?

Even without sick days, your employer cannot fire you for taking a leave due to COVID-19 related symptoms. You do not have to choose between following public health guidelines when you feel ill and keeping your job.

COVID-19 Related Emergency Leave Without Pay

Whether you work in a provincially or federally regulated industry, workers in Ontario have access to job-protected COVID-19 related leave.

Under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA), provincially regulated workers can take leave without pay if they are isolating because they have, or are suspected to have, COVID-19. Furthermore, employees can use this leave to care for others with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. Once you return to work, your employer must reinstate you to the same position with the same pay as before you took leave.

You do not need to provide a medical certificate to take COVID-19 related leave under the ESA. However, your employer can require evidence that you qualify for leave, as long as the request is reasonable in the circumstances and at the time of the leave. For example, as testing in Ontario becomes more accessible, asking for evidence of COVID-19 testing may become more reasonable.

Federally regulated employees also have job protected leave for up to 16 weeks under the Canada Labour Code (CLC) if they cannot work because of COVID-19. You must notify your employer as soon as possible about the leave, including the expected length of leave. You do not need a medical certificate to take COVID-19 related leave under the CLC.

Your job is further protected under the Human Rights Code

Disability is a protected ground under the Human Rights Code and your employer cannot discriminate against you because of a disability. The Ontario Human Rights Commission considers COVID-19 status as a protected ground under disability.  This means is you cannot be fired because of your COVID-19 status, up to the point of undue hardship on your employer. In addition, the need to care for ill family members engages the protected ground of family status. So, you cannot be fired for taking leave to care for a family member. Unless your employer can demonstrate that accommodating you causes undue hardship, your employer must accommodate you by either providing leave or an alternative working arrangement.

How will I afford unpaid leave?

Currently, your employer does not have to pay for sick or COVID-19 related leave. The Federal Government recently announced they are discussing with provinces the possibility of giving workers 10 paid sick days. However, access to 10 paid sick days is not going to happen overnight, and each province may respond differently.

If you need to take a COVID-19 related leave you have some options to receive support. You may be eligible to apply for the Canada Emergency Response Benefit or EI Sickness Benefits.

We are here to help you navigate workplace issues. Consult one of our experienced lawyers at Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne and Yazbeck LLP if you are facing difficulty in your workplace due to taking COVID-19 leave.

[This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, which cannot be given without consideration of your individual circumstances.]