On June 11, David Yazbeck will be moderating a Lancaster House Conference on “The ABCs of IMEs: When are they useful, when are the required?” The conference will discuss the ins and outs of employer requests for independent medical examinations (“IMEs”) to verify or obtain information about an employee’s medical condition. The panel will discuss the ground rules for employer requests for IMEs, whether such requests are becoming more common, whether IMEs should be sought only as a “last resort”, how the parties can ensure that privacy rights are being respected in the IME process, and what consequences an employee may face on refusing an IME.

More information about the conference can be found here.

This Monday, as occurs the first Monday of every September, Canadians will celebrate Labour Day. The occasion is usually marked across the country by barbecues, get-togethers and marches, uniting families and friends before the official end of summer and the back-to-school rush. The holiday joins Family Day, Victoria Day, and the Civic Holiday, as vaguely-defined holidays with little meaning to most Canadians other than a day off.

In the case of Labour Day, the lack of recognition is perhaps unsurprising given its history. Labour Day was established in 1894, following the publication of the Report from the Royal Commission on the Relations of Labour and Capital in Canada. Among the many proposals, most of which were ignored, the Royal Commission proposed the establishment of a labour day:

“Your Commissioners recommend that one day in each year be set apart by proclamation to be observed throughout the Dominion as a statutory holiday, and that it be known as Labour Day”

As noted by Professor David Frank, there were many important and necessary reforms recommended by the Royal Commission, such as union recognition, workers’ compensation, minimum wages and child labour laws, which were either too difficult or too inconvenient to implement. A statutory holiday, in contrast, was both popular and easy to enact. (See Ontario, Family Day, 2007).

Unfortunately, rather than providing a day of rest and celebration of the labour movement, Labour Day actually has the opposite effect for many of the most vulnerable labourers in the country. Many retail giants use the holiday as an opportunity to increase sales, and major grocery stores often lobby to remain open. Hundreds of thousands of workers employed in restaurants, gas stations, stores and supermarkets will thus be required to work on a statutory holiday meant to celebrate improved working conditions of all workers.

Ways to celebrate this Labour Day

For those interested in celebrating Labour on Labour Day, all is not lost. Across the country, hundreds of thousands of Canadians will be marching on Monday to mark Labour’s contribution to the betterment of working conditions for all workers. In Ottawa, the Labour Day March starts at noon at City Hall (Lisgar Entrance) and a Labour Day Picnic is scheduled at McNabb Park (Gladstone and Bronson) from 1PM-4:30PM.

Canadians could also spend Labour Day reading up on the labour-related issues in the upcoming Federal election. Some parties have proposed increases to the minimum wage and the abolition of unpaid internships. Hundreds of candidates with roots in the Labour movement are running, raising issues affecting workers and making them electoral issues. There are currently several challenges in the courts regarding labour-related legislation that is alleged to be contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms—these issues can all be raised with current Members of Parliament and candidates.

Whatever else, Labour Day can be a day to reflect on the many advances that unions and workers have achieved. Historic achievements of the Labour movement, such as workers’ compensation, maternity leave, and pay equity, are well known and the effects of these gains continue to this day. There are also recent union victories that can be celebrated this Labour Day, such as decisions from the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal protecting workers from discrimination on the grounds of family status, and the Supreme Court’s recent recognition that workers have a Constitutional right to withhold their labour. In addition to these high-profile gains, unions and workers engage in daily challenges to unfair policies in the workplace, wrongful terminations, and fights for fairer wages that benefit all Canadians.

So, this Monday, reflect on the past, present, and future of the Labour movement, and have a safe and happy Labour Day.

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

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

All employees have the right to work in a safe and healthy workplace, free of harassment and violence.  Harassment in the workplace often lead to a toxic working environment filled with stress and anxiety. In some cases, it may even lead to physical violence. All workplace parties, including employees, have a role to play in maintaining a safe and healthy workplace.

What is Harassment?

Workplace harassment is defined in the Occupational Health and Safety Act as “engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct against a worker in a workplace that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome”. Harassment on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital status, family status or disability also violates the Ontario Human Rights Code.

While harassment is usually defined as a series of incidents, one serious incident may be sufficient to meet the definition of harassment. For example, one disrespectful remark about a person’s physical appearance would be considered rude but not necessarily harassment. However, a series of repeated rude and degrading remarks would constitute harassment.

Here are some examples of harassment:

• Making rude, degrading or offensive remarks
• Yelling at an employee or co-worker
• Excluding someone from social gatherings, isolating a person
• Withholding information
• Spreading rumors, gossip
• Requesting the performance of a task inferior to a person’s competencies that is demeaning or belittling

Here are examples of conduct that, under normal circumstances, are not harassment:

• Normal exercise of supervisory responsibilities including performance reviews, performance improvement plans, feedback, direction, counselling, provided they are conducted in a respectful manner
• A friendly gesture (i.e. a pat on the back)
• Workplace conflict

The context or circumstances in which the conduct occurred will be extremely important in determining whether the conduct is considered to be harassment.

Employer Responsibilities

Employers have a legal obligation under the Occupational Health and Safety Act to protect the health and safety of employees, including an obligation to take every reasonable precaution to protect workers from workplace violence. Specifically, the employer must establish and implement policies and procedures to help supervisors and employees recognize inappropriate behaviors and to inform them about their rights and responsibilities. The employer must also establish measures and procedures to allow employees to report incidents of workplace harassment or bullying. Reported incidents must be investigated and dealt with in a timely fashion and in accordance with the workplace harassment policy.

Employee’s Responsibilities

Employees should not engage in intimidating or harassing behavior. If they are the target of such behavior, they have a responsibility to speak up either by asking the person to stop or by reporting the incident or behavior in accordance with the procedures established by the employer. Co-workers also have a duty to report incidents of harassment in the workplace as they are a potential hazard which may lead to workplace violence.

How to Foster a Respectful Workplace

A safe and healthy workplace is a respectful workplace. When workers treat each other with respect, there are fewer negative interactions.   Employers may implement a number of strategies to foster a respectful workplace including:

• Discussions about key organizational and human values
• Training
• Policy review
• Encouraging communication
• Establishing clear consequences
• Leaders must be role models

Employees and co-workers also have a role to play in fostering a respectful workplace. They should:

• Not engage in workplace harassment or bullying
• Speak up
• Tell the person the behavior is unwanted/unacceptable
• Ask the person to stop
• Co-workers should intervene if appropriate and if they feel comfortable doing so
• Identify and report incidents to supervisors in accordance with the workplace procedures
• Support co-workers by listening
• Document details of events with detailed information in the event of an investigation including dates, times, details, names of witnesses
• DO NOT RETALIATE

Conclusion

The key to preventing harassment in the workplace is early intervention. Ignoring problems will not make them go away and often will only make them worse. Employees should not hesitate to speak up and report incidents of harassment when they occur as early and informal intervention may resolve the issue. Employees who feel intimidated or are afraid to speak up may seek assistance from co-workers, from their union or from outside legal counsel. 

We are here to help. Consult one of our experienced Employment lawyers at Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne and Yazbeck LLP if you have been terminated from your employment.

Morgan Rowe will be celebrating a Toronto launch for the paperback edition of her book, Exploring Disability Identity and Disability Rights through Narratives: Finding a Voice of Their Own, on September 9, 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 Caversham Booksellers. More details about the event can be found here.

On July 21, David Yazbeck will be moderating a Lancaster House Conference on “Minding Your Own Business: Privacy rules on collecting, using, and disclosing employee information” The conference will discuss the potential conflict between employee privacy and employer concerns about the impact employees’ online activity can have on their reputations. The panel will discuss the law related to background checks, including “social media checks”, the latest cases on surveillance and biometric identification technologies, the legal rules with respect to personal information on the employer’s devises, and an employer’s ability to access employees’ medical information.

More information about the conference can be found here.

Andrew Astritis recently spoke at a conference hosted by the Canadian Foundation for Labour Rights that examined three recent decisions from the Supreme Court of Canada on the issues of labour rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Andrew’s presentation addressed the implications of the Court’s decision in Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v Saskatchewan on essential services legislation. The conference was organized in conjunction with the Canadian Labour Congress Legal Challenges Committee and the Canadian Association of Labour Lawyers.

On May 7, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal issued an important decision granting over $310,000 in remedies for discriminatory practices engaged in by the Canada Border Services Agency in violation of sections 7 and 10 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. In an earlier decision, the Tribunal found that the complainant, Levan Turner, was discriminated against by CBSA on the basis of his race, colour, and perceived disability of obesity.

In the remedial decision, the Tribunal found that CBSA wilfully deprived Mr. Turner of employment opportunities, conduct which was deliberate, driven by prejudice and permeated with an ulterior motive to deny Mr. Turner an opportunity to continue being employed with CBSA.

The Tribunal ordered that CBSA compensate Mr. Turner for his lost wages over a ten-year period, anticipated lost wages for the years 2015 to 2019, $15,000 for pain and suffering, and an additional $15,000 compensation arising from CBSA’s wilful discrimination.

Mr. Turner was represented by David Yazbeck of RavenLaw.

This month, Andrew Astritis and Wassim Garzouzi participated in an upper-year labour arbitration course at the University of Ottawa Law School. Andrew and Wassim enjoyed serving as panelists for the year-end labour arbitration moot and providing students with comments and feedback on their presentations.

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.]

The Federal Court of Appeal recently issued a decision overhauling the state of federal employment law. In Wilson v Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd, 2015 FCA 17, the Court  rejected the generally accepted approach to unjust dismissal complaints under the Canada Labour Code (“Code”), which applies to workers who are employed in federally regulated industries. The decision in Wilson has profound implications for non-unionized federally regulated employees. Mr. Wilson is currently seeking leave to appeal the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Background on termination of employment of unionized and non-unionized employees

Unionized workers can only be dismissed with just cause

For most unionized workers, terms and conditions of employment are governed by collective agreements which include a requirement that the employer only terminate an employee where there is just cause for dismissal. Just cause is a high threshold for an employer to meet and provides substantial protection for unionized workers.

Non-unionized federal workers cannot be dismissed “unjustly”

Section 240 of the Code provides non-unionized federal workers with the right to make “unjust dismissal” complaints, provided they have been employed for at least 12 months and they allege that they have been dismissed “unjustly”. The Code also provides statutory remedies for federal workers who are dismissed unjustly, including reinstatement to employment, which are not available to non-unionized provincial workers.

Non-unionized provincial workers can be dismissed without cause

At common law, non-unionized employees who work for provincially regulated employers – the vast majority of employers in Canada – can be dismissed without cause provided that employers provide reasonable notice of termination, or pay in lieu or reasonable notice. A dismissal that is both without cause and without reasonable notice is a wrongful dismissal. Read more about termination in the provincial sphere here.

The Pre-Wilson Approach to Unjust Dismissal Complaints under the Code

Prior to Wilson, there was an established line of cases holding that federal employers could only dismiss employees for cause, similar to the just cause protections provided for in collective agreements. Leading employment law scholars, Innis Christie and Geoffrey England, have explained that the Code’s unjust dismissal provisions were intended to:

“provide the non-unionized employee with substantially similar protections against unjust discharge as the unionized employee enjoys under a collective agreement.”

However, Code adjudicators have disagreed on this point and there are conflicting decisions on whether the Code permits dismissals on a without cause basis. As Code adjudicators are bound by decisions of the Federal Court of Appeal, Wilson settles the disagreement, unless the Supreme Court of Canada grants leave to appeal and weighs in on the issue.

Wilson v Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd

A Code adjudicator determined that AECL had violated the Code by terminating Wilson on a without cause basis. AECL applied for judicial review of this decision at the Federal Court, and the Federal Court overturned the adjudicator’s decision. Mr. Wilson appealed the Federal Court’s decision to the Federal Court of Appeal.

A dismissal without cause is not “unjust”

In Wilson, the Federal Court of Appeal concluded that:

• a dismissal without cause is not automatically unjust under the Code;
• this is consistent with the common law of employment, which allows for dismissal without cause so long as the reasonable notice requirement is met; and
• the Code cannot be interpreted as giving non-unionized employees a “right to the job” or attempting to place unionized and non-unionized employees in the same position.

Code adjudicators must determine if a dismissal is “unjust” in all of the circumstances

The Court also explained the role of Code adjudicators in unjust dismissal complaints:

• it is up to Code adjudicators to look into the circumstances of each case to determine if the dismissal was “unjust”; and
• adjudicators do not have “free rein” to find a dismissal unjust on any basis, although the fact that an employer has paid an employee severance pay does not preclude a finding that the dismissal was unjust.

However, beyond commenting that “unjust” is a term that “sits alongside and gathers much, if not all, of its meaning from well-established common law and arbitral cases concerning dismissal”, the Court declined to interpret the meaning of “unjust”. It will now be up to Code adjudicators to determine the meaning of “unjust” through the development of case law.

Supreme Court will decide whether to weigh in on this dramatic change for federal employees

The Federal Court of Appeal’s decision marks a major departure from an established line of cases, and creates considerable uncertainty in the law going forward. The Federal Court of Appeal left open the meaning of “unjust”, the very basis for section 240 complaints, which may now make it more difficult for a worker to assess the merits of an unjust dismissal complaint. Mr. Wilson’s leave application will thus be closely followed by federal workers and their advocates, who undoubtedly hope the Supreme Court will intervene on this important issue.

Some of the questions that may be raised, if the appeal is heard by the Supreme Court, include:

• What, if any, differences are there between a common law wrongful termination and an unjust dismissal under the Code?
• Is it contrary to the policy reasons for section 240 of the Code to permit terminations “without cause”?
• Will reinstatement remain available as a remedy for unjust dismissal complaints under the Code, if employers are now permitted to terminate without cause? If so, under what circumstances will it be ordered?

It is hoped that an appeal before the Supreme Court will bring clarity to these issues, and resolve them in a manner that is consistent with the protections Parliament intended to afford to federally regulated employees.

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