header_iceberg.jpg

Posts tagged: Nadia Halum

Due Diligence and Why It’s Important

By , January 15, 2018 11:44 am

Employers have various obligations under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (“the OHSA”), including the very broad, catch-all duty to take every reasonable precaution in the circumstances to protect workers.

When there is a workplace accident, the Ministry of Labour will often charge the employer with violating this general duty. Violations of the OHSA are “strict liability” offences, which means that the Ministry of Labour does not need to prove that the employer intended to violate the OHSA.

An employer’s sole defence is the “due diligence” defence, which is available in two circumstances:

  1. If the accused reasonably believed in a mistaken set of facts which if true, would render the act or omission innocent; or
  2. If the accused took all reasonable steps to avoid the particular event.

In Ontario (Ministry of Labour) v Cobra Float Service Inc., an Ontario court dismissed an OHSA charge by finding that the employer had established the due diligence defence.

Facts

The circumstances around this case arose from a tragic fatality at a construction site, where a curb machine overturned while being off-loaded from a float trailer, crushing a worker who later died from his injuries. The charge against the company alleged that the curb machine was moved in a manner that endangered the worker.

Decision

The court found that the worker had deviated from the standard practice that he and other workers had followed on previous occasions. Although there were no training courses available for the task in question, the worker had previously demonstrated his ability to perform the task. The court found that the employer was entitled to rely on the worker’s experience.

The court noted that the employer could have established a more formalised training protocol within the company but the lack of this formalised protocol did not necessarily mean that the employer was exposing workers to foreseeable risks and dangers. The court cautioned against measuring the practices of smaller companies against those of larger companies, which typically have more resources to devote to formalised training.

With respect to the due diligence defence, the court found that:

  • The company had held regular safety meetings;
  • There were no formal education courses that workers could take on the loading and unloading task;
  • The worker knew or should have known that what he was doing was unsafe;
  • The company encouraged workers to discuss any safety concerns and provided a form for those discussions at regularly scheduled meetings;
  • The worker had successfully moved the curb machine 27 times; and
  • There was no evidence that this was an industry-wide safety issue.

Lessons to be Learned

  1. Because violations of the OHSA are “strict liability” offences, the Ministry of Labour does not need to prove that the employer intended to violate the OHSA.
  2. Evidence regarding a company’s safety practices go a long way to proving that the employer took all reasonable steps to avoid the particular workplace accident (i.e. to make out the due diligence defence).
  3. All employers should prioritize safety, but it is worth noting that what is appropriate for a small to medium size employer may differ than what is appropriate for a larger employer.

“The material and information in this blog and this website are for general information only. They should not be relied on as legal advice or opinion. The authors make no claims, promises, or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of any information referred to in this blog or its links. No person should act or refrain from acting in reliance on any information found on this website or blog. Readers should obtain appropriate professional advice from a lawyer duly licensed in the relevant jurisdiction. These materials do not create a lawyer-client relationship between you and any of the authors or the MacLeod Law Firm.”

Marijuana legalization – How Employers Should Navigate the Hazy Legal Landscape

By , January 11, 2018 10:45 am

The legalization of marijuana is expected to change Ontario’s employment law landscape in 2018. Legislation is expected to be implemented by July 2018.

It is not too early for employers to take proactive steps to address these changes.

Expected changes

Bill C-45, An Act respecting Cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other Acts (the “Bill”) passed its second reading on November 27, 2017. Although the bill will legalize cannabis across Canada, the provinces and territories will generally determine how marijuana can be sold and used. The Bill allows the Minister of Labour to make regulations relating to smoking in the workplace.

What employers should do

Employers should review their current workplace policies and if a drug and alcohol policy does not exist, then the employer should consider  adding one before the new cannabis laws take effect. Among other things, the policy should recognise that recreational use of marijuana will be legalized under the Bill requires a different approach than medical use of marijuana which has been legal since 1999.

Although the legalization of marijuana is a big change, employers often forget that just because something is legal, does not mean it is permissible at the workplace. For example, alcohol is legal, however, employers are entitled to expect that their employees report to work sober and refrain from drinking alcohol at the workplace. Similarly, simply because recreational marijuana is being legalized does not mean that it is permissible to smoke marijuana at the workplace, or attend the workplace impaired. Employers can set out their expectations regarding impairment and safety at the workplace in workplace policies and procedures.

With respect to medical use of marijuana, employers need to be mindful of their obligations under Ontario’s Human Rights Code, namely, the duty to accommodate employees to the point of  undue hardship, which may include permitting an employee to work while under the influence of marijuana. The duty to accommodate does not eliminate an employer’s right to seek medical proof of prescription and medical documentation supporting the fact that the employee is required to ingest marijuana during working hours, nor does it eliminate an employer’s duty to ensure that the workplace is safe for all employees. Thus, employers must remain prepared to deal with marijuana-related accommodation requests on a case by case basis, taking into consideration the employee’s medical needs and their obligations under health and safety laws.

Lessons to Be Learned

The legalization of marijuana is changing the legal landscape. Due to these changes, we recommend that new policies be drafted to address the anticipated increase in  marijuana use, or that existing policies be amended to ensure they are consistent with the upcoming changes. The MacLeod Law Firm offers a fixed fee service to prepare new drug & alcohol policies, or to revise existing policies.

If you have any questions regarding the effect of the Bill on your workplace, or would like to learn more about the fixed fee service mentioned above, feel free to contact 647-985-9894.

All We Do Is Work

By , October 31, 2017 9:23 am

This blog introduces you to all members of the firm and describes the kinds of cases we handle.

 

MacLeod Law Firm

 

OUR PEOPLE

Nicole Simes has been working with me for more than four years. She represents and advises employers and employees. She spends a lot of her time in court and at administrative tribunals: she is a real litigator! Nicole has a particularly strong background and interest in human rights issues.

Nadia Halum articled with the firm and has been working as an associate for about 1 ½ years. Nadia also represents and advises employers and employees. Nadia is an exceptional legal researcher. She also has considerable experience assisting employers with compliance issues under the Employment Standards Act, the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

Fiona Martyn is currently articling with the firm. She supports Nicole, Nadia and me. This includes legal research, drafting pleadings & facta, and putting together court documents.

Judy Lam is our Office Manager and oversees the non-legal aspects of the firm. She is often the first point of contact with the firm.

OUR CLIENTS

Employers

We mostly advise and represent small and medium sized employers. Many of our clients are owner operators. Most of our clients employ 100 or less employees although we do advise several large employers. Many of our employers do not have a person with a formal human resources designation (i.e. CHRP, CHRL, or CHRE) and for these clients, in addition to providing legal advice we often take on the role of trusted advisor.

When we are first introduced to a new client we make sure the employer has a well drafted employment contract. Then we make sure the client has complied with its obligations under Ontario’s employment laws.  Our blog keeps our clients up to date on most employment law developments. We are a phone call away and often answer questions in real time; that is, when you call with a question we can often answer it immediately on the phone.

Employees

We advise employees in all positions and all industries.

We review 100s of severance packages each year; this usually involves a one-hour meeting where we: review the background to the termination; discuss the client’s legal rights; discuss the client’s options; and, tell the client whether we think the package is fair.

If we cannot negotiate a fair settlement for our client then we commence legal proceedings. These proceedings may be commenced in small claims court, at the Ministry of Labour, at the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, or in the courts. It is sometimes in our client’s interest to commence two or more legal proceedings.

We also review scores of employment contracts each year. After reviewing the history of contract negotiations, we inform our clients which parts of the contract are a problem and suggest ways to change the contract so it is more employee friendly. If our client is the employer’s clear first choice then we can often help the person secure significant enhancements to the employer’s initial offer.

ALL WE DO IS WORK

The MacLeod Law Firm will continue to restrict its practice to workplace law which includes employment law, labour law (i.e. workplaces that are unionized), and human rights law.

We have three lawyers to assist you with your legal needs. We operate a collaborative law practice which means we often consult with each other to get different perspectives on a case. I also delegate work to Nicole, Nadia and Fiona as appropriate which means our client receive cost effective service.

We understand that every client has a different risk tolerance. We get to know our clients so the advice we provide is consistent with this risk tolerance and makes business sense.

For those readers who have not retained the MacLeod Law Firm in the past and want to know how we can help your organization, please call me at 416 317-9894 at your convenience.

 

Negligent misrepresentation during recruitment process costs employer $83,000

By , October 10, 2017 4:53 pm

Providing misleading information to an employee during the recruitment process about the eligibility for an employee benefits program cost an employer $83,000

Feldstein v 364 Northern Development Corporation

Mr. Feldstein applied for a software engineer position with 364 Northern Development Corporation (“the Company”). Before accepting the position, Mr. Feldstein asked the Company’s Chief Information Officer (“CIO”) about the eligibility requirements for the Company’s long-term disability (“LTD”) plan. As Mr. Feldstein suffered from cystic fibrosis, this information was very important to him, as he believed that he would require substantial LTD benefits in the future.

The CIO provided Mr. Feldstein with a brochure which summarised the Company’s LTD benefits, which contained a “proof of good health” clause. When Mr. Feldstein asked what this clause meant, the CIO explained that he would qualify for LTD benefits after working for the Company for three months. Based on this information, Mr. Feldstein accepted the position and signed an employment contract.

The employment contract in question contained the following “entire agreement” clause:

“This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior communications, representations, understandings and agreements whether verbal or written between the parties with respect to the subject-matter hereof.”

The purpose of an entire agreement clause is to prevent parties who have entered into a final contract from invoking prior discussions or understandings to give a different meaning to its provisions.

However, the contract did not contain any details of the benefits plan. Instead, the clause in the contract stated:

“The Employee shall be entitled to participate in all rights and benefits under any life insurance, disability, medical, dental, health and accident plans maintained by the company for its employees generally. In addition, the Employee shall be entitled to participate in all rights and benefits under other employee plan or plans as may be implemented by the Company during the term of this Agreement.

Shortly after accepting the position, Mr. Feldstein applied for LTD benefits as his health deteriorated significantly. He expected to receive full coverage of up to $5000 per month. Instead, Mr. Feldstein was only eligible for $1000 per month because he had not completed a medical questionnaire which was required to establish “proof of good health.” Mr. feldstein sued the Company for negligent misrepresentation.

Decision

The trial judge made the following findings:

  • the CIO’s explanation of “proof of good health” was inaccurate and misleading;
  • the Company was negligent in making this representation as the CIO had not taken any steps to verify the accuracy of the information he provided and the Company failed to provide Mr. Feldstein with the required medical questionnaire
  • it was reasonable for Mr. Feldstein to rely on the information the CIO provided; and
  • Mr. Feldstein would not have accepted an employment offer that did not provide adequate LTD coverage and acceptable eligibility requirements due to his health concerns.

The Company attempted to argue that the entire agreement clause in the employment contract meant that Mr. Feldstein could not sue for negligent misrepresentation. The court rejected this argument, as the CIO’s statement relating to the meaning of “proof of good health” was not an express term of the contract. As it was a matter outside of the contract, the clause could not exclude liability for pre-contractual misrepresentation.

Mr. Feldstein was awarded $83,336.80 as compensation for lost LTD benefits and $10,000 for aggravated damages. On appeal, the award for loss of benefits was upheld, but the aggravated damages were overturned.

Lessons to be learned

  1. Anyone interviewing a job applicant should provide accurate information concerning employee benefits; otherwise, the organisation may be required to self-insure for the value of benefits that are subsequently denied by the group insurer.
  2. Including an entire agreement clause in a contract like the one cited above does not always protect an employer from negligent misrepresentations made during the hiring process.
  3. It is important to periodically review employment contracts including entire agreement clauses and clauses dealing with group benefits to ensure they still protect employer interests in light of recent developments in the law.

The material and information in this blog and this website are for general information only. They should not be relied on as legal advice or opinion. The authors make no claims, promises, or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of any information referred to in this blog or its links. No person should act or refrain from acting in reliance on any information found on this website or blog. Readers should obtain appropriate professional advice from a lawyer duly licensed in the relevant jurisdiction. These materials do not create a lawyer-client relationship between you and any of the authors or the MacLeod Law Firm.

How to Spot a Resignation

By , July 31, 2017 10:16 am

Contrary to popular belief, it is not always easy to know when someone has resigned. Even if an employee uses words such as “I quit,” a court may still find that the employee has not truly resigned. An employer in Alberta learned this lesson the hard way. 

Carroll v Purcee Industrial Controls Ltd. (“PIC”) 

Mr. Carroll worked for the defendant first in Calgary, Alberta. He then moved with his family to Madagascar, where he continued to work for PIC. In 2012, business was in decline and the relationship between Mr. Carroll began to deteriorate. In August 2012, Mr. Carroll tendered his written resignation and requested a fair severance package. PIC rejected his resignation and urged Mr. Carroll to take his planned holiday. Mr. Carroll continued to work for PIC after he returned from his holiday. 

The relationship between Mr. Carroll and PIC became increasingly strained. In May 2013, Mr. Carroll again suggested they should terminate his employment “on professional terms”, and outlined his proposed terms of severance. One of the owners told Mr. Carroll that he would be ready to discuss the matter in a few days. Mr. Carroll responded that he planned to move back to Canada with his family in July. 

Mr. Carroll’s employment ended on June 7, 2013, when PIC purported to accept his resignation. 

The Decision 

At trial, Mr. Carroll argued his employment was terminated without cause and he was entitled to pay in lieu of notice. PIC claimed Mr. Carroll voluntarily resigned from his employment, in which case he was not entitled to any damages. 

A resignation must be clear and unequivocal, which involves both a subjective and objective component. Subjectively, did the employee intend to resign? Objectively, viewing all the circumstances, would a reasonable employer have understood that the employee had resigned? The court looks at the employee’s words, acts and the surrounding circumstances. 

Despite the fact that all indications of severing the employment relationship were initiated by Mr. Carroll, the court found that he did not intend to resign from his employment. The court found that Mr. Carroll’s words, when viewed contextually, were “an emotional reaction.” Mr. Carroll’s resignations came from a place of frustration, even though they were not said in the heat of the moment. Furthermore, the fact that that the owner indicated he would be ready to discuss the matter in a few days was consistent with someone who was contemplating the proposal outlined by Mr. Carroll (i.e. he could not have considered Mr. Carroll to have resigned). 

More importantly, the court found it difficult to accept the resignation was clear and unequivocal when it was tied to a proposal for terms of severance. In the circumstances, the burden was on the employer to confirm with Mr. Carroll that he truly intended to resign. The court concluded that Mr Carroll was dismissed, and therefore entitled to seven months’ pay in lieu of notice. 

Lessons to be Learned 

The onus is on the employer to confirm an employee’s true intentions behind a purported resignation. Otherwise, the employer risks having to respond to a wrongful dismissal claim in the future. Therefore, even in situations where employees utter words typically associated with a resignation (such as “I quit”), it is important not to take such words at face value. In these circumstances, or any time an employee brings up the matter of a severance package, it is important to consult a lawyer. 

The material and information in this blog and this website are for general information only. They should not be relied on as legal advice or opinion. The authors make no claims, promises, or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of any information referred to in this blog or its links. No person should act or refrain from acting in reliance on any information found on this website or blog. Readers should obtain appropriate professional advice from a lawyer duly licensed in the relevant jurisdiction. These materials do not create a lawyer-client relationship between you and any of the authors or the MacLeod Law Firm.

Panorama Theme by Themocracy