header_iceberg.jpg

Posts tagged: workplace safety

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.

Can my organization implement a drug testing policy at the workplace?

By , July 24, 2017 10:24 am

If you’ve been following the news over the last few months, you know that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice refused to allow the union’s injunction against the TTC’s random drug and alcohol testing policy. More recently, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the termination of an employee who was terminated for violating his employer’s drug testing policy. These developments have led to us answering many questions from employers (and news publications) about whether they can also test their employees for drugs and alcohol.

Despite the TTC’s success at court, employers should proceed with caution when instituting drug and alcohol testing at the workplace. Firstly, the issue before the court was not whether such a policy was discriminatory. Secondly, the court refused the union’s injunction because of both the safety-sensitive industry and the wide area in which the TTC operates. Furthermore, the caselaw preceding the TTC decision shows that there is a high evidentiary burden an employer must satisfy to justify random drug testing its employees.

Because addictions to drugs or alcohol are considered “disabilities” under the Ontario Human Rights Code, drug and alcohol testing has human rights implications for people with addictions. For example, a human rights issue may arise where a positive test leads to automatic negative consequences for a person based on an addiction.

However, courts and tribunals recognise that it is a legitimate goal for employers to have a safe workplace, particularly in safety-sensitive industries. Therefore, there is caselaw that has recognised that a drug testing policy is justifiable if an employer can show that the policy is a bona fide (i.e. legitimate) requirement of the job. However, even if the policy is a legitimate requirement, employers should strive to minimise any potential discriminatory impact, and be prepared to accommodate employees with addictions who are negatively impacted by the policy.

Another requirement for a drug and alcohol testing policy to be found justifiable is that it must measure impairment, as opposed to drug or alcohol use. For example, while alcohol testing is able to measure a person’s impairment quite accurately, because drugs can remain in a person’s system for quite some time after their use, drug testing is less accurate at measuring impairment rather than drug use. For this reason, alcohol testing tends to be more permissible than drug testing. Similarly, testing after an accident or a “near-miss” is more justifiable than random testing.

Lessons to be Learned

As we get closer to marijuana being legal in Canada, questions around workplace safety and the permissibility of drug testing are bound to increase. We will continue to publish additional information as more relevant cases are released. In the meantime, if you are considering implementing a drug and alcohol testing policy at the workplace, you should consult an employment lawyer to find out whether such a policy would survive the scrutiny of a court or tribunal.

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.

New Law Requires Employers to Investigate Sexual Harassment Complaints. Has Your Organization Complied with This Law?

By , March 22, 2016 9:39 am

By September 8, 2016 – less than 6 months from now – Ontario employers must comply with Schedule 4 of the recently proclaimed Sexual Violence and Harassment Action Plan Act (Supporting Survivors and Challenging Sexual Violence and Harassment), 2015, which imposes new requirements on how employers deal with sexual harassment complaints.

Schedule 4, among other things, requires an employer to prepare a written program to implement the organization’s workplace harassment policy which includes a process for investigating incidents or complaints of workplace harassment including sexual harassment complaints. Failure to do so can result in the Ministry of Labour ordering an expensive investigation of a complaint by a third party investigator at your expense.

In our experience, most employers have NOT prepared a written program to implement its workplace harassment policy. Has your organization done so?

The MacLeod Law Firm is offering a two-step, fixed fee service to help employers comply with these obligations.

Step 1 is for one of our lawyers to speak to you to determine whether or not you have complied with the following obligations:

  1. Included a definition of “workplace sexual harassment” in your written workplace harassment policy (for employers with 6 or more employees).
  1. In consultation with the joint health and safety committee, or health and safety representative (if applicable), amended the written program you have developed to implement your workplace harassment policy to include (i) a reporting mechanism for workplace harassment if the alleged harasser is the employer or a supervisor; (ii) a process for investigating incidents or complaints of workplace harassment (iii) an explanation of how information obtained in an investigation will be kept confidential; (iv) an explanation of how the person who makes an allegation and the alleged harasser will be informed of the results of the investigation; and (v) a commitment to review the program at least annually.
  1. Provided workers with information and instruction on the contents of the workplace harassment policy and program.

Step 2 is to provide you with a written report. This report tells you what you need to do to comply with these obligations and includes a written investigation procedure and suggestions on how to obtain low cost training.

If you are interested in finding out more information about our Sexual Violence and Harassment Action Plan Act compliance program, please call Doug MacLeod at 416-317-9894 or email him at [email protected]

For over 25 years, Doug MacLeod of the MacLeod Law Firm has been advising employers on Ontario’s employment laws. If you have any questions, you can contact him at 416-317-9894 or at [email protected]

OHSA Update: The Cost of Firing an Employee for Filing a Complaint with the Ministry of Labour Just Went Up

By , April 7, 2015 2:24 am

Each year in Ontario, over 10,000 workers file a claim with the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) because they’ve been injured on the job to the extent that they cannot return to work the day after the injury. So, employers be wary: workplace accidents are very common and you can incur large costs if they are not handled appropriately. As we will see below, these costs are on the rise.

An employer was recently ordered to pay a former employee 27 weeks pay plus $ 7500 in damages for causing her mental stress in connection with a workplace injury. To my knowledge, this is the first time an adjudicator has ordered an employer to pay damages for mental stress in connection with this kind of complaint.

The Facts

Brenda Bastien worked as a manager at the ProHairlines hair salon.

One day she unplugged her cell phone charger from an electrical outlet. She received a serious electrical shock, which caused electric burns. She provided her employer with a medical note, which stated she could not work because of the electrical burns. The employer did not report the accident to the Workplace Safety & Insurance Board. The employer then refused her request for a leave and ordered her to work reduced hours. Ms. Bastien eventually took a sick leave. While on this sick leave she filed a complaint with the Minister of Labour (the MOL). When the employer found out about the complaint it terminated Ms. Bastien after 3.5 years of employment. The employer refused to issue Ms. Bastien a Record of Employment.

The Complaint

Ms. Bastien filed a no cost complaint under section 50 of Occupational Health and Safety Act claiming she was terminated because she filed a complaint with the MOL. In this kind of complaint, the onus is on the employer to prove it did not violate section 50; that is, it must prove it did not fire the employee for filing the complaint. This is called a reverse onus clause.

The Hearing

The employer did not show up at the hearing so the only evidence before the decision maker was Ms. Bastien’s evidence. Not surprisingly the adjudicator concluded there was a violation of section 50.

The Cost of Non-Compliance

The employer was ordered to pay Ms. Bastien 27 weeks pay for lost wages. She received lost wages up to the date of the hearing, plus an additional 6 weeks pay.

The employer was also ordered to pay Ms. Bastien $ 7500 for causing her mental stress (or about 12 weeks pay).

Lessons to be learned

  1. Report it: When an employee is injured at work the employer should immediately report the accident to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board.
  2. Attend it: If an employee files a complaint with the MOL and a hearing is scheduled then the employer should always attend it. For another example, of what can happen if you decide not to attend a hearing, click here.
  3. Keep the MOL out of it: In some cases, an employee can obtain more damages from the MOL than in the courts. In this case, an employee with 3.5 years service obtained almost 10 months pay.

For the past 25 years, Doug MacLeod of the MacLeod Law Firm has been advising employers on all aspects of the employment relationship. If you have any questions, you can contact him at 416 317-9894 or at [email protected]

 

Panorama Theme by Themocracy