1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar

Workplace Violence Prevention Progress Report Issued for Ontario’s Health Care Sector, Proposes Amendments to OHSA

On May 15, 2017, the Ontario Government issued a Progress Report that sets out 23 recommendations and tools aimed at improving workplace violence prevention programs in the province’s health care sector, which, the Report states, is the largest sector in Ontario impacted by workplace violence.

The recommendations and tools in the Report are endorsed by the Workplace Violence Prevention in Health Care Leadership Table. The Leadership Table was established in August 2015 as a joint initiative between Ontario’s Minister of Labour and Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, with the goal of making health care settings within the province safer.

Of the 23 listed recommendations in the Progress Report, the most notable for employers in Ontario are those that propose to amend the workplace violence provisions of Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act and update the Ministry of Labour’s approach to overseeing workplace violence prevention and control in Ontario’s workplaces, including recommendations to:

  • Amend section 9(31) of the OHSA to allow a designated worker member of the joint health and safety committee to be included in workplace violence investigations under certain circumstances (Status of recommendation: engaging – i.e. consulting with stakeholders);
  • Amend the OHSA to create a requirement about the information to be provided to a worker who experienced a violent incident. Including, for example, the requirement to inform workers of the results of a workplace violence investigation and of any corrective action that has been or that will be taken as a result of the investigation (Status of recommendation: engaging – i.e. consulting with stakeholders);
  • Require the MOL to post all MOL fines against employers in health care that are under $50,000 (Status of recommendation: in progress – i.e. activities underway); and
  • Revise the MOL Health Care Sector Plan to include more details on legislative compliance and requirements with the OHSA’s workplace violence provisions (Status of recommendation: complete).

If implemented, the Report’s recommendations, especially those seeking to amend the OHSA, will likely require all employers in the province, including those outside of the health care sector, to revisit their workplace violence policies and programs. The full Progress Report can be found here.

Workplace Violence Prevention Progress Report Issued for Ontario’s Health Care Sector, Proposes Amendments to OHSA

Alberta government signs Memorandum of Understanding with police services setting out new procedures for investigating serious workplace incidents

The government of Alberta and 10 police services recently signed the Westray Memorandum of Understanding. The announcement was made on the National Day of Mourning, which this year commemorates the 25th anniversary of the Westray Mine disaster that took the lives of 26 underground miners in Nova Scotia.

The MoU defines protocols for investigating serious workplace incidents, intended to help investigators determine if criminal charges are warranted in addition to occupational health and safety charges. Previously, police officers and occupational health and safety officers would typically coordinate their investigations; however, the MoU now provides formal procedures for police officers and occupational health and safety officers to assess the situation and determine whether an incident involves potential occupational health and safety violations, criminal activity, or both.

Following the Westray Mine disaster, the Criminal Code was amended to allow criminal charges to be laid for workplace incidents (Bill C-45 or the “Westray Bill”). These charges are generally reserved for very serious cases and to date, there have not been any prosecutions in Alberta under the Westray Bill.

The news release can be found here.

Alberta government signs Memorandum of Understanding with police services setting out new procedures for investigating serious workplace incidents

B.C. bans employers’ mandatory high heels policies in some workplaces: amendments to footwear regulations now in effect

On April 7, 2017, the British Columbia government amended the footwear regulation under the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation, BC Reg 296/97 (the “Regulation”) to specify that employers cannot require a worker to wear footwear that is not of a design, construction, and material appropriate to the protection required, or which does not allow the worker to safely perform his or her work.  The driving force behind this amendment was largely to address health and safety issues arising in hospitality workplaces such as restaurants and bars where employers required employees to wear high heels.

Section 8.22 of the Regulation already required footwear to be of a design, construction, and material appropriate to the protection required. The amendment adds that the footwear must allow the worker to safely perform the worker’s work, and introduces the following elements:

  • The addition of “tripping” and the “potential for musculoskeletal injury” to the list of factors in Section 8.22(2) which must be considered when determining the appropriate protection required of footwear; and
  • A provision prohibiting employers from requiring that workers wear footwear which does not comply with the requirements of appropriate design, construction, and material, or which does not allow the worker to safely perform work (Section 8.22(2.1)).The guideline indicates that the Regulation is not intended to interfere with a worker’s choice of footwear if there are no hazards of foot or ankle injury or potential for musculoskeletal injury. A risk assessment should be made to determine what constitutes appropriate footwear in the context of an employee’s particular duties and workplace, taking into account all of the factors in Section 8.22(2).The guideline has been released initially as a “Preliminary Issue” and will remain marked as such for a 60-day period during which time the public may provide comments to WorkSafeBC.
  • Although the guideline specifically addresses high heels, the amendments to the Regulation are not limited to high heels. The additions to Section 8.22 apply to all types of footwear and any employer dress codes or requirements with respect to footwear.
  • On April 28, 2017, WorkSafeBC introduced a new guideline “G.8.22(2.1) High heels” to assist in the interpretation and application of Section 8.22(2.1). The guideline suggests that high heels – given their lack of ankle protection and foot support – would not be appropriate footwear for hospitality workers who walk on different surfaces, including slippery surfaces and stairs, often while carrying food and drinks, such that they are exposed to hazards such as slipping, tripping, uneven terrain, and the potential for musculoskeletal injury.  A dress code requiring these workers to wear high heels would contravene the Regulation.
B.C. bans employers’ mandatory high heels policies in some workplaces: amendments to footwear regulations now in effect

Loader operator entitled to remain in job despite accidents: insufficient warnings and training, decides arbitrator

A labour arbitrator has ordered an employer to return an employee to his loader operator  position despite the employer’s objection that the employee had caused accidents.

The employee, who had almost 40 years of service including 15 as a loader operator, had been involved in eight incidents in which damage to the employer’s property occurred.  His incident rate of 1.2% was the highest amongst all of its yard loader operators.  After the eighth incident, the employer told him that he was disqualified from the loader operator position and was being transferred to the debarker position. The union grieved.

The arbitrator overturned the transfer. She noted that the employer’s evidence was that the employee had been “involved” in the eight incidents.  The most recent warning was five years before the incident, and only warned him to be more aware of the “whereabouts” of other vehicles, and two years earlier that damage to the employer’s property was not “acceptable”.  At no time was he warned or put on notice that he was viewed as a safety risk and that his employment as a loader operator was in jeopardy.

The arbitrator also noted the absence of evidence that employer provided the employee with training of any sort in an attempt to address performance concerns or assess ability to work safely. The evidence did not support the employer’s conclusion, drawn from the record of incidents, that the employee was no longer able to work safely in the yard loader operator position.

The arbitrator stated that she did not minimize the employer’s “very significant obligations to ensure that the workplace is safe, and to respond to safety issues”.  Based on the absence of warnings or training to address the safety concerns, however, she ordered the employer to reinstate the employee to the yard loader operator position.

Columbia Forest Products v United Steelworkers, Local 1-2010, 2017 CanLII 21145 (ON LA)

Loader operator entitled to remain in job despite accidents: insufficient warnings and training, decides arbitrator

Court orders condo owner who harassed building management staff to cease and desist. OHSA harassment provisions applied

A condominium owner who called building management staff offensive and degrading names has been ordered by a judge to cease and desist from harassing them. The decision shows that the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act’s harassment provisions can require an employer to take steps to end harassment by third-parties.

The condo owner frequently and persistently emailed staff.  She also called them degrading names such as “obscenely obese”, “massive hulk” and “tubbo”. She suggested that she was deeply concerned about the management of the building.

The condominium corporation sought a cease-and-desist order from the court. The judge noted that the owner’s “verbal barrage has made work life intolerable” for the staff. The judge described her communications as “antisocial, degrading and harassing”.  Her conduct was workplace harassment under the OHSA. It was clearly unwelcome, and the employer had a legal duty under the OHSA to investigate it.

The judge ordered the condo owner to “cease and desist from uncivil or illegal conduct that violates the Condominium Act or the Rules” of the condo corporation. The judge also ordered her to pay the condo corporation $15,000 for its legal costs in the court proceeding.

York Condominium Corp No 163 v Robinson, 2017 ONSC 2419 (CanLII)

Court orders condo owner who harassed building management staff to cease and desist. OHSA harassment provisions applied

New Requirements for BC Joint Health and Safety Committees

If you operate a workplace in British Columbia with 10 or more workers, you may need to make some changes to your workplace health and safety practices.

Recent amendments to British Columbia’s Occupational Health and Safety Regulation (OHSR) took effect on April 3, 2017 that introduce new training, evaluation and investigation requirements for worker health and safety representatives and joint health and safety committees.

What’s Old?

Once a BC workplace reaches a certain size, workers must be involved in workplace health and safety. Workplaces that regularly employ 10 to 19 workers must have a worker health and safety representative and workplaces that regularly employ 20 or more workers must establish a joint health and safety committee made up of employer and worker representatives.

The role of worker health and safety representatives and joint committees is to work with the employer to identify and find solutions to workplace health and safety issues. This includes, among other things, identifying unsafe work conditions, dealing with health and safety complaints, evaluating the sufficiency and compliance of health and safety practices and participating in inspections, investigations and inquiries under the Workers Compensation Act and the OHSR.

These requirements remain in place.

What’s New?

The OHSR amendments make changes in three areas:

  • Annual Evaluation of Joint Committees – The employer must ensure that a written evaluation of the joint committee is conducted each year. The evaluation may be completed by the joint committee co-chairs (or their designates), the employer or a third party retained by the employer. WorkSafeBC has created an evaluation tool to assist employers, which can be found at http://worksafebcmedia.com/test/jc/index.php.
  • Training – New worker health and safety representatives and joint committee members must complete health and safety training upon their appointment. Joint committee members must complete 8 hours of training and worker health and safety representatives must complete 4 hours. The requirement is met if the person has previously completed the training.
  • Role in Investigations – Worker health and safety representatives and joint committees must participate in the employer’s workplace health and safety investigations (which are separate from WorkSafeBC investigations). This obligation is not new, but the scope of that participation has been clarified to specifically include providing assistance to the investigator with gathering and analyzing information and identifying corrective action.

The OHSR can be found here.

New Requirements for BC Joint Health and Safety Committees

Safety officer, fired after company loses COR certification, wins wrongful dismissal lawsuit

A safety officer whose duties included maintaining his employer’s Certificate of Recognition (COR) certification was not fired for just cause, a court has decided. The company claimed that it lost its COR certification due to his failure to complete certain COR requirements by an end-of-year deadline.

The judge noted that the COR certification “recognizes a high standard of industrial/commercial safety and thereby creates several associated benefits for companies that maintain certification”, and “A COR designation gives a company significant credibility as a leader in high safety standards. Further, it is a prerequisite to serving certain clientele, such as the municipalities of Edmonton and Calgary, and creates significant reductions in WCB premiums.”

The company lost its COR certification when the safety officer failed to meet certain COR requirements including the requirement that an external auditor receive an application for an audit by the December 31 deadline.  The company viewed this as “‘potentially disastrous’ to the company, as it jeopardized several contracts with both the City of Edmonton and the City of Calgary.”

The court found that the safety officer naively believed that, despite the lack of assistance available to him, he could complete necessary internal safety audits in time or get an extension. The court stated, “Naiveté is not dishonesty.  I find he honestly believed that he would obtain this extension of time.”  The application for an extension of time was rejected, the company lost its COR certification, and the employee was fired.

The court noted that the safety officer had become very ill with an autoimmune disease. Also, his supervisor left the company and his new supervisor worked in another city, which meant that they would no longer have daily interactions. The court decided that the employer had repudiated the employment relationship by eliminating the assistance that the safety officer required from other employees to carry out his duties, and eliminating the supervision and support that he required.  The safety officer had pleaded for help and “this plea fell on deaf ears”.

As such, the termination was without just cause. The safety officer, who had four years of service and earned $82,400 per year, was entitled to six months’ notice of termination.  His damages, after deducting his mitigation income from new employment, were $28,709.00.

We understand that this decision has been appealed.

Tipon v. Fleet Brake Parts & Service Limited, 2017 ABPC 29 (CanLII)

Safety officer, fired after company loses COR certification, wins wrongful dismissal lawsuit

Worker entitled to sue coworker for failure to report absence of or defect in protective equipment: court

An Ontario judge has allowed an injured worker to proceed with his lawsuit against a coworker for failing to report the absence of or defect in fall arrest equipment.

The injured worker was hired by a friend to assist in roofing a customer’s house.  He fell from the roof and was badly injured.  He was not wearing appropriate fall arrest equipment.

The injured worker sued his friend and the homeowner.  He sought to later add a coworker and his company (who apparently were there on the day of the accident, and also completed the roofing work after the accident) as defendants to the lawsuit.  The coworker sought to have the claim against him and his company struck out, arguing that there was no legal cause of action against him. The judge disagreed.  He stated that the injured worker had an “arguable cause of action” against the coworker and his company for negligence, “informed by their failure to report . . . the absence of or defect in any safety equipment [the injured worker] used or any unsafe conditions or contravention of the OSHA [sic] or regulations thereunder, pursuant to s. 28(1)(c) or (d)” of the OHSA.

Those sections of the OHSA impose a legal duty on each worker to “report to his or her employer or supervisor the absence of or defect in any equipment or protective device of which the worker is aware and which may endanger himself, herself or another worker” and “report to his or her employer or supervisor any contravention of this Act or the regulations or the existence of any hazard of which he or she knows.”

Interestingly, the parties appear not to have argued whether the injured worker’s lawsuit was barred by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act because the injury arose out of and in the course of employment.

MacPherson v Samuel, 2017 ONSC 2024 (CanLII)

Worker entitled to sue coworker for failure to report absence of or defect in protective equipment: court

Bullied to death? PEI WCB awards benefits to widow after finding a link between workplace bullying and fatal heart attack

The Workers Compensation Board of Prince Edward Island recently awarded WCB benefits to the widow of a worker who died of a heart attack in November 2013. The worker had suffered a workplace back injury a few months earlier and had recently returned to work. According to the widow’s submissions to the WCB, the worker was bullied at work by his supervisor and did not feel he was receiving the proper support from his employer.

The worker’s family had initially approached the WCB about the availability of benefits, but were advised that because the death was not caused by a workplace injury, benefits were not available to them. The worker’s estate, widow and children subsequently commenced a court action against the employer and supervisor claiming damages. The claim alleged that the worker died from heart failure as a result of workplace bullying, and that the work conditions led to stress, anxiety and physical symptoms which ultimately caused his fatal heart attack.

The Supreme Court of PEI initially dismissed the action on the basis that it did not have jurisdiction as there was a collective agreement in place that governed, and so there were other remedies available to the plaintiffs including grievance arbitration and a WCB claim. On appeal, the PEI Court of Appeal reversed the decision, finding that the PEI Fatal Accidents Act did give the Court jurisdiction over the claim brought by the dependents. The Court of Appeal also considered whether a stay was appropriate on the basis that the claim was within the jurisdiction of the Workers Compensation Act. However, the Court was unable to decide that issue on the limited record, reminding the parties that the WCB can adjudicate and determine whether a right of action is removed by the Workers Compensation Act.

The plaintiffs returned to the WCB seeking a determination. The WCB confirmed that a workplace accident could include bullying and harassment. After receiving submissions from the parties, the WCB determined that the worker’s death was linked to workplace bullying and harassment, thus entitling the widow to benefits. The employer has filed an appeal with the WCB so this is likely not the last word.

While WCB policies may vary across the country, the basic premise behind WCB benefits is the same – the historic trade off whereby employers fund a no-fault insurance scheme to compensate injured workers for workplace injuries and in return, workers give up the right to sue the employer. In order for a claim to be compensable, there must have been a workplace accident.

In Alberta, the WCB’s cardiac policy states that in order for cardiac claims to be compensable:

  • there must be evidence of occupational exposure to factors or events known or presumed to be associated with heart problems; and
  • the time period between the occupational exposure and the onset of the cardiac condition is such that a relationship can be established.

The policy also list some examples of occupational exposures which can cause cardiac conditions, including psychological causes, involving exposure to significant and acute psychological stress.

Therefore, while the PEI decision appears to be a unique case, with the proper facts and medical evidence, and the relatively recent focus on issues of workplace bullying, we can expect to see more claims for benefits relating to workplace bullying and harassment. In the meantime, employers should ensure that they have (and follow!) appropriate policies and procedures in place to address workplace bullying and harassment.

The Court of Appeal decision can be found here.

 

Bullied to death? PEI WCB awards benefits to widow after finding a link between workplace bullying and fatal heart attack

Court Allows the TTC to Implement Random Drug and Alcohol Testing

In a recent decision, the Honourable Justice Marrocco of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice denied the request of the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 113 and Robert Kinnear (the “Applicants”) to restrain the TTC from conducting the random drug and alcohol testing of its employees.

The random testing applies to TTC employees who work in safety sensitive, specified management, senior management and designated executive positions, including the TTC’s CEO. The TTC expects to test 20% of its eligible employees per year, which means that statistically, each eligible employee has the chance of being tested once every five years. If selected, employees will be required to take an alcohol breathalyzer test and an oral fluid drug test. A failure to submit to a random test will be a violation of company policy, and employees who test positive will be considered unfit for duty.

The TTC first introduced random testing to its Fitness for Duty Policy in 2011 and the parties have since been involved in an ongoing arbitration on the same issue, which “has no end in sight”. The TTC approved the implementation of the random testing on March 23, 2016. Shortly thereafter, the Applicants applied to the Court for an injunction to stop the testing until the completion of the arbitration hearing.

The Applicants argued that random drug and alcohol testing would cause employees “irreparable harm” by infringing on the employees’ right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The Applicants also stated that the random testing: increased the likelihood of psychological harm to the employees, could damage the relationship between employees and management, and raised the risk of false-positive results.

In rejecting the Applicants’ arguments, the Court determined that TTC employees in safety-sensitive positions have a reasonably diminished expectation of privacy concerning their drug and alcohol consumption. In particular the Court noted that:

  • The employees’ duties, which include helping people make approximately 1.8 million journeys on the TTC’s system every day, as well as the TTC’s atypical workplace, which is “genuinely Toronto itself”, reasonably diminish the employees’ expectation of privacy concerning drug and alcohol consumption;
  • The TTC has chosen minimally invasive methods to conduct the random testing, which are superior to other methods available on the market;
  • The nature of the Fitness for Duty Policy is both disciplinary and remedial. Employees have the opportunity to challenge any positive results and have some degree of control over the information collected and generated in the testing process; and
  • Employees whose privacy has been “wrongfully infringed” by random testing have the opportunity to claim, and receive, monetary damages.

As such, the Court concluded that the TTC’s random drug and alcohol testing is an appropriate tool, which “will increase public safety”, as follows:

“After considering all the evidence, including the evidence to which I have referred, I am satisfied that, if random testing proceeds, [it] will increase the likelihood that an employee in a safety critical position, who is prone to using drugs or alcohol too close in time to coming to work, will either be ultimately detected when the test result is known or deterred by the prospect of being randomly tested.”

While the decision provides important insight on how the Court will approach the exercise of balancing employee privacy rights with the needs of a safety-sensitive workplace, it must also be remembered that this was an injunction application to prohibit the introduction of the Policy pending the arbitration, not a decision on the merits of the TTC’s Policy, which will be determined at arbitration. That said, the TTC has announced that the random drug and alcohol testing of its employees will begin this month (see the TTC’s press release here). The Court’s decision will likely encourage other employers in Ontario, particularly those in similarly-situated safety-sensitive workplaces, to follow suit.

A copy of the full decision can be found here: Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113 v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2017 ONSC 2078

Court Allows the TTC to Implement Random Drug and Alcohol Testing

“Your ugly face”: employer’s condescending, aggressive, hostile and profane behaviour in one meeting resulted in constructive dismissal. Nurse awarded 24 months in damages

The Ontario Court of Appeal has upheld a 24-month damage award to a long-service nurse in a doctor’s office who believed that she had been fired during a hostile meeting with her employer.

The doctor for whom she worked wanted her to look into electronic medical records (EMR).  She was overwhelmed with a heavy workload and did not get to it.  The doctor angrily confronted her in a meeting, at which the doctor’s wife was also present.  The court found that the doctor, in his anger, said, “Go! Get out! I am so sick of coming into this office every day and looking at your ugly face.”  He also pointed at her, shouted at her, accused her of being resistant to change, and used profanity during that meeting.  The employee, distraught, left the meeting and never returned to work. The employer treated her as having quit. The employee sued for wrongful dismissal.

The trial judge decided that although the doctor did not intend to dismiss the nurse, he did in fact fire her when he told her to “Go! Get out!”

Even if the doctor had not fired the employee, he had constructively dismissed her, the trial judge stated.  Although the meeting was only one incident, it was sufficient to constitute a constructive dismissal.  The trial judge wrote:

“An employer owes a duty to its employees to treat them fairly, with civility, decency, respect and dignity.  An employer who subjects employees to treatment that renders competent performance of their work impossible, or continued employment intolerable, exposes itself to an action for constructive dismissal.  Where the employer’s treatment of the employee is of sufficient severity and effect, it will be characterized as an unjustified repudiation of the employment contract.”

The trial judge found that the doctor’s behaviour was condescending, aggressive, hostile and profane.  His conduct diminished the nurse’s stature and dignity in the office.  When the doctor saw the emotional impact that his comments had on her at the meeting, he did nothing.  He had made her continued employment intolerable, and effectively destroyed the employment relationship.

The trial judge awarded this 22-year employee 24 months’ salary in damages for wrongful dismissal.  The appeal court upheld this award.

The trial judge’s decision can be read here, and the appeal court’s decision here.

 

“Your ugly face”: employer’s condescending, aggressive, hostile and profane behaviour in one meeting resulted in constructive dismissal. Nurse awarded 24 months in damages

Workers flee during MOL investigation, roofing company fined for obstructing inspector

A roofing company has been fined $40,000 under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, including $15,000 for obstructing a Ministry of Labour inspector.

The MOL inspector had gone to the site because of a complaint.  He observed workers on the roof without fall protection, hardhats or safety boots.

According to the MOL press release, the company’s workers “fled the worksite during the investigation, and the company failed to respond to correspondence and the direction of the inspector.”

In additional to the $15,000 fine for obstruction, the company was also fined $20,000 for the lack of fall protection, $2,500 for the lack of hard hats, and $2,500 for the lack of protective footwear, for a total of $40,000.

The MOL press release says that the company had two prior convictions under the OHSA, and that the company’s owner has also been previously convicted and fined under the OHSA.

The Ministry of Labour press release may be found here.

 

Workers flee during MOL investigation, roofing company fined for obstructing inspector

Lunchtime car accident a matter for WSIB, not courts, WSIAT rules

The Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal has ruled that an employee who was injured at lunchtime in a car accident was barred from suing the other driver in court.  Instead, he must go through the WSIB for his injury benefits.

The employee, a sales manager for a food company, was taking his son and a daughter of a colleague to lunch in his company vehicle when the other driver ran a red light and collided with the vehicle.  The other driver was employed with a company that was registered with the WSIB as a “Schedule 1” employer.

The WSIAT ruled that even though it was lunchtime, the injured employee was “in the course of his employment” because on the same trip he planned to see a client and pick up a cheque for his employer, which was a regular task for him.  The car trip had a “dual purpose” and was not solely personal time.  As such he was entitled to claim WSIB benefits, and barred from suing the other driver in the courts because the other driver was employed with a “Schedule 1” employer.

The employee claimed that his employer had registered with the WSIB after the accident, and therefore that he was entitled to sue the other driver in the courts.  The WSIAT ruled that even if his employer has registered with the WSIB after the accident, the employer was a “Schedule 1” employer, and therefore the employee was not entitled to sue in the courts.

Decision No. 1572/16 (Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal)

Lunchtime car accident a matter for WSIB, not courts, WSIAT rules

OLRB confirms 30-day hard-stop deadline for appealing Ontario MOL inspectors’ compliance orders

A recent Ontario Labour Relations Board decision confirms that the 30-day deadline for appealing Ministry of Labour health and safety inspectors’ compliance orders under the Occupational Health and Safety Act cannot not be extended.

An MOL inspector visited a mortuary and issued five compliance orders including an order to seal certain flammable liquids in sealed containers of not more than 23 litres and in a special metal cabinet.

The employer filed its appeal of two orders with the OLRB 40 days after the MOL inspector issued those orders – that is, ten days after the deadline.

The OLRB stated:

There is no provision in the Act that permits the Board to extend the time period prescribed by subsection 61(1) of the Act within which an appeal must be made to the Board.  That is, the Board does not have the discretion to relieve against appeals that are filed beyond the statutory 30 day time frame . . .  Quite simply, the Board does not have the jurisdiction to extend the 30 day time period provided by the Act to appeal an inspector’s order.

As such, the OLRB dismissed the appeal in respect of the two orders that were appealed late.

The decision is a reminder to employers to ensure that if they intend to challenge MOL inspectors’ compliance orders, the appeal must be filed with the OLRB within 30 days.

Ottawa Mortuary Services v Egrmajer, 2017 CanLII 11813 (ON LRB)

OLRB confirms 30-day hard-stop deadline for appealing Ontario MOL inspectors’ compliance orders

Arbitrator disagrees that grievor’s interference with air quality test was a deliberate act of sabotage and replaces termination with a lengthy suspension

In this recent Alberta arbitration case, the employer had been dealing with safety issues involving excessive carbon monoxide levels. Carbon monoxide readings in the employer’s facility were often beyond the regulatory levels and the employer had taken several steps to try to reduce them. The City of Calgary ultimately issued an order requiring the employer to either reduce the levels or face a potential plant closure.  The employer hired a consultant to perform the necessary testing. A two day test was set up that involved setting up stationary air quality monitors in the facility, as well as having individuals carry personal air quality monitors while they went about their daily work routine.

On the first day of the test, the grievor was seen moving one of the stationary monitors. When confronted, he replied that he had switched his personal monitor for the stationary one so that the test would take into account his personal exposure. He acknowledged that he did this without authorization. The employer treated this as a serious safety risk as he tampered with the testing process. He had also previously interfered with an air quality test. The employer considered his conduct to be a violation of the company’s safety responsibilities and of its Vision, Mission, Values and Objectives policy. The employer took the position that the grievor had fundamentally breached the trust relationship between them and terminated his employment. The union grieved the termination.

The arbitrator found that the evidence established that the employer was committed to resolving the air quality issue. However, he did not accept that the grievor’s conduct was an act of  sabotage and noted that the grievor’s conduct did not create a safety violation or threat. Nevertheless, the arbitrator acknowledged that the grievor had interfered with a planned scientific test, potentially corrupting its results, and that his conduct warranted discipline. The question was whether termination was appropriate.

The arbitrator noted that the employer’s policies required employees to be vigilant in ensuring safety. The evidence also established that another employee had previously removed a monitor without authorization but was not disciplined. The arbitrator also considered that the grievor had not been made aware of the potential consequences of his actions before he moved the monitor and when he appreciated the implications of what he had done, he admitted his mistake and apologized. Ultimately, the arbitrator held that the employer had not established that the grievor had deliberately tried to sabotaged the tests. What the evidence did establish is that the grievor knew, or ought to have known, the significance of moving the monitor without authority. This conduct was serious and was deserving of appropriate discipline which took into account two previous disciplinary offences.

After reviewing all of the circumstances, the arbitrator  allowed the grievance as he was not persuaded that the employment relationship had been irretrievably severed. He substituted a lengthy, 90 day, suspension, without pay, for the termination.

Cement, Lime, Gypsum And Allied Workers (International Brotherhood Of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers And Helpers, Local Lodge D345) v Certainteed Gypsum Canada Inc., 2017 CanLII 10827 (AB GAA)

Arbitrator disagrees that grievor’s interference with air quality test was a deliberate act of sabotage and replaces termination with a lengthy suspension

Threats of violence, one day after “sensitivity training”, get worker fired for cause. He “may have a problem with women in the workplace, especially women managers”, says arbitrator

A worker who said, “If anything ever happened, like losing my job, I’d have no problem coming in here and shooting them”, a day after receiving sensitivity training relating to workplace violence, was dismissed for cause, an arbitrator has decided. The worker, a fare collector, had taken the training after giving the finger to an “obstreperous customer”.

He made the “shooting them” threat while speaking with a coworker about the materials from the training session, to which he remarked, ” Can you believe this?”  After the coworker tried to make light of the situation, the worker said that he would kill only managers, not union employees.

The coworker reported the threat to management, who then fired the worker, who filed a union grievance.

The arbitrator found that the worker had made the threat, despite the worker’s denial.
The coworker had no motive to make false allegations. The two employees had had a friendly relationship.

Despite the worker’s 25 years of service, the arbitrator decided that the employer had just cause for dismissal. The worker never admitted the threats nor apologized. He had a disciplinary history including discipline for an incident in which he was unable to control his anger. Significantly, he made the threats one day after taking sensitivity training designed to help him control his anger and understand the seriousness of workplace violence. He also had an unfounded view that female employees were conspiring to get him, showing that he “may have a problem with women in the workplace”.  All of these factors “did not bode well for the future” were he to be reinstated.

Toronto Transit Commission v Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113, 2017 CanLII 11071 (ON LA)

Threats of violence, one day after “sensitivity training”, get worker fired for cause. He “may have a problem with women in the workplace, especially women managers”, says arbitrator

“Safety Engineering Letter of Opinion” dealing with OHSA obligations disallowed by court in civil lawsuit

A “Safety Engineering Letter of Opinion”, styled as an “expert report” and covering Occupational Health and Safety Act obligations, was struck and its author was prohibited from testifying at the trial of a civil lawsuit.

The lawsuit arose from an accident involving the towing of a disabled motor vehicle at a scrapyard. Some defendants sought to have the author of the Safety Engineering Letter of Opinion testify about obligations under the OHSA, apparently to show that a co-defendant (the operator of the scrapyard) breached its OHSA obligations and therefore was negligent.

The court stated that the Safety Engineering Letter of Opinion drew “legal conclusions” that were beyond its author’s expertise. There was no “specialized standard of care” for which expert evidence was required. To the extent that the OHSA was relevant in the lawsuit, the parties could direct the court to look at the OHSA’s provisions.

Interestingly, the court stated at paragraph 34:

“[The Safety Engineering Letter of Opinion] raises no other statutory or common law duties which the AIM defendants may have owed to Awada [the injured party]. The OHSA did not apply to Awada while he was on AIM’s weigh scale. He was a third-party. The OHSA applies only to workplace relationships between employers and workers. Any duties owed by the AIM defendants to Awada are governed by the Occupiers Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2 and the common law, not by the OHSA. Both Awada and Wehbe have pleaded the Occupiers Liability Act and the Negligence Act; they have not made any allegations with respect to the OHSA.”

The court noted that the scrapyard operator had produced materials relating to its Emergency Response Procedures, Occupational Health and Safety Policy, Safety Enforcement Policy, and Workplace Responsibilities. The court stated that if there was an allegation that the scrapyard operator was negligent in failing to provide one of its employees with appropriate safety training so as to ensure that he was a “competent person”, those documents can be referred to.  The parties could also ask the trial judge to direct the jurors to the relevant provisions of the OHSA and regulations without any need to consider the Safety Engineering Letter of Opinion.

In the result, the court struck the Safety Engineering Letter of Opinion and prohibited its author from testifying as a witness at trial.

Awada v Glaeser, 2017 ONSC 1094 (CanLII)

 

“Safety Engineering Letter of Opinion” dealing with OHSA obligations disallowed by court in civil lawsuit

MOL Clarifies its Interpretation of “Critical Injury”

The Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act requires employers to report fatalities and “critical injuries” to the Ontario Ministry of Labour.

The Ministry of Labour has recently released clarification on its interpretation of “critical injury” – in particular, clauses 1(d) and (e) of the definition of “critical injury”.   It is important to note that this is not an amendment to the definition of “critical injury”; rather, it is an update to the Ministry of Labour’s internal interpretation, which interpretation courts do not have to accept.

Section 1 of Ontario Regulation 834 under the OHSA defines “Critical Injury” as an injury of a serious nature that,

(a) places life in jeopardy,
(b) produces unconsciousness,
(c) results in substantial loss of blood,
(d) involves the fracture of a leg or arm but not a finger or toe,
(e) involves the amputation of a leg, arm, hand or foot but not a finger or toe,
(f) consists of burns to a major portion of the body, or
(g) causes the loss of sight in an eye.

Clause 1(d) states that a “critical injury” includes the fracture of a leg or arm but not a finger or toe.  The Ministry of Labour has clarified that it interprets the fracture of a leg or an arm to include the fracture of a wrist, hand, ankle or foot.  In addition, while clause 1(d) excludes the fracture of a finger or a toe, the Ministry of Labour takes the position that the fracture of more than one finger or more than one toe does constitute a “critical injury” if it is an injury of a serious nature.

Clause 1(e) provides that a “critical injury” includes the amputation of a leg, arm, hand or foot but not a finger or toe.  While the amputation of a single finger or single toe does not constitute a critical injury, the Ministry of Labour interprets the amputation of more than one finger or more than one toe to constitute a “critical injury” if it is an injury of a serious nature.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Ministry of Labour’s interpretation of “critical injury” is just that – the Ministry’s interpretation, not the law – employers should be aware of the Ministry’s interpretation in order to avoid a failure-to-report charge under the OHSA.

The Ministry of Labour’s update can be found here.

MOL Clarifies its Interpretation of “Critical Injury”

Appeal Court Revives Class Action against the WSIB

The Ontario Court of Appeal has revived a proposed class action brought by the appellant, Pietro Castrillo, on behalf of a class of injured workers whom he alleges have been wrongfully denied the full extent of benefits to which they were entitled under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 (the “Act”), by the respondent the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (“WSIB”).  The class action alleges misfeasance in public office, bad faith, and negligence on the part of the WSIB.

The class action claims that injured workers were “denied the full extent of benefits to which they were entitled” as a result of a “secret policy” implemented by the WSIB, which policy adopted a broader interpretation of the term “pre-existing impairment” to include asymptomatic pre-existing conditions, which had previously been excluded.   The appellant claims that this change in interpretation was illegally made in order to save WSIB money by reducing injured workers’ non-economic loss awards.  The class action seeks declarations that the WSIB “perpetrated a misfeasance in public office” in how it handled the non-economic loss claims of the class, “breached its duty to act in good faith” to the class, and, in the alternative, was negligent.  According to the Toronto Star, the alleged “secret policy” was in force between 2012 and 2014.

Two years ago, the WSIB successfully brought a motion to strike the statement of claim, asserting there was no cause of action, and that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the class action due to the privative clause in the Act, which gives the WSIB exclusive jurisdiction to examine, hear and decide all matters and questions arising under the Act. The motions judge granted the motion to strike the statement of claim, without leave to amend.  The motions judge held that the WSIB’s decisions to reduce the class members’ non-economic loss benefits were “legal decisions that fall within the four corners of the privative clause”, and were therefore beyond court challenge.

The appellant appealed the motion judge’s ruling to the Court of Appeal.  On appeal, the court considered two issues: 1) were the causes of action properly pleaded, and 2) does the privative clause in the Act prevent the appellant from pursuing the causes of action.  The Court of Appeal held that, except for the allegation of bad faith, the claim was properly pleaded, and the privative clause in the Act does not prevent the appellant from pursuing claims of misfeasance in public office and negligence against the WSIB.  As a result, the class action against the WSIB has been granted permission to proceed.

The decision of Court of Appeal may be accessed here.

Appeal Court Revives Class Action against the WSIB

“Repeated exposure to supervisor constituted a dangerous situation”, employee arguing

The Federal Court has breathed new life into a government employee’s claim that “repeated exposure to her supervisor constituted a dangerous situation” that justified her work refusal under the Canada Labour Code.  The case is a good example of how workplace harassment / violence complaints that appear trivial on their face can turn out to cause the employer significant headaches.

The employee was unhappy with the employer’s investigation.  The matter was then referred to a federal Labour Affairs Officer who concluded that the existing situation constituted a danger for the employee.  He recommended that the Labour Program’s Regional Director order the employer to take immediate action to correct the situation.

However, the Regional Director “refused to investigate” the work refusal, reasoning that the employee’s concerns would be more appropriately dealt with under the Public Service Labour Relations Act because of the grievances that the employee had already filed under that Act.  The Regional Director told the employee that she was no longer entitled to refuse to be in the direct or indirect presence of her supervisor.

The court decided that the Regional Director’s decision was unreasonable.  Given that the Labour Affairs Officer had already investigated the work refusal, the Regional Director had only three options under sections 129(4) and 128(13) of the Canada Labour Code: “1) agree that a danger exists; 2) agree that a danger exists but consider that the refusal puts the life, health or safety of another person directly in danger or that the danger is a normal condition of employment; and 3) determine that a danger does not exist.”  The court also stated that even if the Labour Affairs Officer had not already investigated the work refusal, the Regional Director’s decision “was not justified, transparent or intelligible as it lacked any explanation as to why” the grievance under the Public Service Labour Relations Act was a more appropriate process to deal with the employee’s allegations of danger.  It was also unclear as to why the Regional Director diverged from the Labour Affairs Officer’s decision.

As such, the court concluded that “the Regional Director’s decision lacks justification, transparency and intelligibility and as such, it is unreasonable and does not fall within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law”.

The court set aside the decision of the Regional Director and sent the matter back to the Minister of Labour or her delegate for reconsideration.  The court awarded the employee $4,500.00 in legal costs.

Karn v. Canada (Attorney General), 2017 FC 123 (CanLII)

“Repeated exposure to supervisor constituted a dangerous situation”, employee arguing