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.]

The COVID-19 pandemic gave most Canadians a renewed understanding and appreciation for the essential, life-saving work performed by healthcare professionals. However, early on in the crisis, this appreciation felt empty to many workers who were being denied access to adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) and other measures to protect themselves and their patients.

One particularly stark example led the Ontario Superior Court to take the very rare step of intervening in the midst of a labour dispute, and ordering a group of employers to ensure that nurses had access to adequate PPE and other protective measures.

Background

At the height of the spread of the coronavirus in Canada, the Ontario Nurses Association presented grievances against four employers operating long-term care homes. The union maintained that these employers had violated the Collective Agreements, as well as health and safety legislation and public health directives, by withholding PPE from nurses and failing to implement necessary controls to prevent the spread of COVID-19 among residents and staff.

Because of the length of time it would take for those grievances to reach arbitration, the union also applied for an injunction in the Ontario Superior Court, seeking urgent relief while the grievances remained pending. The union asked for an Order that the employers allow nurses to make PPE decisions on an ongoing basis at the point of care, and that they isolate and cohort residents and the staff attending to them so that those who were infectious were kept separate from and treated by different nurses than those who were not. The Court heard the injunction request on April 22, and released its decision the following day.

Injunction decision

The Court’s decision paints a very grim picture of what was occurring in the long-term care homes. All four had experienced COVID-19 outbreaks, with over a hundred residents infected and more than fifty deaths. At least seven nurses had also contracted COVID-19, with one requiring hospitalization.

Despite this dire situation, the evidence before the Court was that nurses were being denied access to PPE, including N95 masks, on the grounds that they were scarce and needed to be conserved. This was clearly contrary to public health directives, which stated that, if a health care worker determines at point of care that N95 masks are necessary, they must be provided. The homes were also not isolating and cohorting infected residents and were allowing infected and non-infected residents to be cared for by the same nurses.

At the injunction hearing, the employers conceded that two of the three elements of the test for an injunction were satisfied—there was a serious issue to be tried in the underlying grievances, and there was a risk of irreparable harm if an injunction was not granted. They argued, however, that the balance of convenience favoured dismissing the application, because the risk to the nurses had to be balanced against the risks to all other staff and residents. The employers essentially argued that the nurses were trying to secure PPE for themselves to protect their own self-interest, at the expense of others.

The Court was unimpressed, to say the least, with this argument:

“I can imagine that the irony of that submission is not lost on the Applicants. One need only read the affidavits of the individual nurses in this Application record to understand that they spend their working days, in particular during the current emergency situation, sacrificing their personal interests to those of the people under their care. And given the nature of the pandemic, they do this not only for the immediate benefit of their patients but for the benefit of society at large. To suggest that their quest for the masks, protective gear, and cohorting that they view as crucial to the lives and health of themselves and their patients represents a narrow, private interest seems to sorely miss the mark.”

The Court concluded: “Where the lives of nurses and patients are placed at risk, the balance of convenience favours those measures that give primacy to the health and safety of medical personnel and those that they treat.” The Court ordered that the employers comply with the public health directives, including providing nurses with access to fitted N95 facial respirators and other appropriate PPE when assessed by a nurse at point of care to be appropriate and required.

Extraordinary measures for extraordinary times

An injunction is a very unusual legal remedy, and the injunction in this case was particularly unusual. The fact that the Court felt compelled to intervene in the middle of a labour dispute—something it is generally reluctant to do—and order the employers to take active steps to protect staff and residents is a reflection of what exceptional times were are currently living in.

It is also a testament to the seriousness of COVID-19 and the importance of frontline workers during the unprecedented crisis that virus has caused. On that topic, two important points are worth noting.

First, the nurses who sought this injunction, as well as other public sector workers in Ontario, are all currently subject to Bill 124, legislation that caps increases to pay and benefits to a total of 1% per year for a period of three years. The Ontario government has disingenuously claimed it is unable to intervene and override this cap. However, in addition to obviously having the power to repeal the legislation, Bill 124 authorizes the government to exempt any collective agreement from the cap. Given the consensus that healthcare workers are nothing short of heroes in the current context, the government should clearly grant exemptions and allow these workers to be paid what they deserve.

Second, the Ontario government recently announced that it will allow agricultural workers to continue working even if they test positive for COVID-19, provided they are asymptomatic. Like the situation the nurses faced in these long-term care homes, this decision appears to be clearly guided by societal, economic considerations, rather than the best interests of the workers. The agricultural workers and their advocates may want to explore whether similar extraordinary legal action is appropriate to protect themselves, and the Ontario government should heed the lesson from the Court’s decision in the ONA case—the broader public good cannot come at the expense of the health and safety of 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.]

We are now months into the COVID-19 pandemic, and it can feel at times like we are living in a completely different world. One can wonder whether life will ever be the same.

It appears, however, there are some things that never change—as Foodora couriers in Canada learned recently, one of those things is the lengths to which some employers will go to avoid a union drive. Foodora has unceremoniously fled the country, rather than face the prospect of collective bargaining.

Foodora and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers

Foodora and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) had been engaged in a long battle over CUPW’s application for certification as bargaining agent of the food delivery app’s couriers in Canada. The union scored a historic victory in that battle in February of this year, when the Ontario Labour Relations Board ruled that the couriers were dependent contractors for the purposes of the Labour Relations Act, and were therefore able to access the collective bargaining regime under that legislation.

Two months later, Foodora announced that it was closing all operations in Canada effective May 11, 2020, shortly after which it filed for bankruptcy protection. To justify its decision, the company pointed to economic reasons and the supposed saturation of the Canadian food delivery app market. The suspicious timing of Foodora’s move was lost on absolutely no one, however, and its claims of economic hardship were particularly unconvincing, since the food delivery business has exploded during the pandemic.

Foodora’s History of Shutting Down

If there were any doubt about Foodora’s true motivations, the company has a history of shutting down in the face of a legal challenge to its misclassification of employees. In Australia, like in Canada, Foodora attempted to characterize its couriers as independent contractors. When Australia’s Fair Work ombudsman challenged that classification, Foodora fled the jurisdiction.

CUPW has, unsurprisingly, filed an unfair labour practice complaint, arguing that the decision to shut down was motivated at least in part by a desire to avoid unionization. Unfortunately, though, even if this complaint is successful, the union and its members can only hope to receive some monetary compensation. Although CUPW has asked for reinstatement of employees in its complaint, the labour board likely cannot order Foodora to restore its Canadian operations, a remedy it has declined to grant in the past.

Lessons to be Learned

What are the lessons to be learned from the Foodora unionization drive, and its abrupt end? Some have argued, with good reason, that this case exposes the obvious flaws in our labour relations regime. The odds are stacked against unions and their members, particularly in certain sectors like the ‘gig’ economy, making it virtually impossible to successfully unionize. As a result, the legislature needs to seriously consider alternate modes of organizing and bargaining, so that workers like the Foodora couriers are not left behind. (See here for an interesting paper on organizing gig economy workers, published by the ILO.)

Another important takeaway from this case is that we need better oversight of businesses that improperly classify employees as independent contractors. The protections under the Labour Relations Act, as well as minimum standards under the Employment Standards Act, are afforded to “employees”, which, in the case of the Labour Relations Act, expressly includes “dependent contractors”. To avoid these protections, many companies characterize workers as independent contractors in their written contracts, or simply treat them as such, even when the relationship clearly meets the definition of an employment relationship.

Indeed, Foodora appears to be an example of a business whose success depends upon misclassifying its employees. The company’s hasty withdrawal from Canada following the Ontario Labour Relations Board’s ruling suggests that this ending to the Foodora story was, therefore, inevitable. If a company can only turn a profit by evading employment standards protections for its workers, it arguably should not be operating at all.

Employee Misclassification

This result, however inevitable, came at considerable expense to Foodora’s couriers and their union. The onus should not be on them to engage in a months-long legal battle to confirm their proper classification as employees. Employee misclassification appears to be rampant in the ‘gig’ economy, and so the time has long since past for the government to take a more proactive role in scrutinizing these businesses, to ensure that minimum employment standards are being met. Only significant oversight and serious penalties will stop other employers in the gig economy from using misclassification to their advantage.

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

Many workers have had their vacation plans put on hold by the COVID-19 pandemic, but still have vacation time to use. Here are the answers to some of the most frequently asked questions about taking vacations with pay.

How much vacation does my employer have to give me?

Your employment contract and any applicable employer policies may outline your vacation entitlements. If you’re a unionized worker, check your collective agreement.

In Ontario, the Employment Standards Act sets the bare minimum terms and conditions of employment for most workers. It guarantees an employee who has worked for an employer for less than five years at least two weeks of paid vacation after each year of employment. An employee who has worked for an employer for more than five years is guaranteed at least three weeks of paid vacation a year. These are minimums. An employer may provide more vacation to its employees, and some employees, including those represented by a trade union, may be able to negotiate greater vacation entitlements.

Some Ontario workers are exempt from this and other parts of the Employment Standards Act. The list includes lawyers, registered massage therapists and commissioned salespersons as well as workers employed in commercial fishing and on most farms. If you are one of these workers, your vacation entitlement is subject only to negotiation with the employer.

Other Ontario workers are employed by federally regulated employers such as banks, telecommunications companies and First Nations band councils. For these workers, the Canada Labour Code guarantees similar entitlements as the Ontario legislation, except that the federal legislation additionally entitles employees with 10 or more years of service to at least four weeks of vacation with pay.

What if I’ve been on leave because of COVID-19?

Some workers are eligible for infectious disease emergency leave under the Employment Standards Act or leave related to COVID-19 under Canada Labour Code as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. Workers can postpone their vacations until after the end of this leave, even if they were required to have taken it within the duration of the leave.

Is it the same for other types of leaves, too?

Yes. The Employment Standards Act entitles employees to various unpaid leaves of absence like pregnancy and parental leave, family responsibility leave and sick leave. Federally regulated employees are guaranteed similar entitlements under the Canada Labour Code, in addition to leave that enables Métis, Inuit and First Nations workers to engage traditional practices including hunting, fishing and harvesting.

Workers can defer their vacation during any such leaves. An employer cannot force employees to take vacation instead of any other leave entitlements.

I’m working from home. Can I wait until my office reopens to schedule vacation?

That may be up to your employer. An employer has the right to determine when any of its employees take vacation, unless an employee’s contract of employment or collective agreement says otherwise.

The only limit on this discretion is that employer’s must allow employees to take their vacation within ten months after the year in which it was earned.

You also cannot be forced to split up your vacation. An employer has to assign vacation in a single period of at least one week, under the Employment Standards Act, unless the employee agrees otherwise. The Canada Labour Code requires employer to approve vacation in a single period unless the employee asks to take it in more than one period.

If work has slowed down because of the coronavirus, employers may want employees to use up vacation while lockdown measures are in place. That said, an employer will typically attempt to agree with their employees when their vacation will be scheduled. In unionized workplaces, vacation may be scheduled on the basis of seniority.

What if I travel for vacation this summer?

You may want to stick close to home due to the COVID-19 public health precautions, even if lockdown restrictions are easing up in some places. The Ontario government is still advising residents to stay at home as much as possible and practice physical distancing to limit the spread of COVID-19. Anyone who may have been exposed to COVID-19 is advised to get tested and self-isolate for at least 14 days. The federal government is advising that we avoid all non-essential travel outside of Canada. It is presently mandatory for all travellers entering Canada to isolate or quarantine themselves for 14 days to limit the spread of COVD-19.

 If I don’t use it, can I lose it?

Your employment contract may limit the amount of vacation with pay you can carry over from one year to the next. If that is the case, then you may be required to forfeit any unused vacation entitlements beyond the minimum guarantees in the Employment Standards Act or Canada Labour Code. An employer can never deprive employees of these minimum statutory entitlements.

When do I get my vacation pay?

Vacation pay is due at the start of your vacation or the next regular pay day, although in some cases Ontario employers will pay their employees the vacation pay that has accrued in each pay period. Workers entitled to two weeks’ vacation must receive vacation pay of at least 4% of their gross wages in the prior year. Workers entitled to three weeks’ vacation must receive at least 6% of their gross wages in the prior year. Federally regulated employees entitled to four weeks of vacation with pay must receive at least 8% of their gross wages in the prior year.

If I don’t take vacation, do I still get vacation pay?

 Vacation pay accrues on wages earned as soon as you start working. The employer holds onto it until you take vacation. You can agree to forego vacation, if the Director of Employment Standards approves, but your employer cannot forego paying your vacation pay. But, really, you should take your vacation.

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

Have you missed the deadline to apply for long term disability (LTD) benefits? There might still be a recourse available.

What does the law say?

Law makers realized that in some cases, claimants will miss the deadline to apply for LTD benefits even though they acted reasonably. A late claim could be devastating for individuals who can no longer return to work and are denied benefits. Many provinces have enacted laws, such as the Courts of Justice Act and the Insurance Act in Ontario, which allow courts to grant “relief from forfeiture.” This relief is intended for individuals who will be disproportionately penalized for failing to respect the insurance plan deadlines, especially in cases where leniency will not cause significant harm to the insurer.

How will a court decide?

The decision whether or not to grant relief is entirely discretionary and will turn on the facts of each specific case. However, courts have developed a test to determine if claimants acted reasonably and if granting the relief will unjustly harm the insurer (Kozel v. The Personal Insurance Company).

Courts will only grant relief from forfeiture if there was imperfect compliance with a policy term, not if there was a breach of an important part of the contract. In general, missing the window to claim benefits has been considered imperfect compliance (Falk Bros. Industries Ltd. v. Elance Steel Fabricating Co.).

There are 3 main factors that the court will assess in determining whether to grant relief from forfeiture:

1. conduct of the applicant;
2. gravity of the breach; and
3. disparity between the possible harm to the denied claimant and the harm to the insurer.

1. Conduct of the applicant

First, courts will analyze the reasonableness of the claimant’s actions. They are likely to consider the following issues:

• How quickly did you act once you realized the claim was late?

Claimants are expected to act expeditiously once they realize that they have missed the deadline to claim LTD benefits. The line here is not clear-cut, but courts have found that claimants acted unreasonably when they showed “ongoing negligence” or when they learned of overdue payments but then still took many months to respond.

• What if you did not know you were eligible?

In Dube v. RBC Life Insurance Co., the claimant had received conflicting information regarding his LTD benefits and then left an envelope containing important information unopened for many months. As a result, he was not aware that he could make a claim, even though he was in touch with the employer and the insurance company. The court found that while he had not been “the model of perfect diligence” but that his actions were not unreasonable. They granted him relief.

• What if your employer gave you the wrong advice?

The Court might be less likely to fault employees in cases where employers were partially responsible for the lapse. Although it is not firmly established that employers have a duty of care to assist employees in applying for benefits, the Ontario Superior Court has referenced such a duty in some recent cases (see, e.g., Ferguson v Halton, 2018 ONSC 5675).

2. Gravity of the breach

Second, courts will examine the potential harm to the insurer if the application is allowed after the deadline. The insurer could argue that given the delay, it lost the ability to make a timely medical investigation or to assist the claimant in rehabilitation in order to avoid a longer-term absence from work. That’s what the insurer argued in Nguyen v. SSQ Life Insurance Co., but the Ontario Superior Court found that although there was harm, it was not sufficient to prevent a claim for relief from forfeiture and the late claim was allowed to proceed.

3. Balancing of damages

Third, courts will compare the harm to the applicant caused by the loss of coverage with the harm to the insurer by having to consider the late application. At this stage, courts will evaluate the income the claimant will lose if relief is not granted and weigh it against the damages suffered by the insurer. 

CONCLUSION

Relief from forfeiture is entirely discretionary and it is up to the court to assess the particular details of each case and decide whether to grant it. In general, Ontario courts seem to be showing some leniency for late claimants. If you have missed the deadline to apply for LTD and been denied benefits as a result, consult a lawyer.

Ravenlaw gratefully acknowledges the contribution of this post by summer student Anna Rotman.

In a decision released June 17, 2020, the Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled that if any element of a termination provision in an employment contract runs afoul of the Employment Standards Act, the whole termination provision is invalid.

In Waksdale v. Swegon North America Inc. the Plaintiff sued his employer after he was dismissed with two weeks’ pay in lieu of notice following eight months of service. The Plaintiff’s employment contract had a termination with notice provision, and also had a termination for cause provision. On a summary judgement motion, the Defendant Employer conceded that the termination for cause provision violated the Employment Standards Act and was invalid, but argued that it was separate from the termination with notice provision that the employer was relying on in the case. The employer also relied on a severability clause contained in the agreement.

The motions judge found that the two provisions were sufficiently separate that the termination-for-cause provision did not cause the termination with notice provision to be invalid despite its violation of the Employment Standards Act.

The Court of Appeal overturned that finding. The Court found that an employment agreement must be interpreted as a whole. The fact that two termination clauses are contained in different paragraphs in the contract, or under different subheadings, does not affect the interpretation of the contract. The termination provisions must be read as a whole if the policy goal of discouraging employers from drafting contracts that violate the Act is to be met. Additionally, the Court of Appeal found that the employer could not rely on a severability provision to cure otherwise illegal contract clauses.

This decision clarifies a somewhat unsettled area of the law of wrongful dismissal. It reaffirms the principle that a termination provision in an employment contract may be invalidated if any termination situation would result in the employee receiving less than they are entitled to under the Employment Standards Act.

The Court of Appeal’s decision also serves as an important reminder that employment contracts will not be enforced where they violate the basic protections in the Act. If you have been terminated, you should seek legal advice and not rely solely on the words in your employment contract.

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

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.]