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

Although we may live and work in “unprecedented” times, your rights to unionize your workplace have not changed. In several cases across the country, labour relations boards have rejected employers’ claims that the COVID-19 pandemic is no time to unionize. Even where it is unsafe to hold an in-person vote, the staff was laid off, or the employer is facing economic difficulties, boards have been clear that employees’ rights to collective bargaining are not on hold.

a) You can unionize even though it isn’t safe to hold an in-person certification vote

The Ontario Labour Relations Board has repeatedly ruled that the danger of in-person voting during the COVID-19 pandemic does not mean that certification votes should be delayed. In one case, the employer, a waste management company, argued that the Board should hold an in-person vote at its premises, over a single polling period of three hours. It claimed that its employees might not have the technology or skills to vote electronically. It suggested that if the Board was concerned about the safety of an in-person vote, the vote should be delayed until it is safe.

The Board rejected these arguments. While it found that an in-person vote would be unsafe and violate regulations, there was no reason not to hold an electronic vote because “employees have a right to determine whether or not they wish to be represented in their employment and to do so as soon as the electronic vote can be arranged.” Further, the electronic vote was not too difficult for employees to access and could be done by phone or computer.

In a similar case, the OLRB reasoned that delaying the vote until after the state of emergency is lifted could delay certification by months, “which would be prejudicial to the applicant and the affected employees.”

b) You may be able to unionize even though you and your coworkers were laid off

In a case from British Columbia, a theatre company argued that its employees could not unionize because it had laid them all off due to the pandemic.

The Board noted that, generally, employees who were laid off after an application can vote and those who were laid off before cannot. However, these are exceptional circumstances. The theatre had three categories of workers: regular full-time, regular part-time, and casual employees. The Board held that the test for whether employees who have been laid off can vote is whether they have a “sufficient continuing interest in the bargaining unit.”

The Board found that the regular full-time employees and regular part-time employees did have that connection and had not been laid off until after the application. Because of the timing of the layoff, they were eligible to vote.

Most of the regular part-time workers had been laid off before the application. Nonetheless, the Board found that they had a sufficient continuing interest in the bargaining unit. The Employer had emailed staff, committing to bringing as many people as possible back, as soon as possible. Although the Employer was not able to predict when it would reopen, it had not indicated that it would be ceasing operations. Because the closure was temporary, the Board found that “there is a continuing, tangible, felt relationship between the part-time employees and the Employer and a reasonable expectation of recall.”

However, the Board found that “the casual employees’ connection to the Employer was more tenuous.” They worked on an on-call basis and the Employer would only call them if their particular skill set would be useful for a production. They didn’t have the “reasonable expectation of recall” necessary to show that they had a sufficient continuing interest in the bargaining unit, and so were not eligible to vote.

Unfortunately for the employees, the fact that the casual employees were not eligible to vote meant that they didn’t have the support required to go forward with the application.

c) You can unionize even though your employer is experiencing economic uncertainty

In a case from the Alberta Labour Relations Board, an Employer in the not-for-profit childcare sector argued that the Board should not certify a bargaining agent during the COVID-19 pandemic due to the “business uncertainty” facing the Employer. It argued that unionization would increase its “administrative and financial burden” and set the collective bargaining process up to fail.

The Board soundly rejected this argument, finding no legal authority for the proposition that certification can be refused because of the employer’s economic circumstances. It rejected the Employer’s suggestion that we are in a “historically unique” situation. It found no precedent for refusing certification, despite the fact “the COVID-19 pandemic is not the first time in Alberta’s history when employers have faced significant, even existential, economic uncertainty.”

The Board noted that “the Code is clear: certification under the Code is an employee choice.” The Board concluded that, “put bluntly, the suggestion the Board should refuse to permit certification at times when an employer faces economic uncertainty is anathema to the purpose of the Code and its certification sections.” The Employer’s argument went against the basic principles of labour relations: “to ask why the Board would ‘bother’ with a certification in economic circumstances where that bargaining may be difficult takes a dim view of labour relations indeed.”

The Board reasoned that the Code creates a process for employees to freely select their bargaining agents in order to satisfy the constitutional requirements of “meaningful collective bargaining.” Nothing in the process asks whether the employer favours certification. It noted that while employers face difficult choices, so too do employees and “those uncertainties may well be a factor in employees making the choice, through the certification process, to pursue workplace goals through a bargaining agent at that time.”

In other words, while employers are facing difficult times, so are workers. And workers’ rights to unionize have not changed, even in these “unprecedented” times. Now, more than ever, may be a good time to unionize your workplace and face those uncertainties together.

On August 19, 2020, Morgan Rowe will present a seminar on returning to work during the COVID-19 pandemic. Morgan will discuss employees’ rights while returning to work, with a specific focus on the disability rights of employees and their family members.

The workshop is presented by Reach Canada. Reach provides educational programs and independent legal referral services that address the rights and interests of persons with disabilities

Pre-registration is required for this videoconference seminar. More information, including on how to register, may be found here.

Ravenlaw gratefully acknowledges the contribution of this post by articling student Claire Michela.

Regulated in Ontario since 1993, midwives are an overwhelmingly female-dominated profession represented by their Association of Midwives (AOM). Regulation was a proud moment for midwives, as it was a public recognition of their contributions to Ontario’s health care system. Recently, the Divisional Court found that the Ministry of Health (MOH)’s decision to raise the wages of midwives slowly, compared to other health care workers, amounts to systemic pay discrimination.

In 1993, the MOH and AOM worked together to develop funding principles to guide midwives’ future pay increases. Based on a third-party assessment, the AOM and MOH decided that doctors working in Community Health Centres (CHCs) had comparable levels of skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions to Midwives, and the two groups should be paid on par.

But, starting in 2004, midwives’ wages were frozen and negotiations became strained. As similarly situated CHC doctors’ wages continued to increase, midwives’ pay was minimally increased for a number of years. As the pay gap broadened, the AOM filed a human rights complaint for gender discrimination in 2013.

In 2018, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario concluded that the MOH’s refusal to negotiate fair pay increases was discriminatory. This finding of discrimination meant that gender was a factor in midwives’ lower pay compared to similarly situated health care workers.

Despite the Tribunal’s decision, the MOH still could not agree on an appropriate amount to compensate midwives for years of discriminatory under-payment. The case returned to the Tribunal, which decided that the MOH must provide a 20% pay increase retroactive to 2011, human rights damages for those who signed on to the complaint, and interest to compensate midwives for lost time.

The MOH was unsatisfied and brought both Tribunal decisions to the Divisional Court for judicial review. At the Divisional Court, the MOH tried to argue that there was no pay discrimination because the midwives’ gender was not a factor in the MOH’s decision to pay midwives less than CHC doctors. However, the Court’s decision reminds the MOH that in human rights cases, intent to discriminate is never required.

The Divisional Court found the MOH’s arguments about why the Tribunal decisions were unreasonable to be “disingenuous” because they “fail to engage with the allegations of adverse gender impacts on midwives and ignore the systemic dimensions of the claim.”

Discrimination is systemic when the policies or practices of organizations result in an adverse impact for a protected group. In this case, the MOH’s pay policies were discriminatory toward midwives because their pay was raised remarkably slowly (an adverse impact) compared to similarly situated health care workers.

Systemic discrimination has been a topic of public debate recently, as the Black Lives Matter movement has gained traction around the world. The case of the pay of midwives in Ontario demonstrates how systemic discrimination is a subtle form of discrimination that can creep in over time and that it may be unintentional. However, as noted by the court, in human rights law, intention is not required for systemic discrimination to exist.

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

The implementation of physical distancing measures in the face of the global COVID-19 pandemic has raised a number of issues for workers with family obligations. Many workers are now being asked to work from home on a regular basis. At the same time, schools and childcare institutions have been closed and are only in the process of reopening, with the future success of these efforts remaining uncertain. Other workers face the need to care for sick family members, preventing them from fully meeting their work obligations.

Human Rights law, which has been found to provide certain protections to allow workers to balance their family and work obligations, can play an important role in navigating these issues.

How am I protected as a parent and an employee?

Human Rights law seeks to protect people from adverse consequences flowing from the fact that they exhibit one of the protected characteristics enumerated by the legislation. In this case, the protected characteristic is called “family status”.

The protection from discrimination on the basis of family status has been interpreted to protect people from adverse consequences in their employment flowing from their family care obligations. What is protected, however, may depend on whether your employer is federally or provincially regulated.

In Ontario, it is generally enough to show that the employer’s rule has a substantial negative effect on the parent/child or family care relationship and the responsibilities that attach to it. In assessing whether there a prima facie case of discrimination has been made out, the decision maker can look at the supports available to the claimant, but the claimant is not required to exhaust all options in attempting to self-accommodate.

Case law from the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario provides a helpful foundation for parents juggling work and family obligations, including the obligation to assist their children with e-learning and other activities meant to replace school while schools are closed in response to COVID-19. Parents will be expected to make reasonable efforts to meet all of their obligations, but employers will also be expected to make reasonable concessions and allow for accommodations that will help parents to meet their obligations.

Employees who are federally regulated may have a more onerous test to meet. The Federal Court of Appeal has stated that an employer is only obligated to accommodate a family obligation when it arises from a “legal obligation”, as opposed to a “personal choice”. The implications of this requirement in the COVID-19 context remain to be seen, particularly given decisions from arbitrators and human rights tribunals, such as the arbitration award in SMS Equipment, indicating that additional requirements in the family status context are not appropriate.

A Recent Example

Arbitrator Jesin recently dealt with a COVID-19-related family status grievance. The grievor, who works in Sault-St. Marie and lives in Michigan, had a unique situation brought on by COVID-19. While he was not required to self-isolate for fourteen days after entering Canada due to an exemption in the regulations, the employer had a rule that required it, effectively making it impossible to both work and see his young children.

Arbitrator Jesin held that it was unreasonable for the employer to apply its policy without accommodating the grievor’s family status. He suggested that the employer adapt the policy to fit better with the grievor’s circumstances and that it might consider other precautions such as increased PPE or restricting him from going to COVID-19 “hot spots” in the US.

This decision is notable for the fact that it does not consider the issue of whether it was the grievor’s choice to maintain his custody arrangement or take up residence in Canada. The duty to accommodate was taken as a given. The decision is an example of Ontario arbitrators’ willingness to go straight to the question of accommodation where an employee has experienced adverse consequences as a result of a work rule and their family realities.

Addressing Family Status Concerns

If you are having difficulty keeping up with both work and childcare obligations, you can ask your employer to accommodate you. This may mean a later start time, more reduced hours, or other accommodation measures that may be necessary in the circumstances. If the employer refuses to provide any accommodation, though not necessarily the requested accommodation, it will have to show that not only does the requested accommodation would interfere with a bona fide occupational requirement and that it would experience undue hardship if forced to accommodate.

If you have any questions about these issues or your employer has refused to provide an accommodation it may be time to contact an employment lawyer or your union.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic, its economic impact, and the recent protests regarding the systemic oppression of people of colour have all highlighted the need for robust protections for workers in Canada. As protests continue around the world, we must reflect on systemic racism in Canada. Throughout Canadian society, structural inequalities create vulnerability that manifests in precarious employment. Precarious employment has many definitions, but generally references employment that is uncertain, low paying, and with limited benefits and protections. If we hope to eliminate precarious employment, we need additional protections for workers.

Ontario Reduces Protections for Employees During the Pandemic

The early socio-demographic data in Ottawa shows that racialized groups and immigrants are over-represented in COVID-19 diagnoses compared to their relative population size. Diverse communities in Ottawa have rates of COVID-19 almost twice of those communities with the least diversity. Similar trends are being reported across the country. The economic effects of coronavirus are also being borne by precarious workers.

The existing legislation governing employment relationships in Canada does not prevent precarious employment. As a result, many employers rely on precarious employment as part of their business model. While there has been some progress in holding employers accountable, many businesses that form part of the ‘gig’ economy have exploited this model. We saw this recently with Foodora’s exit from Canada following an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision that would have allowed its employees to unionize.

While gaps already existed in employment legislation, some protections for workers have been removed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.  For example, the Ontario government recently amended the Employment Standards Act with a new regulation creating Infectious Disease Emergency Leave. This regulation essentially prevents employees from claiming constructive dismissal under the Employment Standards Act when their hours are reduced or eliminated for an extended period due to COVID-19.

Migrant Workers: A Case Study in Precarious Employment

While precarious employment can create vulnerability, it also compounds vulnerability that may already exist. The spread of COVID-19 within the migrant worker community is an example of compounded vulnerability: Migrant workers are an essential component of Ontario’s commercial agriculture, but they have long been a vulnerable and marginalized community as a result of several factors, including their immigration status, employment conditions, and exclusion from some labour relations legislation. In Ontario, agricultural workers are governed by a separate labour relations statute with fewer protections than the one that covers most Ontario employees. In late May 2020, an outbreak of COVID-19 began in southwestern Ontario, and by June, at least 187 migrant workers across southwestern Ontario had tested positive for COVID-19. By July, it was reported that almost 1,000 migrant farm workers have tested positive for COVID-19.

The Role of Unions in Preventing Precarious Employment

Marginalized communities are more likely to work in precarious, low-paying, and part-time employment. The data so far has shown that individuals with post-secondary education and high-earning dual income households are more likely to be able to work from home, therefore they have a lower likelihood of work interruption because of the pandemic.

One of the ways workers’ employment conditions can be protected is through unions. Unions can use the strength of a united collective to push for better working conditions, higher salaries, and job protections. The COVID-19 pandemic has shown just how important these rights are for workers. While some precarious workers are unionized, many are not.

You can learn more about employment rights and how labour organization movements have protected workers through the Canadian Human Rights Museum’s exhibit Rights on the Job, on now until October 2020.

What Now?

All workers have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, whether they are on the front lines, risking their lives to protect and provide for their communities, working from home to help stop the spread of COVID-19, or have had their work hours reduced or eliminated. All workers deserve to be protected. No workers should have to rely on precarious employment.

As a community, we must better protect precarious workers. This can include supporting the labour movement, encouraging unionization, pushing legislators to adopt broader protections for workers, combatting structural inequalities, and engaging in these endeavours through an anti-racist lens. If you have questions about your specific employment situation, we encourage you to seek legal advice.

[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.]

Men who grew a beard during the pandemic while working from home or out of work may be asked to shave it off when they re-enter the workplace. Whether your boss can force you to shave your facial hair depends on the type of work you do, your personal circumstances, and, in many instances, whether you are unionized.

Is your employer concerned about safety or appearance?

Employers have policies against facial hair for different reasons. One is for health and safety. An employer is required by law — in Ontario, the Occupational Health and Safety Act — to protect workers from harm, including from exposure to respiratory hazards like fumes, gases or biological contaminants. Some job duties require workers to use a respirator that only fits properly if the person wearing it is clean shaven. Performing these duties safely requires a clean shave.

On the other hand, some employers are simply concerned about appearance. They may have a dress code or grooming policy that prohibits beards or other styles of facial hair for the sake of its business image. A worker’s performance is no different with or without the beard.

In either case, men who experimented with facial hair during the coronavirus lockdown may have little choice but to shave if they want to keep their job.

Do you have a right to facial hair?

Facial hair can engage a worker’s human rights, in certain circumstances. Human rights law — in Ontario, the Human Rights Code — prohibits discrimination on certain listed grounds that include a person’s creed or religion, disability, sex and gender expression.

Facial hair can be protected on the basis of creed or religion. A worker whose beard represents a sincerely held religious belief, such as that held by members of the Sikh faith, is entitled to accommodation by their employer unless it would cause the employer undue hardship. A legitimate safety concern, where employees would be endangered if a bearded person is allowed to work without a properly fitted respirator, is an example of undue hardship. The factors for determining undue hardship, in addition to health and safety, depend on the circumstances of each case. It is well-established, however,  that it is discriminatory for an employer to refuse to hire a person who wears a beard for religious reasons because the employer believes its clients would prefer clean-shaven employees.

The term creed in the Ontario Code may be broad enough to include protection of deeply held non-religious belief system, but there are so far no cases involving facial hair as a practice associated with one.

Facial hair can also be protected on the basis of disability. A worker with proven medical restrictions, which could possibly include a dermatological condition that is irritated by shaving, is also entitled to accommodation to the point of undue hardship on the basis of disability. An employer is not entitled to ask for a diagnosis but can expect to receive enough information from a medical practitioner to fulfill its duty to accommodate the employee’s restrictions.

Otherwise the decision to grow a particular type of facial hair has not been found to be a protected right on the basis of sex or gender expression, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario ruled in Browne v Sudbury Integrated Nickel Operations. In that case, the worker, who grew a moustache and goatee to support the “Movember movement,” argued that his employer’s “clean shaven policy,” which only permitted a moustache and soul patch for safety reasons relating to mask-fitting, was discriminatory. But according to the Tribunal, “wearing a beard or other facial hair is a matter of style or grooming, and is not a matter of sufficient social significance to warrant protection under human rights legislation” on the basis of sex.

It was also not protected on the basis of gender expression or gender identity. These grounds were added to the Code to address a perceived gap in the rights of transgender and gender non-conforming persons, not to protect the right of cisgender men to grow beards. The Tribunal found nothing to indicate “bearded men suffer any particular social, economic, political or historical disadvantage in Canadian or Ontario society, absent any connection between the wearing of a beard and matters of religious observance or perhaps some link to a protected ground in the Code other than sex or gender expression.”

It would remain open to transgender or gender non-conforming persons to seek accommodation for the wearing of facial hair on the basis of gender expression and gender identity, if an employer’s policy impeded grooming according to their expressed gender.

Human rights can be a complex area of law that turns on the unique aspects of each case. Workers who have questions about their workplace rights should speak to a lawyer or access community resources, like the Ontario Human Rights Legal Support Centre.

Is your workplace unionized?

Unionized workers have a greater ability to challenge employer policies than non-union workers. Their terms and conditions of employment are governed by a collective agreement that entitles the union to present grievances concerning workplace disputes to be heard by a labour arbitrator. The union generally has the power to challenge the reasonableness of employer policies, including grooming policies that restrict styles of facial hair.

In deciding whether a policy is reasonable, an arbitrator will consider if the employer has a legitimate business interest that justifies interfering with the right of employees to express themselves through their personal appearance. There are many arbitral cases dealing with dress codes and grooming standards.

In one case, Waterloo Regional Police Services Board (1999), 85 LAC (4th) 227, the arbitrator found there was no legitimate rationale for the police service to prohibit men from wearing beards on duty, except for religious or medical reasons. The employer was unable to produce any objective evidence that a beard was inconsistent with the image the employer wished to project. The arbitrator noted that it would be reasonable for the employer to regulate the appearance and maintenance of beards but was unable to justify banning them outright.

In another, Zehrs Markets Inc. (2003), 116 LAC (4th) 216, the arbitrator found that the employer’s policy that the required the grievors to shave their goatees or wear beard nets was unreasonable. There was no evidence that the goatees cause any health and safety issues, like food contamination, or that the absence of beard nets over facial hair affected the grocery store’s image with customers.

In other cases, such as Ottawa Hospital v Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 4000, 2013 CanLII 643, arbitrators have similarly found that employer bans on facial piercings and clothing that exposed tattoos were unreasonable as they served no legitimate employer interests.

Workers should contact their union representatives if they have any questions about their employer’s grooming policies.

That doesn’t seem like a shocking proposition, but Uber fought up to the Supreme Court of Canada to argue Canadian courts had no jurisdiction to determine whether it had acted improperly. The Supreme Court of Canada said Uber was wrong. Now a major class action on behalf of drivers can go ahead.

Uber thought it had covered itself when it required drivers to agree that they had to make any claims by going to an arbitration in Europe, leaving them with no access to justice through Canadian courts. A strong majority decision of the Supreme Court of Canada rejected that argument and said the clause was unenforceable.

It said that the clause was unconscionable.

The Court held that the idea of going to arbitration, rather than the courts, is acceptable when it is freely negotiated between the parties.  Where unfair bargains are linked to unfair bargaining, however, the courts can protect vulnerable people in the agreements they are given to sign. The courts will look to whether one party to a deal was unable to protect their interests when the person agreed to the terms. The Supreme Court also said Canadian courts can intervene where one party is disadvantaged by terms they did not understand or appreciate. Not every standard contract can be ignored by the courts, but when they are hard to understand and lopsidedly in favour of one party, there is a good chance that some of their terms can’t be enforced.

In the Uber case, a driver would have been required to pay an up-front US$14,500 administration fee just to start the arbitration process.  For the driver in question, that was a sizeable percentage of the amount he earned in a year.  He would have to use the law of the Netherlands and was left with the impression he would have to go to Amsterdam to argue his case.  The Court found that the arbitration clause made any of the driver’s rights unenforceable in the real world.

As a result, the Court said Uber drivers can make their claims in Canadian courts. A proposed $400M claim involving the misclassification of Uber drivers can finally now proceed.

It’s not unusual for Long Term Disability (LTD) benefits to be denied, and there are various reasons why this may happen. Below are the top five reasons why Long Term Disability benefits are denied to those who are either mentally or physically unable to work.

1. Insufficient medical evidence

LTD denials by the insurance company can happen at the beginning of the application process because the applicant or the applicant’s doctor filled out the required forms incorrectly or inadequately. Despite the fact that you and your doctor have filled out the required forms and provided access to your medical file, the insurance company may deny your LTD benefit because the medical documents do not support your claim. Unfortunately, the insurance company is unlikely to explain why or where the documents are lacking. 

From our experience, doctors often fail to explain in enough detail why the patient’s symptoms are a barrier to performing the duties of their existing job or some alternative employment. It is advised that both you, as the applicant, and your physician clearly outline why you cannot work and explain how your medical condition prevents you from working. This will include such information as the frequency and intensity of the medical symptoms. 

If you are denied because the medical documents do not support your claim, you will have the opportunity to provide more information to the insurer. With the support of your family doctor or other treating physician, you can provide additional evidence to support your claim. The insurance company will typically give more weight to the opinion of a specialist than a family physician. You can also get the assistance of an LTD lawyer to complete the required forms. 

If you are turned down a second time, you will likely have to initiate an appeal process and sue the insurer.

2. You do not meet the policy’s definition of total disability

Each LTD insurance policy defines what it means to be “totally disabled.” At first glance, it might seem like an insurmountable threshold to attain but usually, in the first two years, it means that a person is unable to perform the usual duties and responsibilities of their own occupation. 

If you are unable to do your job, make sure to indicate total disability on the form. If you answer on the form that you do not meet the definition of total disability, the insurance company will interpret your response as an agreement you are able to work. 

If you have filled out the form incorrectly, but your treating physician’s opinion is that you cannot work, you can contest the denial of benefits.

3. You can work in another occupation

After two years, the definition of “total disability” often changes, and the insurance company takes the position that an individual is disabled only if they cannot work in any occupation. It is at this time that many individuals who are in receipt of LTD benefits are cut off If your physician continues to advise that you cannot work in any occupation, you can use that as evidence that you should continue to receive benefits. If the insurance company rejects that medical opinion, you can contest the decision to deny your LTD benefits. 

4. You have an excluded or pre-existing medical condition

Some insurance policies may exclude certain conditions, deny coverage for pre-existing medical conditions, or have a waiting period for claims due to a pre-existing medical condition. It is important to review the policy to see if and when you are covered for pre-existing medical conditions. If you are denied coverage due to a non-disclosed pre-existing condition,  depending on the context it may be worthwhile to initiate an appeal.

5. Lack of objective medical evidence

Individuals with invisible disabilities such as mental health conditions, fibromyalgia, chronic pain, and chronic fatigue syndrome are often denied due to a lack of so-called objective medical evidence. These diagnoses are often based on self-reported symptoms and their effect on daily living. Insurance companies often deny these claims because there is no official test or diagnostic image to confirm the existence of the illness or disease. Despite the lack of an official test or diagnostic, a denial of LTD benefits in these circumstances can be contested.

If any of the above reasons are cited in the decision to deny or stop paying your LTD benefits, we strongly recommend you contact a lawyer in order to discuss the next steps.

Note: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, which requires an assessment of your individual circumstances.]