On September 29, 2018, Julia Williams was a panelist at the Ontario Region – Canadian Association of Labour Lawyers’ second annual conference (OnCALL2) in Kingston, Ontario. Julia participated in the “Ten Minute Labour Lawyer” panel, presenting on the recent arbitral decision in City of Kingston v CUPE 109. Julia would like to thank the organizers of OnCALL2 for inviting her to participate in this event.
Ask most healthy working people to name their greatest financial asset, and more than likely, they will say ‘my house.’ A fair response. After all, maintaining and paying for a home is where a significant chunk of our income and time is spent.
But for most healthy working people, it’s the wrong answer: A far greater financial asset is their ability to earn an income over the course of their career, often a long period of time. The consequences of not being able to do so can be financially devastating.
Most people have only a hazy understanding of the financial consequences of being unable to continue working due to mental or physical illness. We know that during our working lives, there is always the possibility of being laid off from one job and having to find another, but if chronic illness or a serious accident prevents us from working at all, the option of finding another job disappears. In fact, there are limited options for those employees; one of the options is Long Term Disability (LTD).
As employment lawyers, we understand that few people think about the possibility of their working lives coming to a premature end. When it does happen, the questions are inevitably many. Here are answers to just a few basic LTD questions:
Most people who have Long Term Disability benefits have them through their employery, and typically, the cost of these benefits is shared between the employee and the employer. Having the employer pay for some (or all) of the benefits, while superficially attractive, also results in the benefit being taxable. Meaning if you ever receive money under the LTD policy, you will have to pay tax on the amounts you receive.
If, on the other hand, you pay for the full cost of the LTD policy, any money received would be non-taxable. Having a non-taxable benefit can make a huge difference in the event you need to rely on LTD benefits, as you are often receiving only a portion of your prior income and may be struggling to live off significantly reduced income.
It is important to explore with your employer or your union whether your salary can be increased by the value of the employer contribution, and then you can make the full payment for the LTD policy.
Another option is to buy full LTD insurance yourself if your employer does not offer this benefit as part of your remuneration package.
The answer to this question will depend on a variety of factors, including age, savings, cost of benefits, number of dependents, etc. It is also probable that the answer will change over time as your personal circumstances change. Given the importance of the benefit, should you be unable to work, it is important to seek advice from an LTD insurance expert.
It is extremely common for people to lose their LTD benefits shortly after they lose their jobs. Termination letters typically contain provisions ending Long Term Disability benefits after the statutory notice period found in the Employment Standards Act. This period is often a matter of weeks rather than months.
After this period, former employees are frequently left with no LTD benefits while they look for other work. Insurers will often not sell LTD insurance to the unemployed, and that compounds an already stressful situation.
One way to avoid this scenario is to purchase LTD insurance independently. (See next question).
One method of ensuring LTD protection in the face of uncertain job security is to have your own LTD benefits policy that you have arranged for outside of your employer. That way, should you lose your job, your coverage continues. This type of arrangement will be particularly important for those with precarious employment.
Most LTD policies provide for “own occupation” disability insurance coverage for a period of two years. This means that should you be unable to perform the essential functions of your own job, you would meet the definition of disability and should receive benefits.
After that initial period (usually two years), in most insurance policies, the coverage definition changes to “any occupation.” This means that even if you continue to be unable to complete the essential functions of your own job, say as a teacher, if you can do any work, you may no longer be entitled to benefits. If this other occupation is something for which the employee is suitable by reason of their background, the insurer can insist they take the job or risk having their benefits cut off.
It is possible to independently purchase “own occupation” disability insurance coverage at an increased cost. This will provide you with LTD benefits, should you be unable to perform the essential duties of your own occupation. It will typically last until age 65.
[This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, which cannot be given without consideration of your individual circumstances.]
On October 12, 2018, Morgan Rowe presented as part of the Union of Taxation Employees’ National Health and Safety Conference. Morgan’s presentation addressed the proposed changes to federal harassment protections introduced by Bill C-65, as well as recent cases on harassment and work place violence in federal workplaces.
On January 28, 2019, RavenLaw appeared before the Québec Court of Appeal to argue in support of a challenge under section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to restrictions on collective bargaining in the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act. Appearing for the intervener, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, RavenLaw argued that section 113 of the Act, which excludes pension and staffing issues from collective bargaining, violates the freedom of association, including by preventing workers from exercising their constitutionally protected right to strike on important workplace issues.
PSAC was represented by Andrew Astritis from RavenLaw.
On October 15, 2018, David Yazbeck appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, acting on behalf of Copyright Visual Arts – Droits d’auteur Arts visuels (COVA-DAAV). Currently, the Committee is undertaking a review of the Copyright Act. David’s presentation related to recommendations by COVA-DAAV regarding improvements to the Act which would assist visual artists.
In particular, COVA-DAAV is recommending three changes to the Act:
While all of these measures may seem minor, visual artists have among the lowest incomes in Canada and each measure would benefit visual artists immensely.
The full presentation can be viewed here.
On December 8, 2017, Andrew Astritis presented to the Canadian Association of University Teachers’ Senior Grievance Officer Forum. Andrew’s presentation addressed the issue of Discipline and Accommodation, and the role of human rights analysis in assessing employee misconduct.
Ravenlaw gratefully acknowledges the contribution of this post by articling student Megan Fultz
Cannabis is set to be legalized in Canada on October 17, 2018, but the Federal Government has continued to stress that, until that time, the law will be enforced. In the meantime, numerous marijuana dispensaries are operating, only a small portion of them legal and licensed by Health Canada.
Workers at these unlicensed dispensaries have rightfully questioned what legal rights they have while the sale of cannabis remains illegal. This post will consider the various sources of a worker’s rights, and whether those rights extend to employees of an illegal enterprise.
Statutory employment rights
Workers in Ontario have rights under several employment-related statutes, including in areas of health and safety, human rights, and minimum employment standards. None of these statutes exclude employees on the basis that they work for an illegal enterprise, and therefore should apply equally to employees of an unlicensed cannabis dispensary.
This is consistent with the position the previous Ontario government took on this issue. Janet Deline, spokesperson for the former Ontario Ministry of Labour, stated in a Toronto Star article last year that all workers are entitled to certain government protections, even those working in unlicensed businesses. She was quoted saying, “When a Ministry of Labour Health and Safety inspector conducts an investigation, the focus is on the possible hazard and the health and safety of workers in the workplace, not whether or not the company is licensed.”
Therefore, a worker at a dispensary could likely enforce his or her rights under the Employment Standards Act, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and the Human Rights Code.
Statutory labour rights
Workers in Ontario also have the right to join a union under the Labour Relations Act. That right, too, is not contingent on whether the employer is operating within the bounds of the law, meaning workers at a dispensary could exercise those rights and join a union.
In 2017, forty employees of a “Canna Clinic” unionized under Unifor. Katha Fortier, Unifor’s Assistant to the President, believes this is a first in Canada. These workers at Canna Clinic are primarily concerned with staff training and a safe work environment, issues that will continue to be relevant even after legalization. In response to this development, Janet Deline from the Ministry of Labour confirmed that, “Law enforcement and labour relations are totally separate areas in government.”
Rights under an employment contract
In addition to statutory rights, employees have rights under their employment contract, whether or not the contract is in writing. These rights can be enforced through a claim in court. It is unclear whether a court would enforce an employment contract in an unlicensed dispensary.
There is a long-standing, general principle of contract law which prohibits the enforcement of contracts that contemplate committing an illegal act. As this principle has evolved, courts have moved away from implementing a hard line of unenforceability for all illegal contracts. Courts consider: the serious consequences of invalidating the contract, the social utility of those consequences and a determination of the class of persons for whom the prohibition was enacted. There are certainly strong policy reasons not to apply this principle to an employment contract, particularly in light of the unequal bargaining between employers and employees. A strict application of this principle would ultimately benefit the employer—i.e. the entity operating the illegal enterprise—by permitting the employer to avoid its obligations to the employee.
While not a court ruling, a 2016 decision of the Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal discussed how the doctrine of illegality applied in the context of undocumented workers. The Tribunal held:
The doctrine of illegality does not exist to give one party to an illegal contract…an advantage over the other party… There is a public interest not in prohibiting employment arrangements but instead in ensuring that such arrangements comply with the employment laws of the province and that rights under these arrangements be enforceable. The potential for exploitation of individual workers would be considerable if employment laws were not enforceable.
However, the Tribunal was careful to distinguish employment contracts that violated labour laws from contracts in pursuit of an “illegal objective” such as “theft, gambling, prostitution or smuggling, etc.” Based on this distinction, it is possible courts would not enforce employment contracts in unlicensed marijuana dispensaries, as the ‘objective’ of those contracts is itself illegal.
Conclusion
Employees in unlicensed dispensaries appear to be entitled to the same statutory protections as other workers, as well as the same opportunity to unionize. It is less clear whether these employees could pursue a claim in court for breach of their employment contracts. All things considered, workers in unlicensed dispensaries remain incredibly vulnerable. These establishments are regular targets of police raids and robberies, while frontline workers continue to face the possibility of criminal charges themselves.
[This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, which cannot be given without consideration of your individual circumstances.]
On January 12, 2018, James Cameron’s article on best practices for reducing costs and delay in long-term disability and disability insurance litigation was published in The Lawyers Daily. The article can be found (with subscription) on The Lawyers’ Daily website.
On September 28, 2018, RavenLaw will be hosting a conference at the CUPE 1974 Union Hall (680 Innovation Drive in Kingston’s east end). The conference will focus on successfully assisting individuals and union members in their applications for long-term disability benefits. Featured speakers include highly experienced legal professionals; Dr. Finestone, a pain specialist; and Chantal Pullen, an Occupational Therapist.
The conference is free to attend and will be followed in the new year with a conference on assisting workers in appealing decisions denying LTD benefits.
For more information on how to register, please go to:
On January 27, 2018, Morgan Rowe will present at the Canadian Law and Society Association’s Mid-Winter Symposium. The theme of this year’s conference addresses the different ways that law and technology affect individuals’ lives. Morgan will be presenting on issues related to medical evidence requirements in disability and human rights cases.
For more information or to register, please visit the conference’s event page.