If you have recently started a new job, you may be surprised to learn that your employer’s insurance plan might not cover long-term disability entitlement for people with pre-existing medical conditions. You may be even more surprised to learn that human rights legislation allows for an employer to exclude some people with pre-existing conditions from disability insurance plans.

Overview

Canada has both federal and provincial human rights legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of protected grounds, such as disability. The federal legislation, the Canadian Human Rights Act, applies to federally regulated employers, such as airlines and banks. The Ontario Human Rights Code applies to provincially regulated employers. You can learn more about how human rights legislation applies to federal and provincial employees here.

Both the federal and provincial statutes outline situations in which it is not discriminatory for an employer’s disability insurance plan to exclude people with pre-existing medical conditions. Under the federal legislation, plans can exclude a person with a pre-existing condition, who has received medical treatment for that condition, for the first year the person is insured. Under Ontario’s legislation, a plan can exclude a person with a pre-existing condition if it substantially increases the risk for the insurer. Pre-existing conditions are often defined broadly, so almost any medical condition for which you receive treatment may be defined as a pre-existing condition.

Federal Law

Under a regulation of the Canadian Human Rights Act, it is not discriminatory if an employer’s disability income insurance plan does not pay benefits to an employee who, during the first year an employee is insured under the plan, becomes disabled as a result of a pre-existing condition. An injury, accident or sickness that started before the employee became insured can qualify as a pre-existing condition, so long as the employee received medical care, treatment or services, drug therapy or prescribed medicine during the year before becoming insured under the plan.

Ontario Law

Under the Ontario Human Rights Code, it is not discriminatory for an employer’s disability insurance plan to make a reasonable and bona fide exclusion because of a pre-existing disability that substantially increases the risk to the insurer. Unlike the federal statute, Ontario’s statute does not contain any time limit on the exclusion. However, the Ontario Human Rights Code does outline that if an employee is excluded from a group insurance contract because of a disability, the employer must pay the employee compensation equivalent to what the employer would contribute to the insurance contract for an employee without a disability.

Potential Challenges to the Human Rights Legislation

As of July 2019, no federal courts or tribunals have addressed the pre-existing condition exclusion in disability insurance plans. At that time, in Ontario, only one case, Ontario (Human Rights Comm.) v. North American Life Assurance Co., had assessed the exclusion for pre-existing conditions. In that case, the Ontario Human Rights Commission argued that an insurance plan’s pre-existing condition exclusion clause was discriminatory and requested that the court declare it illegal. However, the Ontario Supreme Court upheld the Board of Inquiry’s finding that the insurance plan’s exclusion clause related to a substantial increase in risk because the complainant had a pre-existing disability. Therefore, the exclusion clause was reasonable and bona fide. The Court found that the Human Rights Code provision relating to pre-existing disability exclusions must be read in the context of the insurance industry, which is a for-profit industry. Therefore, the Court determined that it is not discriminatory for a disability insurance plan to exclude pre-existing disabilities that considerably increase the possibility of future insurance financial liability, so long as the exclusion is reasonable in the insurance industry and made in good faith.

Recently, in Talos v. Grand Erie District School Board, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario declared that the provision of Ontario’s Human Rights Code that allowed for employee benefits to be cut off at age 65 was unconstitutional. Perhaps a similar challenge to the provisions allowing people with pre-existing conditions to be excluded from employer disability insurance plans may one day be successful.

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

Workers infected with COVID-19 “out of and in the course of” their employment are entitled to benefits under the Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, including for lost wages, healthcare costs and permanent impairments arising from the disease. If a worker contracted COVID-19 outside of work, they will not be eligible for such benefits.

Worker’s compensation benefits are only available to workers who have symptoms of COVID-19, according to the agency that decides worker’s compensation claims, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB). WSIB’s policy indicates that benefits will not be available for those who are caring for others or who are self-isolating without any symptoms. This approach may not hold where an individual, despite being asymptomatic, ultimately tests positive for COVID-19 that is linked to the workplace.

WSIB considers two main questions to determine whether a worker’s symptoms are work related. First, did the worker’s employment create a risk of contracting the disease to which the public at large is not normally exposed?

In answering that question, WSIB will consider whether

• A contact source to COVID-19 within the workplace has been identified;
• The nature and location of employment activities place the worker at risk for exposure to infected persons or substances; and
• There was an opportunity for transmission of COVID-19 in the workplace via a compatible route to transmission.

Information about the work environment, the worker’s job duties and the use of personal protective equipment are relevant to answering that question.

Second, has the worker’s COVID-19 condition been confirmed? WSIB will determine that question by considering whether

• The time from the date of the exposure and the onset of the illness are clinically compatible with COVID-19 established to exist in the workplace; and
• There is a medical diagnosis and, if not, whether the worker’s symptoms are clinically compatible with symptoms produced by COVID-19.

There may be other relevant factors and WSIB will decide each claim on its own merit, having regard to the worker’s individual circumstances.

Workers may be exposed to COVID-19 in and out the workplace. A worker is entitled to benefits if it can be proven that work-related duties or requirements were a significant contributing factor to the worker contracting the disease.

Workers experiencing confirmed symptoms of COVID-19 and unable to work may report their illness to WSIB, in addition to reporting these symptoms to their employer.

Not all Ontario workers are covered by WSIB, however. If you are unsure of your eligibility, you can contact WSIB for more information, or contact our firm to discuss your situation further.

[Note: this information applies to non-unionized employees only. Unionized employees should consult their bargaining agent. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, which requires an assessment of your individual circumstances.]

Workers are typically thought of as either “employees” or “independent contractors”. Employers seek to classify their workforce as “contractors” to avoid paying for mandatory benefits under the Employment Standards Act (ESA), among other things, which only protects employees as defined under the ESA.

However, Canadian courts recognize an intermediate position where, although the worker is not an employee, they are still economically dependent on one contract. These so-called “dependent contractors” are entitled to reasonable notice upon termination of the contractual relationship.

In a recent decision, the Ontario Court of Appeal in Thurston v Ontario (Children’s Lawyer), 2019 ONCA 640, clarified the circumstances in which someone can be classified as a “dependent contractor”. The Court ruled that a dependent contractor relationship is one in which there is “a certain minimum economic dependency, which may be demonstrated by compete or near-complete exclusivity.”[1] This decision could be highly relevant for workers in the modern economy who depend on precarious contract work to make a living.

Background

Ms. Thurston was a sole practitioner lawyer who provided legal services to the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (“OCL”) for 13 years. Each year, the OCL had Ms. Thurston and its other lawyers sign a fixed-term contract, which made up about 40% of Ms. Thurston’s annual income. According to the contract, the OCL made no guarantee of the total value or volume of work that Ms. Thurston would receive, and the OCL could terminate the contract in any circumstances, without notice. When the OCL decided not to renew her contract in 2015, Ms. Thurston claimed that she was a dependent contractor, and therefore that she was entitled to 20 months’ notice of termination.

The Motion Judge’s Decision

When Ms. Thurston filed her lawsuit at the Superior Court claiming that she was a dependent contractor, the OCL brought a motion asking the judge to dismiss the case. The motion judge ruled against the employer. The motion judge noted that the relationship was continuous and permanent for 13 years and that Ms. Thurston was seen as an employee by the public. In addition, 40% of Ms. Thurston’s average billings from her legal practice came from OCL. The OCL appealed the motion judge’s decision to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal’s Decision

The Court of Appeal reversed the motion judge’s decision and dismissed Ms. Thurston’s case. The court reaffirmed that a worker claiming “dependent contractor” status must lead evidence showing “minimum economic dependency” on the contract. The court explained that a plaintiff demonstrates economic dependence with evidence of near-complete exclusivity:

In distinguishing dependent from independent contractors, McKee made clear that exclusivity of service provision, and therefore of income, is key. As the court put it, “exclusivity is determinative, as it demonstrates economic dependence”; exclusivity, the court said, is a “hallmark” of the dependent contractor category: McKee, at para. 34. In Keenan, at para. 25, this court emphasized that exclusivity was “integrally tied to the question of economic dependency” and that the determination of exclusivity requires consideration of the full history of the relationship in question.[2]

The court based its conclusion on other court decisions that considered this issue and identified near-complete exclusivity as the key factor. In some cases, courts have decided that someone can be a dependent contractor if “substantially more than a majority” of the dependent contractor’s income was earned through one contract.

In Ms. Thurston’s case, the court ruled that she failed to establish the required degree of exclusivity which would demonstrate her economic dependence on the OCL. Ms. Thurston maintained an independent legal practice throughout her time with the OCL, and her work with the OCL only averaged 39.9% of her annual billings – hardly exclusive service. The court confirmed that “near-exclusivity necessarily requires substantially more than 50% of billings.”[3] While the OCL was certainly an important client for her, the Court of Appeal found that the motion judge’s decision failed to appropriately consider the facts and apply the exclusivity test, and for that reason, the motion judge’s decision was unreasonable in the court’s opinion.

Discussion

The Court of Appeal’s decision is a step backwards for dependent contractors who rely on one contracting party for a large portion of their income but would not meet the Court’s onerous “near-complete exclusivity” threshold. Although the decision simply reaffirmed what the Court of Appeal has said in previous decisions (see for example McKee v Reid’s Heritage Homes Ltd., 2009 ONCA 916; Keenan v Canac Kitchens Ltd., 2016 ONCA 79), nevertheless, the Court’s guidance in this case on what constitutes a dependent contractor is useful to those who work through contracting parties. This case is the latest in a long line of decisions confirming that in classifying a work relationship, courts will focus on the substance of the relationship. For workers whose income depends on precarious contract relationships, this means that an employer cannot hide behind the “independent contractor” label if the facts point to a different conclusion.

If you have any questions regarding your employment situation, consult one of our experienced employment lawyers at Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne and Yazbeck LLP. 

[1] Thurston v. Ontario (Children’s Lawyer), 2019 ONCA 640  at para 23.

[2] Thurston, supra, at para 25.

[3] Thurston, supra at para 30.

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

By Geoff Dunlop and Raphaёlle Laframboise-Carignan

Since our post on the introduction of the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) (which you can read here), the federal government has announced changes to the program to address some of the identified gaps in eligibility. Based on these most recent changes, many more individuals should qualify to receive the CERB. This post will outline who is now eligible, and who is still left out, of this important benefit.

What is the CERB?

The CERB is a benefit to replace income lost due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It is a flat, taxable amount for all eligible claimants: $2,000 for every four weeks you are eligible, up to a maximum of 16 weeks, between March 15 (retroactive) and October 3, 2020.

What has stayed the same?

To qualify for the CERB, you still need to be a resident of Canada of at least 15 years of age, and must have had at least $5,000 in income from work (employment or self-employment), EI maternity or parental benefits, or Quebec’s parental benefits program QPIP in the last year. These requirements have not changed with the expansion of the program.

What has changed?

Some of the eligibility criteria have been expanded, to allow more individuals to qualify for the CERB:

• You are no longer required to have had NO income from employment, self-employment, any EI or QPIP benefit for at least 14 days in a row. Instead, you can qualify for the CERB if you earned less than $1,000 in an eligibility period (that period is at least 14 days in a row if you are applying for the first time, and 4 weeks if you are applying again for a subsequent period).
• You can also qualify for the CERB if you are a seasonal worker who has exhausted your regular EI benefits, and are unable to undertake your seasonal work due to COVID-19. You must have received EI benefits for at least one week since December 29, 2019.
• Finally, you may qualify for the CERB if you have recently exhausted your regular EI benefits, and are unable to find work due to COVID-19. Again, you must have received EI benefits for at least one week since December 29, 2019.

These changes are retroactive to March 15.

Who is still left out?

The expansion of the CERB is welcome news, but, unfortunately, even the expanded version of this program still contains gaps that will leave many Canadians without access to this benefit.

Workers making $1,000 – $2,000 per month

One of the most important and much-needed changes to this program was to expand it to include workers who had experienced a significant reduction in hours, but who were still earning some income. Workers can now earn up to $1,000 per month and still access the CERB.

However, there is still an obvious gap in the program’s design—there are many workers who will be earning less from their employment than the value of the CERB, and yet they continue to be excluded from this benefit. It is unclear why the government did not expand access to all workers making less than the value of the CERB ($2,000 every four weeks), and simply deduct any amounts earned from the benefit.

Students seeking summer employment

As noted in our previous post, many students who were counting on employment during the summer months will not be able to find jobs due to the pandemic. However, because they did not lose a current source of income, they will not qualify for CERB, and most of them are unlikely to have been receiving EI regular benefits recently. Students who are about to graduate and were about to enter the job market will not have access to this benefit.

The government has reiterated that more help may be on the way for students, but no specifics have been provided so far.

Workers who have been unemployed for a long period

The benefit has been extended to anyone who has exhausted their EI regular benefits, only if they have received at least one week of EI benefits after December 29, 2019. Therefore, any unemployed workers who ran out of EI benefits before that time are still ineligible for the CERB.

Is it time for a universal benefit?

The most recent changes to the CERB will be met with criticism and questions about who continues to be left behind, in response to which the government will in all likelihood tweak the program further. Instead of the current piecemeal, incremental approach, many have called on the government to simply grant a $2,000 per month benefit to all Canadians, and reclaim it from those who did not need it through taxes next year. It remains to be seen whether this view will gain any traction within the government.

Updated information about the CERB and how to apply can be found here.

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

On March 4, 2020, Morgan Rowe presented a workshop on human rights law, worker’s rights, and how these two sets of rights can be used to help individuals with disabilities challenge barriers in employment. The workshop was hosted by CUPE Local 2626.

The firm gratefully acknowledges the contribution to this post by articling student Zachary Rodgers.

The Office and Professional Employees International Union (OPEIU), represented by Wassim Garzouzi, recently scored a major victory for the privacy rights of workers across Canada. On December 9, 2019, Arbitrator Susan Ashley affirmed that employers in Canada cannot unilaterally impose random drug and alcohol testing on its unionized employees, despite the legalization of cannabis and the uniquely dangerous nature of the work in question.

The employer in this case, a helicopter company providing passenger transport to offshore oil operations, sought to initiate random drug and alcohol testing of its helicopter pilots (and other employees in safety sensitive positions) following the legalization of cannabis in Canada. At the time, the employer already had a robust drug and alcohol policy in place that allowed it to test employees in safety sensitive positions if there was reasonable cause to suspect the employee was under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The Union took no issue with “for cause” testing. The only issue at arbitration was whether the employer could force employees to submit to drug and alcohol testing at random (i.e. without cause).

The Union successfully argued that Canadian courts and arbitrators have long rejected random testing as an unreasonable violation of individual privacy rights. In Irving Pulp & Paper Ltd, the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that even in workplaces where safety is paramount, random testing is too great an infringement on employee privacy rights if there is no existing and pervasive problem of drug and alcohol use in the workplace.

Arbitrator Ashley rejected the employer’s argument that the legalization of cannabis in Canada had changed the legal landscape. She equally rejected the employer’s position that the uniquely dangerous work of flying helicopters offshore justified the violation of employees’ privacy rights. Significantly, the arbitrator found that, although oral swab testing is less invasive than other methods of drug testing, it still amounts to “an unjustified affront to the dignity and privacy rights of the affected employees.”

This award, in favour of the Union, is one of the first post-legalization decisions in Canada that affirms the Canadian model, which requires employers to demonstrate an existing and pervasive alcohol or drug problem in the workplace before random testing can be justified. Importantly, employers cannot rely on the legalization of cannabis to justify upending the status quo on drug testing in Canadian workplaces.

RavenLaw congratulates OPEIU on its hard-fought and successful defence of employee privacy rights in Canada.

On March 5, 2020, Anna Lichty and Megan Fultz represented Ravenlaw at the 2020 uOttawa Career Day at the Ottawa Conference and Event Centre.

Anna and Megan hosted four Community & Public Lawyering Roundtables, conducted a series of mock interviews with students interested in labour and employment law, and had the opportunity to meet and discuss our firm’s work with many first and second-year law students at a networking lunch. Thank you to the organizers for putting on this great event, and thank you to the uOttawa students for your engagement and enthusiasm!

If you’re a student looking for more information about the summer or articling experience at Ravenlaw, please contact us at studentrecruitment@ravenlaw.com.

This week, the Government has started accepting applications from employers for the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS), part of the Government’s economic response to the COVID-19 pandemic crisis. This new benefit is unprecedented in scope and is likely to be well received by many employers and employees. However, the design of this benefit arguably leaves too much power in the hands of employers.

What is the CEWS?

The CEWS is a wage subsidy intended to help employers that are struggling due to COVID-19, allowing them to recall employees that have been laid off, and to avoid future layoffs. Eligible employers will receive a subsidy for up to 12 weeks between March 15 and June 6, provided they can show the required reduction in revenue for that period. The Government has not imposed any size limit on eligible employers and has extended the benefit to all types of businesses, as well as not-for-profit organizations and charities. Only public institutions, such as schools and hospitals, are excluded.

How much does the subsidy cover?

The subsidy will cover up to 75% of wages on the first $58,700 that an employee earns, up to a maximum of $847 a week. There are special calculations for employees whose pay has been reduced since before the crisis, and for non-arm’s length employees.

Employees who have been laid off can become eligible retroactively for the CEWS if the employer rehires them. However, if those employees have received the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB), and they will earn more than $1000 per month as a result of being rehired, they will have to repay the CERB.

Does the CEWS give too much power to employers?

This program is new and therefore may be revised and adjusted in response to public criticism, similar to the CERB. The Government may want to consider some of the ways in which this program’s design places too much power in the hands of employers.

No obligation on employers to pay remaining 25% of wages

The Government is not requiring employers to pay the remaining 25% of employees’ wages as a condition of eligibility for the CEWS. The Government has stated publicly that it “expects” employers to make best efforts to pay the remaining salary amounts, but it is unclear whether there will be any mechanism to enforce that expectation. As a result, there is a concern that many employers will recall employees at only 75% of their previous pay rate, or even potentially reduce the pay of existing employees. This program should obviously not create an incentive for employers to pay their workers less.

Employers decide the level of government benefit for workers

The CEWS (up to $847 per week) is a far more valuable benefit than the CERB ($500 per week). A worker who has been laid off due to COVID-19 is only eligible for the CERB, but that worker’s employer could choose to rehire them solely for the purposes of accessing the CEWS, thereby granting that worker access to a significantly larger benefit.

This program therefore gives a huge amount of power to employers to basically decide how much financial relief their workers will receive during this crisis. One way to fix this flaw is to increase the value of the CERB to make it equivalent to the CEWS.

Will the CEWS strengthen a claim of constructive dismissal?

While the CEWS appears to place workers at the mercy of their employers in many respects, one way in which it may hand some power back to workers is in claims for constructive dismissal.

Many employment law experts have questioned how courts will consider claims of constructive dismissal in these extraordinary circumstances. Some argue that the COVID-19 crisis may justify greater changes to the employment relationship than have previously been accepted, on the theory that a reasonable person in the employee’s position would not consider the change to amount to a dismissal in this unique context.

The CEWS offers significant relief to employers in meeting payroll obligations, and so it may play a role in the constructive dismissal analysis. A reasonable employee may, for example, consider themselves constructively dismissed if they are laid off or have their wages reduced, if the employer cannot prove that these changes were necessary despite the presence of the CEWS benefit.

These questions, unfortunately, will not be answered by the courts for some time. Therefore, it is important for employees to obtain legal advice before claiming constructive dismissal, to fully understand the risks and consequences.

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

In Walker v Canada (Attorney General), the Federal Court of Appeal set aside a decision of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board upholding the dismissal of a longer-service and discipline-free public service employee because the Board decision-maker failed to consider whether the employee’s state of mind mitigated her alleged misconduct.

The employee’s union, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, argued that “many of the actions for which [the employee] was disciplined were motivated by a desire to protect herself and other employees from threatening and possibly dangerous acts of her subordinate” whom she genuinely feared.

It is well-established, the Federal Court of Appeal concluded, that a labour adjudicator’s inquiry into the appropriate penalty for alleged misconduct “requires review of all the relevant surrounding circumstances, including mitigating factor’s such as the employee’s state of mind, which has a direct bearing on culpability.” Yet, the decision-maker in this case not only failed to address this issue but went so far as to state, on a related issue, that it was “not my role to determine whether … [the employee] had a legitimate fear for her safety.”

This judicial review decision represents one of the first times where the Federal Court of Appeal has applied the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent decision in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov. Vavilov instructed that an administrative decision-maker’s failure to address fundamental arguments raised before it may result in the decision being unreasonable due to a lack of transparency and intelligibility.

As the employee’s fear of her co-worker was central to her defence, the Court of Appeal found that it was directly relevant to the issues the decision-maker was required to determine and could have changed the outcome of the case. The Court of Appeal concluded that the Board decision-maker’s “failure to consider whether such fear constituted a mitigating factor renders it decision … unreasonable as it is impossible to discern from the decision what weight would have been attributed to this factor by the Board, had it considered it.”

The Federal Court of Appeal returned the matter to a different Board decision-maker for redetermination.

Andrew Raven and Michael Fisher appeared for the Applicant.

Our law firm pauses today to recognize the National Day of Mourning, a day to honour those who have been killed, injured, or made ill as a result of their work. Every worker has the right to a safe and healthy workplace. One workplace death, injury, or illness is one too many.

These extraordinary times remind us of the importance of a safe and healthy workplace. Sadly, many frontline workers around the world have died or become ill because of exposure to the coronavirus in their work. All of us at RavenLaw would like to express our incredible gratitude to the workers performing essential work during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will continue to fight on their behalf for adequate health and safety protections.