BUSINESSES IN CKL - BANKS ARE ROLLING OUT THE $40,000 LINE OF CREDIT - TIPS TO APPLY AND ENROLL

The big banks are now rolling out the procedure for applying for the new Canada Emergency Business Account (the "CEBA"), being the $40,000 line of credit available to registered businesses. 

For more information about CEBA and whether you qualify, check here: http://wardlegal.ca/31585663827865

To enroll for CEBA, you will likely be required to log into your bank's online banking for business account - enrollment will be online for most of the big banks. 

If you are not registered for online banking, you should do so on your bank's online registration page.

As part of the enrollment process, you will need: :

  1. to update your email and contact details with your bank, likely using your online for business profile, before starting your enrollment; 

  2. your business client card number; 

  3. your organization’s 2019 T4 Summary of Remuneration Paid statement - you can also contact the Canada Revenue Agency to have it re-issue your organization’s 2019 statement, if necessary; and 

  4. you will need to confirm that the person enrolling for CEBA has the authority to attest on behalf of your organization and legally bind the organization to the terms of the CEBA loan agreement.

More information about the CEBA is also available here: https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/economic-response-plan.html

 

 

read more

WORKING AT HOME BECAUSE OF COVID-19? TIPS AND HELP FOR DEDUCTING YOUR WORK-AT-HOME EXPENSES TO PAY LESS TAX

If you are incurring remote working expenses during the pandemic, you may be able to claim those expenses to reduce your tax payable under the Canada Income Tax Act.

Generally, employees with remote working expenses are paid either an allowance or they are reimbursed by their employer (including an “accountable advance”).

If you are paid an “allowance” for your home office expenses, the allowance should be deductible to you generally. If not, it would be a “taxable benefit” to you and not be deductible.

If you pay for your home office expenses initially, but your employer reimburses you afterwards, those expenses should be deductible generally, too.

In either case, you may be able to “deduct” your remote working expenses during the pandemic against your taxable income and, as a result, pay less tax. 

If you receive either an allowance or a reimbursement, which the Canada Revenue Agency deems a “taxable benefit” to you, your employer could also “gross up” your benefit by paying the additional tax payable by you – this is also a taxable benefit.

If you have remote working (i.e., home office) expenses while working remotely during the pandemic, here are some tips that you should consider, including speaking to your tax advisor for assistance and advice when you file your (now deferred) personal income tax form:

REIMBURSEMENTS BY YOUR EMLOYER FOR REMOTE WORKING EXPENSES:

  • you will need to give your employer your organized receipts (information) about your remote working expenses
  • your employer can reimburse you for those that are reasonable and related to you performing your employment duties
  • if an expense is a mix of both business and personal, your employer will likely have to report your reimbursement and you will likely be taxed on and for the personal component as a taxable benefit
  • if it is difficult to allocate the expense between business and personal, the CRA expects that a reasonable position will be taken by you and your employer
  • some mixed-use expenses cannot be tracked and documented accurately by actual receipts (i.e., mobile phone usage and/or data usage, unless used solely for business and, if so, your employer is unlikely to be able to reimburse you and, if it does, it is likely this expense may be deemed a taxable benefit to you
  • if your employer reimburses you for a “capital expense”, such as a new computer, printer, other hardware, or fixing up your home to accommodate you working remotely, you will be deemed to have received a taxable benefit, taxable to you, directly, but your employer is likely able to deduct the expense in full as a business expense, unless the CRA deems it unreasonable in the circumstances  
  • using a reimbursement, rather than an allowance, is likely preferable if you have one-time or irregular remote working expenses that you experience during the pandemic

MONTHLY ALLOWANCE FOR HOME OFFICE EXPENSES:  

  • if you receive a flat-rate allowance for your home office expenses, it will likely be a taxable benefit and, therefore, will be added to your income for tax purposes
  • if, for example, you earn an annual salary of $50,000, plus a remote office allowance of $50 monthly, the allowance would be added to your income, being $50,600
  • of the $50 monthly allowance, after you pay tax on it, you put in your pocket that amount, less your marginal tax rate on that amount, a net benefit to you (i.e., your “after-tax” allowance)
  • your employer should be able to deduct your allowance in full, as a business expense, unless the amount is deemed by the CRA to be unreasonable in the circumstances

DEDUCTING YOUR REMOTE WORKING EXPENSES:

To be able to deduct any of your remote working expenses against your taxable, employment income:

[1] your employment contract must require that you pay for the expenses at issue;

[2] your employer must sign a T2200 form, certifying the conditions required for your deductibility are met; and

[3] the expenses you claim for deduction must not have been reimbursed to you by the employer.

  • you may be able to deduct some of your remote working expenses against your taxable income on a reasonable basis
  • to deduct home office expenses: [a] your home office must be in the place where you principally perform your employment duties; and [b] your home office must be used exclusively during the period for which the expense relates (to earn income);   
  • examples: office supplies (stationary, toner, ink, cartridges, postage, etc.), some use of your mobile ‘phone expense, some use of your monthly Internet usage (i.e., data usage) and at least a portion of the expenses related to your remote working space at home (such as rent, electricity, maintenance, heating, etc., for only for your designated remote working area or space)  
  • you can only deduct the amount directly related to the performance of your duties of employ (a limitation on your deductibility)
  • effectively, to be deductible, your expense must be a supply you use or consume directly for the purpose of earning your employment income (on a reasonable basis), rather than a fixed cost that is not consumed by you during and for your employ
  • example: you cannot deduct hard-cost equipment that you do not consume directly to earn your income, such as computers, peripherals, etc.
  • if you earn an annual salary, you cannot deduct the expense of your mortgage, property taxes, etc. for the home you own and remotely work within
  • if you earn commission income only, you may be able to deduct a portion of your home expenses, including property taxes, home insurance, but not your mortgage payments

Note that if you are paid an allowance for your remote working expenses, which is included in your income as a taxable benefit, you potentially could still deduct those expenses if you incurred them to perform your duties of employ, provided the conditions above are satisfied.

read more

YOU DON'T QUALIFY FOR EI OR CERB. YOU NEED TO PAY RENT AND BUY ESSENTIAL GOODS. APPLY TO THE EMERGENCY FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM. CONTACT THE CITY OF KAWARTHA LAKES.

Do you need emergency financial support, but do not qualify for any federal payments (EI, CERB)?

Need to pay rent, or buy essential goods? Unemployed? Vulnerable? Living in poverty? 

Don’t give up – you can actually apply to the City of Kawartha Lakes (or your own municipality) for emergency support.

Emergency financial support may also be available to you, if you are experiencing financial crisis due to the virus pandemic, and who are unable to access other financial support, such as the new federal Government’s CERB.

This may include those of us who are vulnerable, such as living in poverty, homeless or those who are, or who have become, unemployed related to COVID-19.

Under the provincial Emergency Assistance program, if you have been laid off, told you cannot work or you are unable to work due to COVID-19, you may be entitled to receive up to $1,170 for a 48-day period.

Families with two children could be entitled to $2,000 for a 48-day period, if eligible.

Based on recent changes, you may also be entitled to access these benefits more than one time in any six-month period. 

This emergency benefit is intended to help with paying for needs, including food, rent, medicine, and other essential items.

If you do not qualify for EI regular or sickness benefits, you cannot access the new CERB, and you have limited access to other income/assets to assist you, you can apply for these emergency benefits, too. 

You should contact the City of Kawartha Lakes about this potential benefit and information on how to apply for your benefits.

To date, it does not appear that the City has made available an online application process.  You may have to apply by ‘phone.

The Ontario government is working on and trying to roll out a more streamlined and accessible application – it should be available soon from the province, too.

For now, and although the City does not appear to have information on its Web site about this potential benefit to you, you should contact the City’s Social Services division:

Toll free: 1-877-324-9870

Tel: 705-328-2875

You can also email that division here: https://www.kawarthalakes.ca/en/living-here/social-services.aspx

You can find more information here:

https://news.ontario.ca/opo/en/2020/03/changes-to-ontarios-emergency-assistance-program-in-response-to-covid-19.html

read more

CKL SMALL BUSINESSES, SOLE PROPRIETORS AND SELF-EMPLOYED - YOUR CHEAT SHEET FOR YOUR ELIGIBILITY FOR GOVERNMENT SUPPORT (THE NEW CERB, WAGE SUBSIDIES AND $40,000 LINE OF CREDIT)

Small businesses, sole proprietors and self-employed individuals in the City of Kawartha Lakes, as of April 9, 2020, help on whether you are eligible for the CERB, wage subsidies and the interest-free line of credit:

IF YOU OWN AND OPERATE A SMALL CORPORATION – AND YOU PAY YOURSELF A SALARY:

If so, and you pay yourself an annual salary through your corporation, then:

  • You do not qualify for the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (the “CERB”) ($500 weekly for up to 16 weeks) if you continue working
  • You do qualify for the CERB if you stop working for reasons related to COVID-19 and you have no income
  • You are eligible to apply for for the Cananda Emergency Wage Subsidiy (75% wage subsidy, up to $847 weekly for up to 3 months) or the alternative 10% wage subsidy (the “CEWS”)
  • You are eligible to apply for the Canada Emergency Business Account (“CEBA”) - $40,000 interest-free business loan/line of credit ($10,000 can be forgiven if $30,000 is paid off before Dec. 31, 2020)

For more information from us about qualifying for the CERB, check here: http://wardlegal.ca/31585663827879

For more information from us about qualifying for the CEBA, check here: http://wardlegal.ca/31585663827893 and here: http://wardlegal.ca/31586368607013

For more information about qualifying for the CEWS and how you calculate your wage subsidy, check here: http://wardlegal.ca/31585663827901

IF YOU ARE A SOLE PROPRIETOR (i.e., NO INCORPORATED BUSINESS) OR SELF-EMPLOYED:

  • You may be eligible for the CERB, if you continue working for less than 10 hours per week
  • You are eligible for the CERB if you stop working for reasons related to the virus
  • You are not eligible to receive the CEWS (either the 75% or 10% wage subsidy)
  • You are not eligible to receive the CEBA

IF YOU OWN AND OPERATE A SMALL CORPORATION – AND YOU PAY YOURSELF BY DIVIDENDS, NOT SALARY:

  • You are not eligible for the CERB if you continue working
  • You may be eligible for the CERB if you stop working, per the Canada Revenue Agency’s Web site update on Apr. 6, 2020
  • You are not eligible for the CEWS (both the 75% and 10% wage subsidies) or the CEBA
read more

YOU CAN STILL MAKE YOUR OWN WILL AND POWERS OF ATTORNEY, IF NECESSARY, IF YOU CANNOT VIRTUALLY DO IT WITH YOUR QUALIFIED LAWYER - WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW TO MAKE A "HOLOGRAPH" WILL. ALSO - THE REQUIREMENTS FOR YOUR FORMAL WILL

By emergency order made on April 7, 2020, any person may now sign a will and powers of attorney virtually, or remotely, with your lawyer or licensed representative.

This new measure will make it much more convenient for you to make a new will and powers of attorney, particularly during isolation and the need to comply with the other pandemic containment requirements.

HOLOGRAPH WILLS:

However, a person may still make a “holograph” will in Ontario.

A holograph will:

  • must be “wholly” in your hand-writing, as the “testator” [Note: the hand-written portion of your document will likely be valid, even if the entire document is not in your hand-writing - to the extent any part of the document is not in your own hand-writing, that part will be excluded from your otherwise valid holograph document];
  • you must sign it;
  • your document must contain these key provisions:
  • it identifies your document as your “Will”;
  • it revokes any prior will you may have made;
  • it appoints your trustee/executor;
  • it contains simple dispositive provisions (i.e., how your estate is to be distributed and to whom);
  • it contains a ‘power to sell’ clause for your trustee/executor; and
  • it must be dated and signed by you.

It is critical that your document be entirely in your hand-writing and be signed by you at the end of the document.

If you holograph may need to be ‘probated’, which is common, proof of your hand-writing will be necessary. You could video yourself preparing and signing the document – that should be sufficient.

However, now that wills and powers of attorney may be signed virtually with your lawyer, you should also contact a qualified lawyer to arrange to prepare and sign a formal will and related estate planning documents as soon as practicable. 

YOUR FORMAL WILL:

In Ontario, before April 7, 2020, the formal requirements for your (non-holograph) valid will are set out by Ontario’s Succession Law Reform Act:

  1. the will must be in writing;
  2. the will is signed at the end by either you, the “testator”, or by some other person in your presence and acting under your direction;
  3. the will is signed or acknowledged by you in the presence of at least two attesting witnesses who are present at the same time; and
  4. at least two attesting witnesses sign/subscribe the will in your presence.

As of April 7, 2020, you can sign your will and powers of attorney virtually with your lawyer (i.e., your witnesses do not have to be physically present when you sign your will), subject to a few conditions. 

If you cannot read or write, you may be   unable to sign your name in the ordinary sense. However, a wide variety of “marks” have been judicially considered to have intended to give effect to a will, from hand-printed signatures and parts of a signature to initials and even thumb-prints in ink. With the wide variety of “marks” that will satisfy the formal requirement of signing the will, most people will be able to execute a will without difficulty.

The same issues may arise for a person who has physical difficulty with signing a will. 

While Ontario allows for some flexibility in how you “sign” your will, it is important to be cautious and taken certain steps to ensure that the requirement of your knowledge and approval of your will are not later questioned.

If there is any issue of capacity, or difficultly with the English language, for example, it is important to generate evidence that the will was read over for a non-English speaking testator in their preferred language, that it was read over for an illiterate person, or that the will was truly being signed by another person at the direction of the testator, and not as a result of undue pressure.

read more

YOU CAN NOW SIGN YOUR WILL OR POWER OF ATTORNEY VIRTUALLY (REMOTELY) WITH YOUR LAWYER - NEW EMERGENCY ORDER

An emergency “Order In Council” was made on April 7, 2020, under s. 7.1 of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act regarding the virtual commissioning and execution of wills.

Read the emergency order here: https://www.ontario.ca/search/orders-in-council

Now, by order under s. 7.0.2(4), of Ontario’s Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, witnessing of wills and powers of attorney may be virtual (by “audio visual” means), provided that at least one person who is providing the service as a witness is a licensee pursuant to Ontario’s the Law Society Act (i.e., a lawyer or licensed paralegal). 

“Audio visual communication technology” means any electronic method of communication in which participants are able to see, hear and communicate with each other in real time. 

The Order is not retroactive and will be in place for the duration of the declaration of emergency.

read more

CKL BUSINESS OWNERS - EXPANDED/RELAXED QUALIFICATION FOR THE 75% WAGE SUBSIDY - WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW TODAY

For the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy [75% wage subsidy] (the “CEWS”), today the federal government announced (subject to Parliamentary ratification):

[1]      you will have the option of using January and February of 2020 as your reference periods, rather than the original year-over-year benchmarks, under certain conditions;

[2]        you may also be permitted to use January and February, 2020, respectively, as your reference periods to calculate your decline in revenue (In addition to the original calculation periods for calculating if you meet the threshold 30% reduction in revenues), including newer businesses (i.e., start ups) that may not have the necessary historical revenue information;

[3] to claim the subsidy for March of 2020, only a reduction in revenue of 15% will be required, rather than 30%; and
[4] after March, 2020 (i.e., two additional months), the decline must still be at least 30%.

Here is more information from us about the CEWS and how you qualify and apply: http://wardlegal.ca/31585663827857

 

read more

MORE SUPPORT TO STUDENTS AND YOUNG CANADIANS (15 TO 30) - CHANGES TO THE CANADA SUMMER JOBS PROGRAM ANNOUNCED TODAY

Today, April 8, 2020, the federal government announced temporary changes to the Canada Summer Jobs program, intended to help employers hire summer staff and provide young Canadians access to the jobs they need during this unprecedented time.

The government declared this program upgrade will help create up to 70,000 jobs for those between the ages of 15 and 30 years of age.

The temporary changes to the program:

  • an increase to the wage subsidy, so that private and public sector employers can also receive up to 100 per cent of the provincial or territorial minimum hourly wage for each employee;
  • an extension to the end date for employment to February 28, 2021;
  • allowing employers to adapt their projects and job activities to support essential services; and
  • allowing employers to hire staff on a part-time basis.

According to the government, these changes will help youth stay connected to the labour market, save money for their future, and find quality jobs in safe, inclusive, and healthy work environments.

Other measures have previously been announced to assist young Canadians during the crisis, including: [1] a six-month, interest-free moratorium on Canada Student Loans; and [2] a 75 per cent wage subsidy for businesses that will help more employers keep part-time employees and workers over the coming months.

The Canada Summer Jobs program provides opportunities for youth to develop and improve their skills within the not-for-profit, small business, and public sectors, and supports the delivery of key community services.

read more

CKL BUSINESS OWNERS - HELP AND TIPS TO GET YOUR NEW $40,000 INTEREST-FREE LINE OF CREDIT FROM YOUR BANK - WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

Small-and-medium-sized business owners in the City of Kawartha Lakes – an update:

THE CANADA EMERGENCY BUSINESS ACCOUNT (“CEBA”) – A $40,000 OPERATING LINE OF CREDIT:

Eligible businesses will receive a $40,000 line of credit loan for immediate financial support to cover short term operating expenses, payroll and other non-deferrable expenses which are critical to sustain business continuity.

Additional information:

  • it’s a $40,000 government‑guaranteed loan to help eligible businesses pay for operating expenses, payroll and other non-deferrable expenses which are critical to sustain business continuity;
  • until December 31, 2020, the CEBA will be funded as a revolving line of credit for $40,000;
  • after December 31, 2020, any outstanding balance on the revolving $40,000 line of credit will be converted into a non-revolving 5‑year term loan maturing on December 31, 2025, at which time the balance must be paid in full;
  • no interest applies until January 1, 2023;
  • beginning on January 1, 2023, interest accrues on the balance of the term loan at the rate of 5% per annum, payable monthly on the last day of each month;
  • if you pay 75% of the balance of the term loan (as at January 1, 2021), on or before December 31, 2022, the remaining balance of your term loan will be forgiven. For example, if your balance is $40,000 on January 1, 2021 and you repay $30,000 on or before December 31, 2022, the remaining $10,000 will be forgiven; and
  • if you do not repay 75% of the balance of the term loan (as at January 1, 2021) on or before December 31, 2022, the full loan balance and all accrued and unpaid interest will be due and payable on December 31, 2025.

TO QUALIFY FOR CEBA:

To enroll for CEBA through a specific bank:

  • that bank will need to be your primary financial institution; and
  • you will need a business deposit account with that bank.  

To qualify:

  • your business is a registered and operational business on or before March 1, 2020;
  • the person enrolling for the CEBA must have the ability and authority to bind the organization/business;
  • your payroll expense is between $50,000 and $1 million - to confirm this, you will be required to provide the following information:
    • your employer account number, as reported at the top of your 2019 T4 Summary of Remuneration Paid;
    • your employment income reported in Box 14 of your 2019 T4 Summary of Remuneration Paid; and
    • a copy of your 2019 T4 Summary of Remuneration Paid, if requested.
  • you will also need to agree to use funds from this loan to pay for operating costs that cannot be deferred, such as payroll, rent, utilities, insurance, debt payments and property tax.

Note:

The payroll expense above does not appear to restrict pay to the owner(s) of the business, such as wages, dividends, etc. Accordingly, it appears that not only employees, but owners, who are also employees, or who also act as employees, too, may be included to calculate the annual payroll expense. 

Note:

Sole proprietors do not qualify for CEBA. The banks will not facilitate CEBA for an individual; it is only available to business clients who have been a registered operation on or before March 1, 2020 with a business operating account.

More information for sole proprietors (individuals) and additional relief measures can be found here: https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/economic-response-plan.html.

ENROLLMENT FOR CEBA:

Your bank will likely require that you enroll online only.

The banks are attempting to accept online enrollments starting in the week of April 6, 2020.

Ask your bank to notify you when online enrollment is available.

You cannot enroll for the CEBA at more than one bank. Businesses must enroll for the CEBA at their primary financial institution, where they have an existing business banking account and cannot apply at more than one financial institution. Doing so may result in legal prosecution by the federal government.

PREPARING FOR YOUR ENROLLMENT:

To prepare for enrolling, you should:

  • update your email and contact information with your bank, which you could do online, if possible; and
  • find your 2019 T4 Summary of Remuneration Paid statement, which you can obtain from the Canada Revenue Agency, if necessary.  

WHEN THE LOANS WILL BE AVAILABLE TO YOU:

This remains uncertain, mostly because it depends on your bank’s ability to process your enrollment and open your revolving line of credit.

Enrollment is likely to be online only, so you should regularly check with your bank for when online application becomes available.

Your bank will contact you when your enrollment process is live. 

MULTIPLE BUSINESSES:

If you own or operate multiples businesses, each business entity may enroll for CEBA.

Each business must individually meet the eligibility criteria.

MULTIPLE OWNERS OF THE BUSINESS:

You must ensure that the person enrolling your organization has the authority to attest on behalf of the organization and bind the organization to the terms of the CEBA loan agreement.

INTEREST ON THE LOAN:

  • until December 31, 2020, the CEBA will likely be funded as a revolving line of credit for $40,000;
  • after December 31, 2020, any outstanding balance on the revolving $40,000 line of credit is likely to be converted into a non-revolving 5‑year term loan maturing on December 31, 2025, at which time the balance must be paid in full;
  • no interest applies until January 1, 2023;
  • commencing on January 1, 2023, interest accrues on the balance of the term loan at the rate of 5% per annum, payable monthly on the last day of each month;
  • if you pay 75% of the balance of the term loan (as at January 1, 2021), on or before December 31, 2022, the remaining balance of your term loan will be forgiven. For example, if your balance is $40,000 on January 1, 2021 and you repay $30,000 on or before December 31, 2022, the remaining $10,000 will be forgiven; and
  • if you do not repay 75% of the balance of the term loan (as at January 1, 2021) on or before December 31, 2022, the full loan balance and all accrued and unpaid interest will be due and payable on December 31, 2025.

WHEN TO START REPAYMENT ON THE LOAN:

You may start repaying the loan in part or in full at any time, but repayment is not required until December 31, 2025 at which time the entire loan and all accrued and unpaid interest is due.

IF YOU RECEIVE OTHER COVID-19 RELIEF:

If you are receiving other COVID-19 relief, such as the CERB, you may still apply for CEBA.

DEFERRING CREDIT CARD PAYMENTS:

Most of the banks, if not all, are accepting requests to temporarily waive the requirement that you pay your minimum payment on your credit card for up to two months. Some banks have set up new, online webforms to do so. If you need relief beyond the two-month period, you should contact your bank advisor for additional deferrals up to a total of six months.

However, requests are not guaranteed.

Deferred payments will not be reported to credit bureaus as missed payments.

During the deferral period, you will continue to accrue interest charges at your current annual interest rates and we will add those charges to your outstanding balance.

This may increase the outstanding balance on your credit card at the end of the deferral period.

Most banks, if not all, will not charge interest on accrued interest.

read more

UPDATED GROCERY STORE PROTOCOL IN THE CKL - PER ALL RECOMMENDATIONS BY GOVERNMENT AND HEALTH OFFICIALS (FOR ALL ESSENTIAL SERVICES)

Line ups are increasing outside our essential services, particularly grocery stores. 

Here an updated list of grocery store protocol, per all of the recommendations made to date by the federal and provincial governments and health officials, including the Health Unit.  

  1. follow the containment measures implemented by the essential service, including the waiting outside to enter, one-way arrows, standing on the taped distance lines, etc.;
  2. always engage in the ‘hockey stick’ rule (i.e., physical distancing of two metres; six feet), including with essential workers;
  3. only one family member should attend the essential service, not more;
  4. wear your non-medical (cloth) mask, primarily to protect others from you, if you may be asymptomatic;  
  5. only buy groceries, get gas, get your drugs, etc. no more than one per week; no social browsing or shopping – if possible, limit it to once bi-weekly;
  6. do not attend with your own bags or containers;
  7. minimize any chit-chat and social interaction with any other customers or essential service workers; no gathering; no idle talking;
  8. adhere to all COVID-19 containment measures, including coughing, if necessary, into your elbow, washing your hands thoroughly immediately before and after you attend the essential service;
  9. minimize your time in the essential service – prepare and take a list in advance; no browsing;
  10. importantly, do not vent to the essential workers – they are endangering themselves to help you; none should be exposed to ridicule, criticism, complaints or general frustration;
  11. thank every essential worker you see, if possible – just a quick, “Thank you for everything” – no need to engage in a discussion;
  12. if possible, consider providing a tip to an essential worker and, if so: a) strictly physically distance; and b) provide the cash tip in an envelope and lay it at the counter only; and
  13. be civil, respectful, polite, courteous and cordial to everyone, particularly the essential workers, as you would at any time before the onset of this pandemic.

Altruism and comity must triumph; it is how we will overcome this crisis.

read more

WSIB RELIEF TO EMPLOYERS - DEFERRAL OF PREMIUMS

The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (“WSIB”) has announced that it will provide relief for employers' payments to the WSIB.

The financial relief package permits employers to defer the reporting and payment of premiums until August 31, 2020. This deferral is available to employers who report and pay monthly, quarterly or annually based on their insurable earnings.

Specifically, deferral is available for the following payments:

Monthly: March 31, April 30, May 31, June 30, July 31, Aug 31

Quarterly: April 30, July 31

Annual: April 30

This applies to Schedule 2 employers, too, which includes publicly funded organizations (municipalities, hospitals, school boards), self-funded organizations that are legislated by the province, as well as businesses who are involved in federally regulated industries. All payment obligations for Schedule 2 employers will be deferred until August 31, 2020.

There will be no accrual of interest on outstanding premium payments for Schedule 1 employers, nor will any penalties be charged during this six-month deferral period. Schedule 2 account balances will not accrue debit interest as part of the relief package. Participation in the financial relief package is not mandatory, and employers can continue to report and pay on a monthly, quarterly or annual basis.

Employers can also report now and defer payment until later.

read more

BUSINESS OWNERS - DENIED BUSINESS INTERRUPTION INSURANCE DURING COVID-19? NEW CLASS ACTION STARTED - JOINT THE CONTACT LIST - ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS

Business interruption insurance is a hot-button issue for business owners effected by COVID-19.

Most, if not, insurance companies have denied any claims made by business owners for business interruption coverage, including those forced to close by provincial emergency order as being “non-essential” workplaces.

Now, a class action has been commenced for these denials, so far against the following insurance companies: Aviva, Co-Operators Insurance, Desjardins, Economical Insurance, Intact, Lloyd’s, Northbridge, Royal & Sun Alliance, TD General Insurance, Wawanesa Mutual Insurance and Wynward Insurance Group.

WHAT IS BUSINESS INTERRUPTION INSURANCE?

Generally, business interruption insurance is part of first-party commercial property insurance.

Usually, the insurer agrees to pay to, or reimburse, the business owner for the actual loss of business income the business experienced because of the interruption to the business itself, including while the business if being restored, when the interruption was caused by direct physical loss, damage, or destruction to property, caused by an insured against peril.

Accordingly, physical damage to the place of business is a prerequisite. 

In addition, the interruption must have been caused by the physical damage.

With COVID-19, it may be problematic to prove direct physical loss or damage.

Furthermore, it not uncommon for a business interruption policy to exclude perils such as viruses and disease.

There may also be problems establishing that virus caused the business losses. For example, for businesses deemed to be "essential" by the Ontario Government, the insurer may take the position that, for example, the losses were caused by the owner's decision to preemptively close the business due to fear of the virus.

For "essential" businesses, that may not be such an issue.  

In any event, insurers do sell policy coverage and endorsements offering protection for business interruption caused by a disease. If any owner had such coverage, it would be advisable to consider making a claim.

There may also be an insurance endorsement covering business loss sustained by the owner due to an inability to access the business premises, particularly where it is prohibited by any government order, or the directive of any other civil authority.  This is certainly the case currently for "non-essential" businesses in Ontario. It is also likely that more businesses will, in the near future, be declared "non-essential", as the virus progresses throughout our province. 

Moreover, a business owner may also have purchased “contingent business interruption” coverage, which protects the business from losses resulting from damage caused by interruption of supply. However, often the business interruption must be caused by damage to the suppliers’ property.

Often whether there is available coverage will depend on the specific language in the policy or endorsement; not all policies are the same - there is no standard language. In fact, may policies vary in terms of the language and coverage options. It will also depend on the nature of the loss, having regard to the language of the policy.  

Therefore, if you are a business owner with a commercial insurance policy, you should promptly review your policy and speak to your insurance broker for additional guidance. Ultimately a claim should potentially be considered for business loss arising from COVID-19 and the municipal, provincial and federal government's remedial responses to the virus pandemic. 

Indeed, keep a watchful eye on this issue, as the governments' response will surely develop and change as the virus continues to spread.  

Interestingly,  the March 18, 2020 “National Law Review” reports that a lawsuit was commenced by a restaurant owner in the State of Louisiana asking for the Court declare that its insurance policy did not contain any exclusion for viral pandemic. The owner claimed the commercial policy covers the restaurant business for any future government-related shutdown orders, due to physical loss from COVID-19 contamination. The owner also claimed the insurer should be legally required to provide income coverage if COVID-19 were to contaminate the restaurant.

The owner basically claimed that contamination of the insured place of business by COVID-19 constitutes a direct physical loss, thereby necessitating remediation to clean the surfaces of the establishment. 

The Court has not made its final decision, but certainly the issue is already being raised judicially. 

Mind you, this is entirely different jurisdiction, whose laws do not apply directly in Ontario. 

WHAT SHOULD I DO?

What should you, as a business owner, do? 

If you have a commercial insurance policy, review it. 

Contact your broker for his or her advice on whether business interruption insurance should be claimed to the insurer. 

However, remember that insurance brokers, like many others, are flooded with enquiries on all fronts. Therefore, be patient.

Ultimately it is the insurer who must either allow or deny the claim - a broker cannot do so and you should not exclusively rely on your broker's advice about whether to bring a claim, or not - rather, your broker's advice and guidance is a factor to consider in your decision.  

Even if a tenable claim cannot now be made, that may change in the future, as the uncertainty of this virus continues to move forward. 

THE CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT:

As expected, the issue has now found its way to our Ontario Court.

A class action has been commenced.

The class action is Canada-wide, commenced on behalf of Canadian business owners and some self-employed professionals who have been denied business interruption insurance during COVID-19.

So far, the following insurance companies have been sued: Aviva, Co-Operators Insurance, Desjardins, Economical Insurance, Intact, Lloyd’s, Northbridge, Royal & Sun Alliance, TD General Insurance, Wawanesa Mutual Insurance and Wynward Insurance Group.

If you are a business owner, you can join the contact list for the “Business Interruption Insurance Class Action”. It does not impose any financial obligation on you and your information is promised to be kept confidential.

To do so, go here:  https://www.merchantlaw.com/class-actions/business-interruption-insurance-class-action/

To read more about this class action, go here: https://globalnews.ca/news/6776068/class-action-launched-insurers-covid-19/

 

read more

CANADA EMERGENCY RESPONSE BENEFIT (CERB) NOW AVAILABLE - A CHEAT SHEET - EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW TO QUALIFY AND APPLY FOR THIS FINANCIAL HELP

The Canada Emergency Response Benefit (the "CERB") is now available for residents of the City of Kawartha Lakes who qualify for this financial support. 

Here is your need-to-know information:

WHAT IS CERB?

The CERB provides $2,000 a month for up to four months to individuals who have ceased working due to COVID-19.

By contrast, EI benefits are 55% of normal weekly earnings, up to a maximum of $573 per week.

WHEN IS IT AVAILABLE

The online portal to apply for CERB is now available, as of April 6, 2020.

The Federal Government has recently indicated the benefit may be paid out within four to five days, but has committed to making CERB payments within 10 days of application.

The CERB is paid every four weeks and available from March 15, 2020 until October 3, 2020.

As of April 6, 2020, those who sign up to receive the CERB by direct deposit should receive the first CERB payment within 3-5 days of their application.

For those who choose to receive the benefit by mail, payment should be received within 10 days of their application.

You must re-apply and confirm your eligibility for the CERB every four weeks.

The maximum CERB entitlement is up to 16 weeks.

WHO IS ELIGIBLE?

The CERB is available to individuals aged 15 or over who:

  • had income of at least $5,000 in 2019 or the 12 months preceding their application for the CERB;
  • cease working for reasons related to COVID-19; and
  • receive no income for at least 14 consecutive days within the four-week period for which the CERB is claimed, regardless of whether they are EI-eligible or not.

This includes residents in the City of Kawartha Lakes who are: 

  • unemployed due to termination of employment;
  • sick;
  • quarantined;
  • taking care of someone who is sick with COVID-19;
  • working parents who must stay home without pay to care for children who are sick or at home because of school and daycare closures;
  • still employed, but are not receiving income because of disruptions to their work situation due to COVID-19; and
  • contract workers and self-employed individuals who would not otherwise be eligible for EI.
  • If you have stopped working because of COVID-19, you should apply for CERB, whether or not you are eligible for EI. The Benefit is available for the period from March 15, 2020 to October 3, 2020.
  • There is now only a single portal to assist you with the application process.

An employee who quits voluntarily is not eligible for the CERB.

If you are not a Canadian citizen, to be eligible for the CERB, you must reside in Canada and have a valid SIN. Employees who are not Canadian citizens or permanent residents, including temporary foreign workers and international students, may be eligible to receive the CERB if they meet the other eligibility requirements.

DO I HAVE TO BE LAID OFF FROM MY JOB TO APPLY FOR CERB?

  • no, an employee is eligible for the CERB even if they continue a relationship with the employer (i.e., you have not been laid off);
  • you must have stopped working as a result of COVID-19, and be without employment income for at least 14 consecutive days within the initial four-week period; and
  • you can also apply for the CERB if you are eligible for EI regular or sickness benefits.

DO I APPLY FOR CERB OR EI

The CERB is available to eligible individuals, whether they qualify for EI or not. 

The Federal Government has indicated that:

  • individuals who are already receiving EI regular and sickness benefits would continue to receive their benefits and should not apply for the CERB;
  • individuals who have already applied for EI and whose application has not yet been processed would not need to re-apply. It is not clear whether this means that the EI applications already in the system will continue to be processed in the normal course or be automatically "converted" into CERB applications; and
  • individuals whose EI benefits cease before October 3, 2020 could apply for the CERB once their EI benefits cease, if they are unable to return to work due to COVID-19.

It is not clear whether the CERB will replace EI entirely during the period of March 15, 2020 to October 3, 2020, as the Federal Government's announcement seems to suggest that individuals can continue to apply for EI.

If you became eligible for EI regular or sickness benefits on March 15, 2020 or later, your claim will be automatically processed through the Canada Emergency Response Benefit.

You can still apply to EI for other benefits, including maternity, parental, caregiving, fishing and work-sharing.

WHAT IF MY CLAIM FOR IE HAS NOT YET BEEN PROCESSED?

  • do not reapply for the CERB;
  • if you became eligible for EI prior to March 15, 2020, your claim will be processed under the pre-existing EI rules; and
  • if you became eligible for EI regular or sickness benefits on or after March 15th, your claim will be automatically processed through the CERB.

WHAT IF I MAKE OTHER INCOME WHILE RECEIVING THE CERB?

To be eligible, you must have stopped working as a result of COVID-19 and be without employment income for at least 14 consecutive days within the initial four-week period (i.e., March 15 - April 11). 

The next CERB cycle begins April 11.

After that time, you must expect to have no employment income.

If you continue to receive non-employment income, such as from investments, rental income, etc., you continue to be eligible for the CERB.

CAN I GET A TOP-UP FROM MY EMPLOYER, TOO

No, at least not for now. 

Individuals are eligible for the CERB if they do not receive income from employment or self-employment during the days on which they have ceased working. It remains to be seen if the Federal Government will introduce regulations that would allow individuals to receive top-up benefits from their employers without eliminating or reducing the CERB, similar to the Supplemental Unemployment Benefit Program for EI.

IF EI WILL PAY ME MORE AND I CAN GET IT, WILL I GET THE HIGHER EI AMOUNT (MORE THAN $500 WEEKLY)?

 

You will be paid the CERB amount, even if you may be eligible for more through EI regular or sickness benefits.

If you apply for the CERB, you will receive $500 per week, regardless of what you may have been eligible to receive through Employment Insurance.

If you believe you may be eligible for EI regular or sickness benefits, you retain that eligibility to receive EI after you stop receiving the CERB, and the period that you received the CERB does not impact your EI entitlement.

WHAT IF I AM A STUDENT?

Unfortunately, the CERB is only available to those who stopped work as a result of reasons related to COVID-19.

If you are seeking employ, but have not stopped working because of COVID-19, you are not eligible for the CERB.

If you are a student who had a job last year and were planning on working this summer, you do not qualify for the benefit.

IS IT TAXABLE

Yes, at least for now, but deductions will not be made at source. 

Therefore, individuals will receive the entire $2,000 every four weeks.

The $2,000 benefit will be paid in blocks of four weeks (i.e., equivalent to $500 weekly).

The CERB is currently available for a maximum 16 weeks, but that may be extended.

You will have to report the benefit as income when you file your income tax for the 2020 tax year.

WHERE AND HOW DO I APPLY FOR THE CERB?

  • if you are registered, you can apply for CERB through your MyAccount portal on the Canada Revenue Agency Web site here: https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/e-services/e-services-individuals/account-individuals.html;  
  • if you are not registered, applications for the CERB are open today, April 6, 2020 here: https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/benefits/apply-for-cerb-with-cra.html#how;
  • If you do not have online access, call the toll-free number 1-800-959-2019;
  • due to anticipated volume, the CRA requires that those with birthdays between January and March to apply on Monday; April to June on Thursdays; July to September on Wednesdays and October to December on Thursdays. 
  • anyone can apply on Fridays and weekends; and
  • the online portal will be closed from 3am to 6am everyday for site maintenance.

 

read more

CONSTRUCTION - WHAT MUST BE CLOSED? WHAT MAY CONTINUE? HOW DO I REPORT?

Construction work is creating some uncertainty throughout Ontario, including in the City of Kawartha Lakes. 

All construction projects and service must stop, except for: 

[1] Healthcare construction: 

Construction projects and services associated with the healthcare sector, including new facilities, expansions, renovations and conversion of spaces that could be re-purposed for health care space; 

[2] Ontario critical infrastructure construction: 

Construction projects and services required to ensure safe and reliable operations of, or to provide new capacity in, critical provincial infrastructure, including transit, transportation, energy and justice sectors beyond the day-to-day maintenance; 

[3] Critical industrial construction: 

Critical industrial constructive activities required for: 

[a] the maintenance and operations of petrochemical plants and refineries; 

[b] significant industrial petrochemical projects where preliminary work has already commenced; and 

[c] industrial construction and modifications to existing industrial structures limited solely to work necessary for the production, maintenance, and/or enhancement of Personal Protective Equipment, medical devices (such as ventilators), and other identified products directly related to combating the COVID-19 pandemic.

[4] Very limited residential construction: 

Specifically, all residential construction must stop, except where:

[a] a footing permit has been granted for single family, semi-detached and town homes; 

[b] an above grade structural permit has been granted for condominiums, mixed use and other buildings; or

[c] the project involves renovations to residential properties and construction work was started before April 4, 2020.

​[5] To close constructive sites or activities: 

Construction and maintenance activities necessary to temporarily close construction sites that have paused or are not active and to ensure ongoing public safety.

If you have questions about what is not permitted to be open  or impacts to your business or employment, call the Stop the Spread Business Information Line at 1-888-444-3659.

read more

WORKING AT HOME CAN BE HARD FOR BOTH YOU AND YOUR EMPLOYER - TIPS AND GUIDANCE TO YOU BOTH FOR DOING IT SUCCESSFULLY

Virtually or remotely working (from home) can be very challenging to both employees and employers.

During this pandemic, typical work procedures and arrangements must be modified and be adaptive to the new reality.

Here is some guidance and tips to both employees working at home, and employers who now must lead them remotely.

IF YOU ARE WORKING REMOTELY OR AT HOME:

  • maintain structure;
  • plan your day, as if you are going to work (follow your morning routine, try to do the same things you would ordinarily do when starting your day, subject to your other responsibilities at home, like trying to parent children at home due to the school closures;  
  • make adjustments, if needed, to the hours you ordinarily would work in the office, because of child care and other responsibilities you may now have, because you are sharing equipment with a partner who is also working from home, or for any other reason;
  • keep your employer updated on your success with your arrangements for working remotely - they will appreciate you doing so; 
  • set up a designated space for working;
  • if you are struggling with the transition, focus on the benefits (i.e., how much commute time are you saving? Consider gas, transit, coffee, or parking savings, too);
  • use technology to stay present and connected - structure your daily schedule to accommodate communication with co-workers – find new ways to maintain connection, to help prevent feelings of isolation;
  • subject to the emergency orders and healthcare officials’ recommendations, take the time to get fresh air and exercise; even in times of self-isolation, a physically distanced walk can help maintain sanity and good health;
  • if you feel like you need more guidance when working from home, initiate regular check-ins with your manager to provide more structure;  
  • good, regular communication with your employer and co-workers is essential;
  • try not express your frustration or dismay by email or texts – talk through issues by ‘phone or virtually; and
  • give yourself a break, especially if you have children at home for whom you care – don’t be too hard on yourself; you’re only human!

IF YOU ARE MANAGING EMPLOYEES WORKING REMOTELY OR AT HOME:

Leading remotely can be challenging – some guidance to be successful:  

  • check in regularly with your employees – make them feel comfortable and connected;
  • schedule regular team meetings or virtual sessions, as well as one-on-ones, to maintain the flow of work and communication;
  • e-mail and instant messages can lack tone and create misunderstandings - lead by example by not jumping to assumptions and address potential conflict immediately;
  • even if you have known your employees for years, work to maintain strong relationships from a distance;
  • express appreciation for your team, acknowledge birthdays and other special events or occurrences;
  • encourage your employees maintain work-life balance and wellness – help them set boundaries to ensure the home is not an around-the-clock workplace;
  • set clear start and finish times for yourself, as well as breaks that would normally occur in the office;
  • let your employees know when you will be “out”, or taking a break;
  • take advantage of e-mail, instant messaging and virtual technology to facilitate different ways to communicate;
  • turn video on for one-on-ones and team meetings - help your team feel more present and engaged;
  • shift to a results-focused mindset, rather than a time-focused mindset by setting clear performance goals; and
  • facilitate more flexibility with schedules, and less anxiety for parents that may be having to split their time between managing children and work.

ONTARIO’S HUMAN RIGHTS (FOR EMPLOYEES):

Remember that employees in Ontario are protected by Ontario's Human Rights Code (the "Code") in terms of the COVID-19 pandemic. Currently, those protections include: 

- it is discriminatory to treat employees who have, or are perceived to have, contracted COVID-19, in a negative manner, for reasons unrelated to public health and safety;

- employers have a duty to accommodate employees in relation to COVID-19, unless it would amount to undue hardship based on cost, or health and safety; 

- employers should not treat employees in a differential manner over COVID-concerns, unless these concerns are reasonable and consistent with the most recent advice of medical and public health officials;   

- unless an employee can provide a legitimate reason why he or she cannot work, employers have a right to expect they will continue to perform their work. If an employee is required to self-isolate for legitimate reasons, the employer can explore alternative options to allow the employee to continue to work; 

- employers may not discipline or terminate individual employees who are unable to come to work because medical or health officials have quarantined, or advised them to self-isolate and stay home because of COVID-19 concerns; 

- employers should accommodate employees who have care-giving responsibilities to the point of undue hardship, which may include working from home, reduced hours or leave without pay; 

- employers should take requests for accommodation in good faith and avoid requiring medical notes to justify employee absences where such notes are unnecessary; and 

- it is not discriminatory to lay off employees if there is no work for them to do because of the impacts of COVID-19.

Employers should also remind employees that it is unacceptable to treat other employees or members of the public differently, or assume they might be infected with COVID-19 on the basis of their race, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin or ancestry.

Assuming that someone has the virus because they happen to have exhibited one of the symptoms of the virus and because of an assumption about where they are from based upon how they look would most likely be considered discrimination.

If an employer were aware of this differential treatment and chose to do nothing about it, they could be exposed to liability since employers are in most cases vicariously liable for the actions of their employees.

Differential treatment related to this virus is not permissible.

Employers should likely go further and communicate that any employee who behaves in such a manner will be subject to corrective action and, possibly, discipline.

 

 

read more

WORKING AT HOME IS HARD FOR BOTH YOU AND YOUR EMPLOYER - TIPS AND GUIDANCE TO YOU BOTH SO YOU DO IT SUCCESSFULLY

Virtually or remotely working (from home) can be very challenging to both employees and employers.

During this pandemic, typical work procedures and arrangements must be modified and be adaptive to the new reality.

Here is some guidance and tips to both employees working at home, and employers who now must lead them remotely.

IF YOU ARE WORKING REMOTELY OR AT HOME:

  • maintain structure;
  • plan your day, as if you are going to work (follow your morning routine, try to do the same things you would ordinarily do when starting your day, subject to your other responsibilities at home, like trying to parent children at home due to the school closures;  
  • make adjustments, if needed, to the hours you ordinarily would work in the office, because of child care and other responsibilities you may now have, because you are sharing equipment with a partner who is also working from home, or for any other reason;
  • keep your employer updated on your success with your arrangements for working remotely - they will appreciate you doing so; 
  • set up a designated space for working;
  • if you are struggling with the transition, focus on the benefits (i.e., how much commute time are you saving? Consider gas, transit, coffee, or parking savings, too);
  • use technology to stay present and connected - structure your daily schedule to accommodate communication with co-workers – find new ways to maintain connection, to help prevent feelings of isolation;
  • subject to the emergency orders and healthcare officials’ recommendations, take the time to get fresh air and exercise; even in times of self-isolation, a physically distanced walk can help maintain sanity and good health;
  • if you feel like you need more guidance when working from home, initiate regular check-ins with your manager to provide more structure;  
  • good, regular communication with your employer and co-workers is essential;
  • try not express your frustration or dismay by email or texts – talk through issues by ‘phone or virtually; and
  • give yourself a break, especially if you have children at home for whom you care – don’t be too hard on yourself; you’re only human!

IF YOU ARE MANAGING EMPLOYEES WORKING REMOTELY OR AT HOME:

Leading remotely can be challenging – some guidance to be successful:  

  • check in regularly with your employees – make them feel comfortable and connected;
  • schedule regular team meetings or virtual sessions, as well as one-on-ones, to maintain the flow of work and communication;
  • e-mail and instant messages can lack tone and create misunderstandings - lead by example by not jumping to assumptions and address potential conflict immediately;
  • even if you have known your employees for years, work to maintain strong relationships from a distance;
  • express appreciation for your team, acknowledge birthdays and other special events or occurrences;
  • encourage your employees maintain work-life balance and wellness – help them set boundaries to ensure the home is not an around-the-clock workplace;
  • set clear start and finish times for yourself, as well as breaks that would normally occur in the office;
  • let your employees know when you will be “out”, or taking a break;
  • take advantage of e-mail, instant messaging and virtual technology to facilitate different ways to communicate;
  • turn video on for one-on-ones and team meetings - help your team feel more present and engaged;
  • shift to a results-focused mindset, rather than a time-focused mindset by setting clear performance goals; and
  • facilitate more flexibility with schedules, and less anxiety for parents that may be having to split their time between managing children and work.

ONTARIO’S HUMAN RIGHTS (FOR EMPLOYEES):

Remember that employees in Ontario are protected by Ontario's Human Rights Code (the "Code") in terms of the COVID-19 pandemic. Currently, those protections include: 

- it is discriminatory to treat employees who have, or are perceived to have, contracted COVID-19, in a negative manner, for reasons unrelated to public health and safety;

- employers have a duty to accommodate employees in relation to COVID-19, unless it would amount to undue hardship based on cost, or health and safety; 

- employers should not treat employees in a differential manner over COVID-concerns, unless these concerns are reasonable and consistent with the most recent advice of medical and public health officials;   

- unless an employee can provide a legitimate reason why he or she cannot work, employers have a right to expect they will continue to perform their work. If an employee is required to self-isolate for legitimate reasons, the employer can explore alternative options to allow the employee to continue to work; 

- employers may not discipline or terminate individual employees who are unable to come to work because medical or health officials have quarantined, or advised them to self-isolate and stay home because of COVID-19 concerns; 

- employers should accommodate employees who have care-giving responsibilities to the point of undue hardship, which may include working from home, reduced hours or leave without pay; 

- employers should take requests for accommodation in good faith and avoid requiring medical notes to justify employee absences where such notes are unnecessary; and 

- it is not discriminatory to lay off employees if there is no work for them to do because of the impacts of COVID-19.

Employers should also remind employees that it is unacceptable to treat other employees or members of the public differently, or assume they might be infected with COVID-19 on the basis of their race, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin or ancestry.

Assuming that someone has the virus because they happen to have exhibited one of the symptoms of the virus and because of an assumption about where they are from based upon how they look would most likely be considered discrimination.

If an employer were aware of this differential treatment and chose to do nothing about it, they could be exposed to liability since employers are in most cases vicariously liable for the actions of their employees.

Differential treatment related to this virus is not permissible.

Employers should likely go further and communicate that any employee who behaves in such a manner will be subject to corrective action and, possibly, discipline.

 

read more

LIST OF ONTARIO's EMERGENCY ORDERS TO DATE EFFECTING DAY-TO-DAY LIFE FOR RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF KAWARTHA LAKES - LIST OF THE STEEP PENALTIES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE (INCLUDING JAIL TIME)

Ontario has extended its Declaration of Emergency to April 13, 2020 – that is likely to be extended.

Social or physical distancing is not a law to date. Neither is any requirement to stay at home, although the Ontario government, and others, regularly decry this request.

ONTARIO EMERGENCY ORDERS TO DATE (APRIL 6, 2020):

Ontario has made these emergency orders that impact the day-to-day life of residents of the City of Kawartha Lakes:

Additional emergency orders have also been made, but do not directly impact residents’ day-to-day life.

A list of all of the emergency orders made by Ontario to date is available here: https://www.ontario.ca/page/emergency-information#emergencyorders

PENALTIES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE:

Non-compliance with any emergency order made by Ontario may result in significant penalties:

(a) in the case of an individual, subject to clause (b), to a fine of not more than $100,000 and for a term of imprisonment of not more than one year;

(b) in the case of an individual who is a director or officer of a corporation, to a fine of not more than $500,000 and for a term of imprisonment of not more than one year; and

(c) in the case of a corporation, to a fine of not more than $10,000,000.

read more

CKL BUSINESSES AND SELF-EMPLOYED - OUR TOP 25 LIST OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT, OPTIONS AND RELIEF THAT MAY BE AVAILABLE TO HELP YOU DURING THE CRISIS

Here is a list of financial support, options and relief available to both essential and non-essential businesses and self-employed individuals, if eligible, in the City of Kawartha Lakes, as of April 6, 2020:

[1]      the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy [75% reimbursement for ongoing wages for essential workers]

Our “Cheat Sheet” about the CEWS is available here: http://wardlegal.ca/31585663827857

[2]      if you do not qualify for the CEWS, apply for the Temporary Wage Subsidy [10%]

Our “Cheat Sheet about this alternative wage subsidy is available here: http://wardlegal.ca/31585663827857

[3]      speak to your broker about potential business interruption insurance coverage; join the contact list for the new class action in Ontario against insurers that have denied this coverage to business owners

More information from us is available here: http://wardlegal.ca/31585663827877

[4]      consider of a “Supplemental Unemployment Benefit Program” may be an option to you, topping up your employees’ EI benefits

More information from us is available here:  http://wardlegal.ca/31585663827859

[5]      the new $40,000 Line of Credit (the Canada Emergency Business Account); interest free

More information from us on this is available here: http://wardlegal.ca/31585663827865

[6]      consider “work-sharing” to reduce hours and/or avoid lay offs

More information from us about this is available here: http://wardlegal.ca/31582887996646

[7]      the new Canada Emergency Response Benefit (the “CERB”); $2,000 monthly

Our “Cheat Sheet” for the CERB is available here: http://wardlegal.ca/31585663827879

[8]      Business Development Bank funding:

The BDC has been given $10 billion from the federal government to assist small and medium-sized business with working capital and financing solutions.

More information from us about this is available here: http://wardlegal.ca/31585663827855

[9]      contact your financial institution for temporary, financial relief (mortgage and business loan deferrals, etc.):

The Bank of Canada has released an additional $300 million in capital to the primary banks, for these objectives:

  • postpone principal payments on mortgages
  • postponement of principal payments for business loans
  • access to additional working capital and loans
  • access to additional credit card limits and other principal postponements

More information from us about this is available here: http://wardlegal.ca/31585663827855

[10]    consider deferring your personal and business credit card payments temporarily

More information from us is available here: http://wardlegal.ca/31585663827867

[11]    consider deferring your corporate fax filings and tax payable, if any

More information from us about this is available here: http://wardlegal.ca/31585663827855

[12]    consider deferring your GST/HST remittances

More information from us about this is available here: http://wardlegal.ca/31585663827855

[13]    consider deferring your personal tax filing and tax payable, if any

More information from us about this is available here: http://wardlegal.ca/31585663827855

[14]    the Ontario-funded, one-time financial support payment for children and families:

They have offered a one-time payment of $200 per child up to 12 years of age, and $250 for those with special needs, including children enrolled in private schools.

They will also provide emergency child care options to support parents working on the front lines, such as health care workers, police officers, firefighters and correctional officers.

More information is available here: https://www.ontario.ca/page/get-support-families?fbclid=IwAR3AY4jo7i0bFZGES5sB58GE2bMloAh-Ta9VHYxFX2Ex28M_12KyJ-alpUE

[15]   the new electricity and energy costs:

They promise more affordable electricity bills for eligible residential, farm and small business consumers, by providing approximately $5.6 billion for electricity cost relief programs in 2020-21.  

They also promise to set electricity prices for residential, farm and small business time-of-use customers at the lowest rate, known as the off-peak price, 24 hours a day for 45 days to support ratepayers in their increased daytime electricity usage as they respond to the COVID-19 outbreak, addressing concerns about time-of-use metering.

The Ontario government represents it will provide $9 million in direct support to families for their energy bills by expanding eligibility for the Low-income Energy Assistance Program (LEAP) and ensuring that their electricity and natural gas services are not disconnected for nonpayment during the COVID-19 outbreak.

[16]  the new Employer Health Tax Exemption:

They will cut taxes by $355 million for about 57,000 employers through a proposed temporary increase to the Employer Health Tax (EHT) exemption.

  • the current exemption is $490,000
  • the 2020 exemption, retroactive to January 1, is increased to 1 million for employers with an annual payroll of less than 5 million

[17]   the new Corporate Tax Credit (Specific Regions):

They will help support communities or regions lagging in employment growth with a proposed new Corporate Income Tax Credit, the Regional Opportunities Investment Tax Credit.

[18]   consider deferring Canada Student Loan repayments for six months

More information from us about this is available here: http://wardlegal.ca/31585663827855

[19]   the reduced minimum Registered Retirement Income Fund [RRIF] withdrawals

[20]   the monthly Guaranteed Annual Income Supplement payments, if eligible, which are now doubled for the next six months

[21]   Ontario proper tax reassessment for 2020 has been deferred to 2021

[22]   Charitable and Non-Profit Organizations:

The Ontario government promises to enhance funding by $148 million for charitable and non-profit social services organizations such as food banks, homeless shelters, churches and emergency services to improve their ability to respond to COVID-19, by providing funding directly to Consolidated Municipal Service Managers and District Social Service Administration Boards who would allocate this funding based on local needs.

[23]   Tax Relief and Other Financial Incentives:

The government's plan also includes measures that will make available $10 billion in support for people and businesses through tax and other deferrals to improve their cash flows over the coming months, including:

  • making available $6 billion by providing five months of interest and penalty relief for businesses to file and make payments for the majority of provincially administered taxes;
  • over $1.8 billion by deferring the upcoming June 30 quarterly municipal remittance of education property tax to school boards by 90 days, which will provide municipalities the flexibility to, in turn, provide property tax deferrals to residents and businesses, while ensuring school boards continue to receive their funding; and
  • making available $1.9 billion by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) allowing employers to defer payments for up to six months.

[24]   the BIG BANKS:

The Bank of Montreal, CIBC, National Bank of Canada, RBC Royal Bank, Scotiabank and TD Bank have made a commitment to work with personal and small business banking customers on a case-by-case basis to provide flexible solutions to help them manage through challenges such as:

  • pay disruption due to COVID-19; 
  • childcare disruption due to school closures; and
  • those facing illness from COVID-19

This support will include up to a six-month payment deferral for mortgages, and the opportunity for relief on other credit products.

More information is available here: Canada's Six Biggest Banks Take Decisive Action To Help Customers Impacted by COVID-19

https://cba.ca/canada-six-biggest-banks-take-decisive-action-to-help-customers-impacted-by-covid-19

read more

THE CERB (EMERGENCY SUPPORT) - TEST TO QUALIFY - AMOUNT YOU GET - TAXABLE? HOW TO APPLY - MORE INFORMATION TO HELP YOU

The Canada Emergency Response Benefit (the "CERB") is now available for residents of the City of Kawartha Lakes who qualify for this financial support. 

Here is an update on the CERB, including about how it affects employees' entitlements to Employment Insurance ("EI") benefits. 

WHAT IS CERB?

The CERB provides $2,000 a month for up to four months to individuals who have ceased working due to COVID-19. By contrast, EI benefits are 55% of normal weekly earnings, up to a maximum of $573 per week.

The CERB replaces the previously announced Emergency Care Benefit and the Emergency Support Benefit.

WHEN IS IT AVAILABLE

The online portal to apply for CERB will be available in early April 2020. The Federal Government has committed to making CERB payments within 10 days of application.

The CERB is paid every four weeks and available from March 15, 2020 until October 3, 2020.

WHO IS ELIGIBLE?

The CERB is available to individuals aged 15 or over who:

  • had income of at least $5,000 in 2019 or the 12 months preceding their application for the CERB;

  • cease working for reasons related to COVID-19; and

  • receive no income for at least 14 consecutive days within the four-week period for which the CERB is claimed, regardless of whether they are EI-eligible or not.

This includes residents in the City of Kawartha Lakes who are: 

  • unemployed due to termination of employment;

  • sick;

  • quarantined;

  • taking care of someone who is sick with COVID-19;

  • working parents who must stay home without pay to care for children who are sick or at home because of school and daycare closures;

  • still employed, but are not receiving income because of disruptions to their work situation due to COVID-19; and

  • contract workers and self-employed individuals who would not otherwise be eligible for EI.

An employee who quits voluntarily is not eligible for the CERB.

DO I APPLY FOR CERB OR EI? 

CERB is available to eligible individuals, whether they qualify for EI or not. 

The Federal Government has indicated that:

  • individuals who are already receiving EI regular and sickness benefits would continue to receive their benefits and should not apply for the CERB;

  • individuals who have already applied for EI and whose application has not yet been processed would not need to re-apply. It is not clear whether this means that the EI applications already in the system will continue to be processed in the normal course or be automatically "converted" into CERB applications; and

  • individuals whose EI benefits cease before October 3, 2020 could apply for the CERB once their EI benefits cease, if they are unable to return to work due to COVID-19.

It is not clear whether the CERB will replace EI entirely during the period of March 15, 2020 to October 3, 2020, as the Federal Government's announcement seems to suggest that individuals can continue to apply for EI.

CAN I GET A TOP-UP FROM MY EMPLOYER, TOO

No, at least not for now. 

Individuals are eligible for the CERB if they do not receive income from employment or self-employment during the days on which they have ceased working. It remains to be seen if the Federal Government will introduce regulations that would allow individuals to receive top-up benefits from their employers without eliminating or reducing the CERB, similar to the Supplemental Unemployment Benefit Program for EI.

IS IT TAXABLE

Yes, at least for now, but deductions will not be made at source. 

Therefore, individuals will receive the entire $2,000 every four weeks.

More details for CERB are being rolled out, including how to apply. 

Credit: 

Bonny Mak, Fasken, published Mar. 30, 2020 

read more

HOW MUCH REGULAR EI WILL I GET?- CAN I STILL WORK ON EI? YES, YOU CAN. HERE'S HOW IT WORKS, WITH EXAMPLES

You can work while you receive EI regular benefits, if your employer offers you work.

Here’s what you need to know:

  • you have to initially serve your one-week waiting period (for EI regular benefits only);  
  • your regular benefit will be reduced by 50 cents for every dollar of income you earn, up to your “earnings threshold”;
  • your “earnings threshold” is 90% of your regular earnings while you were employed; and
  • if you earn income beyond your “earnings threshold”, your regular benefit will be reduced dollar-for-dollar;

Here is an example:

You regularly earn $500 weekly during your employ of 40 hours weekly, which is $100 daily, gross. This is your “insurable earnings” for EI purposes.

EI’s rate for regular benefits is 55%.

So, you would be eligible to receive $275 weekly. If you earned $1,000 weekly, your benefit would be $550 weekly, and so on.

Your “earnings threshold” (i.e., 90% of your regular wage) would be $450.

Now, suppose that work an additional 8 hours weekly and, therefore, you earn an additional $100.

If so, per the one-half rule, $50 will be deducted from your regular EI benefit, leaving you with $225 from EI (plus the additional $100, directly from your employer), for a total of $325.

By working more, you can earn up to $450 weekly, or your “earnings threshold”.

You cannot earn more than your “earnings threshold” by working during your receipt of EI benefits, or your benefits will end.

Here is another example:

You work 40 hours weekly and earn $1,000, gross, in regular wages.

So, you earn $200 per day and would be eligible for EI regular benefits of $550 weekly.

Your “earnings threshold” would be $900 weekly (i.e., 90% of your regular wages).

If you work an additional 16 hours weekly, earning you an additional $400, your EI benefit will be reduced to $350, after deducting one-half of your additional $400 earnings.

In total, you earned $750 by working the additional hours ($400 additional earnings, directly from your employer, pus your $350 EI regular benefit).

You have not surpassed your “earnings threshold”, either.

 

read more

YOU'RE AN ESSENTIAL WORKER? STILL WORKING? WHAT ABOUT MY PRIVACY? CAN MY EMPLOYER TAKE MY TEMP? MAKE ME GET TESTED? ASK ME IF I HAVE SYMPTOMS? ANSWERS..........

If you continue to work in an “essential workplace”, as narrowed on April 2, 2020, your employer has a statutory duty to take reasonable steps to protect your health and safety, including during this pandemic.

To do so, an employer may wish to know personal information about you, particularly related to COVID-19. Those may relate to your health, whether you have had any symptoms or if you have had any health-related assessments.

Can my employer take my temperature? Make me provide a doctor’s note that I do not have the virus? Make me do a COVID-19 assessment?

All good questions. 

While the times are entirely unprecedented, including legally, privacy law in Ontario and federally continues to apply, including for employment relationships.

So, what can employers lawfully ask? Do you have to provide the information to your employer?

Below is an excellent overview of the issue to answer all of your questions and address your concerns:

1. Can I ask employees if they have any COVID-19 symptoms?

From a privacy law perspective, asking employees if they have any COVID-19 symptoms should generally be avoided if they are not displaying any symptoms. If, however, an employer has reasonable grounds to suspect that an employee potentially has COVID-19, then asking the employee if they are exhibiting any symptoms of the illness may be reasonable and appropriate. Different rules may apply depending on the type of workplace (e.g. long-term care homes where the health and safety of others is at greater risk).

Employers may want to consider implementing a communicable illness policy that requires employees to disclose if they have, or live with someone who has, COVID-19 symptoms. Under this policy, an employee meeting that criteria should be expected to inform their employer of symptoms through a confidential process, self-isolate at home, follow the advice of the relevant public health agency on treatment and recovery, and keep the employer updated.

2. Can I ask employees to provide a medical note from their doctor?

An employer is legally entitled to request a doctor's note to justify sick leave (subject to statutory restrictions in some provinces), but because the average doctor's office is currently not equipped to test for COVID-19, a doctor's note may have little to no value at this time.

Similarly, for an employee who has already tested positive for COVID-19 or was previously symptomatic, a doctor's note could indicate if they are no longer experiencing symptoms, but not whether they are free of COVID-19. The doctor's opinion would also be based on limited information since individuals who have or recently had symptoms of COVID-19 are being advised not to attend their doctor's office, meaning that it is likely the employee would not have been physically examined.

3. Can I ask employees to get tested before reporting to work?

Employers generally cannot force employees to undergo testing, and COVID-19 testing is not available on demand. Different rules may apply for certain employers in the healthcare sector.

If an employer has reasonable grounds to suspect an employee potentially has COVID-19, the employer may ask the employee to leave work and request that the employee contact the relevant public health agency and follow their directions on whether testing is appropriate.

4. Can I take employees' temperatures (for purposes of determining if they have a fever) before allowing them to attend work?

Taking employees' temperatures may potentially be a breach of the privacy rights and dignity rights of workers under applicable human rights and privacy legislation.

However, occupational health and safety (OHS) laws are important public welfare legislation. In some cases, the OHS laws may have a superseding provision that allows protecting the lives, health, and safety of both workers and members of the public to prevail over the competing values of privacy rights and dignity rights of employees.

Taking employees' temperatures may also be permitted if there is a bona fide reason, such as a demonstrated outbreak of COVID-19 in the workplace or in the community immediately surrounding the workplace, or depending on the nature of the industry (for example - food production).

Legal advice should be sought regarding whether and how best to proceed with temperature screening. Notice should be given and the tests should be done in accordance with an established protocol in order to minimize the intrusion on employees' privacy rights as much as possible.

Credit:

Lorene A. Novakowski and Kristin Woo, Fasken, Apr. 3, 2020 - https://www.fasken.com/en/knowledge/2020/04/3-covid-19-employee-privacy-issues

read more

LOCAL BUSINESS OWNERS - YOUR CHEAT SHEET FOR THE NEW $40,000 LINE OF CREDIT (CEBA) - WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

Small-and-medium-sized business owners in the City of Kawartha Lakes – an update:

THE CANADA EMERGENCY BUSINESS ACCOUNT (“CEBA”) – A $40,000 OPERATING LINE OF CREDIT:

Eligible businesses will receive a $40,000 line of credit loan for immediate financial support to cover short term operating expenses, payroll and other non-deferrable expenses which are critical to sustain business continuity.

Additional information:

  • it’s a $40,000 government‑guaranteed loan to help eligible businesses pay for operating expenses, payroll and other non-deferrable expenses which are critical to sustain business continuity;
  • until December 31, 2020, the CEBA will be funded as a revolving line of credit for $40,000;
  • after December 31, 2020, any outstanding balance on the revolving $40,000 line of credit will be converted into a non-revolving 5‑year term loan maturing on December 31, 2025, at which time the balance must be paid in full;
  • no interest applies until January 1, 2023;
  • beginning on January 1, 2023, interest accrues on the balance of the term loan at the rate of 5% per annum, payable monthly on the last day of each month;
  • if you pay 75% of the balance of the term loan (as at January 1, 2021), on or before December 31, 2022, the remaining balance of your term loan will be forgiven. For example, if your balance is $40,000 on January 1, 2021 and you repay $30,000 on or before December 31, 2022, the remaining $10,000 will be forgiven; and
  • if you do not repay 75% of the balance of the term loan (as at January 1, 2021) on or before December 31, 2022, the full loan balance and all accrued and unpaid interest will be due and payable on December 31, 2025.

TO QUALIFY FOR CEBA:

To enroll for CEBA through a specific bank:

  • that bank will need to be your primary financial institution; and
  • you will need a business deposit account with that bank.  

To qualify:

  • your business is a registered and operational business on or before March 1, 2020;
  • the person enrolling for the CEBA must have the ability and authority to bind the organization/business;
  • your payroll expense is between $50,000 and $1 million - to confirm this, you will be required to provide the following information:
    • your employer account number, as reported at the top of your 2019 T4 Summary of Remuneration Paid;
    • your employment income reported in Box 14 of your 2019 T4 Summary of Remuneration Paid; and
    • a copy of your 2019 T4 Summary of Remuneration Paid, if requested.
  • you will also need to agree to use funds from this loan to pay for operating costs that cannot be deferred, such as payroll, rent, utilities, insurance, debt payments and property tax.

Note:

The payroll expense above does not appear to restrict pay to the owner(s) of the business, such as wages, dividends, etc. Accordingly, it appears that not only employees, but owners, who are also employees, or who also act as employees, too, may be included to calculate the annual payroll expense. 

Note:

Sole proprietors do not qualify for CEBA. The banks will not facilitate CEBA for an individual; it is only available to business clients who have been a registered operation on or before March 1, 2020 with a business operating account.

More information for sole proprietors (individuals) and additional relief measures can be found here: https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/economic-response-plan.html.

ENROLLMENT FOR CEBA:

Your bank will likely require that you enroll online only.

The banks are attempting to accept online enrollments starting in the week of April 6, 2020.

Ask your bank to notify you when online enrollment is available.

You cannot enroll for the CEBA at more than one bank. Businesses must enroll for the CEBA at their primary financial institution, where they have an existing business banking account and cannot apply at more than one financial institution. Doing so may result in legal prosecution by the federal government.

PREPARING FOR YOUR ENROLLMENT:

To prepare for enrolling, you should:

  • update your email and contact information with your bank, which you could do online, if possible; and
  • find your 2019 T4 Summary of Remuneration Paid statement, which you can obtain from the Canada Revenue Agency, if necessary.  

WHEN THE LOANS WILL BE AVAILABLE TO YOU:

This remains uncertain, mostly because it depends on your bank’s ability to process your enrollment and open your revolving line of credit.

Enrollment is likely to be online only, so you should regularly check with your bank for when online application becomes available.

Your bank will contact you when your enrollment process is live. 

MULTIPLE BUSINESSES:

If you own or operate multiples businesses, each business entity may enroll for CEBA.

Each business must individually meet the eligibility criteria.

MULTIPLE OWNERS OF THE BUSINESS:

You must ensure that the person enrolling your organization has the authority to attest on behalf of the organization and bind the organization to the terms of the CEBA loan agreement.

INTEREST ON THE LOAN:

  • until December 31, 2020, the CEBA will likely be funded as a revolving line of credit for $40,000;
  • after December 31, 2020, any outstanding balance on the revolving $40,000 line of credit is likely to be converted into a non-revolving 5‑year term loan maturing on December 31, 2025, at which time the balance must be paid in full;
  • no interest applies until January 1, 2023;
  • commencing on January 1, 2023, interest accrues on the balance of the term loan at the rate of 5% per annum, payable monthly on the last day of each month;
  • if you pay 75% of the balance of the term loan (as at January 1, 2021), on or before December 31, 2022, the remaining balance of your term loan will be forgiven. For example, if your balance is $40,000 on January 1, 2021 and you repay $30,000 on or before December 31, 2022, the remaining $10,000 will be forgiven; and
  • if you do not repay 75% of the balance of the term loan (as at January 1, 2021) on or before December 31, 2022, the full loan balance and all accrued and unpaid interest will be due and payable on December 31, 2025.

WHEN TO START REPAYMENT ON THE LOAN:

You may start repaying the loan in part or in full at any time, but repayment is not required until December 31, 2025 at which time the entire loan and all accrued and unpaid interest is due.

IF YOU RECEIVE OTHER COVID-19 RELIEF:

If you are receiving other COVID-19 relief, such as the CERB, you may still apply for CEBA.

DEFERRING CREDIT CARD PAYMENTS:

Most of the banks, if not all, are accepting requests to temporarily waive the requirement that you pay your minimum payment on your credit card for up to two months. Some banks have set up new, online webforms to do so. If you need relief beyond the two-month period, you should contact your bank advisor for additional deferrals up to a total of six months.

However, requests are not guaranteed.

Deferred payments will not be reported to credit bureaus as missed payments.

During the deferral period, you will continue to accrue interest charges at your current annual interest rates and we will add those charges to your outstanding balance.

This may increase the outstanding balance on your credit card at the end of the deferral period.

Most banks, if not all, will not charge interest on accrued interest.

read more

COVID-19 - DEFERRING YOUR PERSONAL AND BUSINESS CREDIT CARD PAYMENTS - YES, TEMPORARILY AND WITHOUT PENALTY

As part of the federal Government's COVID-19 economic response plan, it has strongly encouraged the Big Banks to allow consumers to defer credit card payments, without penalty, at least temporarily. 

Currently, most of the banks, if not all, are accepting requests to temporarily waive the requirement that you pay your minimum payment on your credit card for up to two months.

Some banks have set up new, online webforms to do so.

If you need relief beyond the two-month period, you should contact your bank advisor for additional deferrals up to a total of six months.

However, requests are not guaranteed.

Deferred payments will not be reported to credit bureaus as missed payments.

During the deferral period, you will continue to accrue interest charges at your current annual interest rates and we will add those charges to your outstanding balance.

This may increase the outstanding balance on your credit card at the end of the deferral period.

Most banks, if not all, will not charge interest on accrued interest.

read more

CLARITY TO LOCAL BUSINESSES - WHETHER ESSENTIAL - WHAT YOU CAN/CANNOT DO - STEEP PENALTIES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE

As of March 24, all “non-essential” businesses must be closed [Regulation 82/20 of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act (the “Regulation”)].

The Regulation also permits “non-essential” businesses to allow temporary access for very specific purposes, which are explained below.

Essential businesses are:

  • supply chain
  • retail and wholesale of food
  • food services and accommodations
  • institutional, residential, commercial and industrial maintenance
  • telecommunications and IT infrastructure service providers
  • transportation
  • manufacturing and production
  • agriculture and food production
  • construction
  • financial activities
  • resources
  • environmental services
  • utilities and community services
  • communications
  • research
  • health care and social services
  • justice
  • business regulators and inspectors
  • other specific business activities.

For non-essential businesses, temporary access is permitted only:

  • to perform work at the business in order to comply with any applicable law
  • to allow for inspection, maintenance or repair
  • to allow for the provision of security services
  • to deal with critical matters related to the closure of the business
  • to access materials needed for the business to operate remotely.

Non-essential businesses may also operate remotely or provide services online or by telephone.

PENALTIES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE:

Non-compliance with the Regulation may result in significant penalties:

(a) in the case of an individual, subject to clause (b), to a fine of not more than $100,000 and for a term of imprisonment of not more than one year;

(b) in the case of an individual who is a director or officer of a corporation, to a fine of not more than $500,000 and for a term of imprisonment of not more than one year; and

(c) in the case of a corporation, to a fine of not more than $10,000,000.

read more

COVID-19 - LAID OFF? COLLECTING EI? CAN YOUR EMPLOYER 'TOP UP' YOUR WAGES WITHOUT REDUCING YOUR BENEFITS? YES - USE A "SUB" PLAN

Employers – if you have had to temporarily laid off any employees due to the pandemic, you may have the option of temporarily ‘topping up’ their earnings during the lay offs, above and beyond their Employment Insurance (“IE”) benefits.

You can do so by using a “Supplemental Unemployment Benefit Program” (a “SUB plan”).

You can enter an agreement with the federal Government to have a SUB plan.

Wage payments  made under a SUB plan are not earnings and, therefore, these payments will not be deducted from an employee’s EI benefits.

To use this option, employers must register the SUB plan with Service Canada before it can be implemented. When a plan is submitted to Service Canada, the officer will review and ensure it complies with the necessary requirements. If needed, officers can help employers develop and revise plans to meet the requirements.

Here are the basic requirements:

  • identifying which employees the SUB plan will cover by group or position (not by name);
  • including a start and end date for the SUB plan;
  • covering any period of unemployment because of temporary work stoppage, illness, injury, or quarantine;
  • requiring employees to apply for and receive benefits;
    • if an employee is not receiving benefits, they may still be eligible in certain circumstances.
  • confirming that the combined amount received from the plan and the employee’s weekly EI benefits is not more than 95 percent of the employee’s normal weekly earnings;
  • outlining the method used by the employer to finance the SUB payments, and confirming that payments are financed exclusively by the employer;
  • requiring any changes to be made in writing and submitted to Service Canada within 30 days of the change;
  • explaining that the employees have no vested rights to these payments other than during the applicable period;
  • providing that payments for other guaranteed annual renumerations, deferred renumerations or severance benefits are not affected by these payments;
  • your SUB plan must be approved by the government before it is implemented.

There may be other options and advantages for your SUB plan, too.

For example, employers may be able to require that employees return to work for a specified period after these supplemental employment benefits are paid.

Approval from the Service Canada SUB Program must be received before it is implemented.

More information is available here:

https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/ei/ei-list/ei-employers-supplemental-unemployment-benefit.html

 

read more

THE TWELVE RULES TO FOLLOW IF YOU MUST LEAVE YOUR HOME – WHEN BUYING ESSENTIAL GOODS – GAS; GROCERY SHOPPING; PHARMACY – CIVILITY AND RESPECT MUST PREVAIL – CONTAINMENT IS CRITICAL

If you must leave your home, despite the strong recommendations by our governments and health officials to do your best not to, nothing has changed in terms of how we interact with each other in our community. Respect and civility are essential, as has always been the case. The virus does not change that.

When you must leave, if so, such as to buy essential goods only, please adhere to these twelve, simple rules:

  1. follow the containment measures implemented by the essential service, including standing on the taped distance lines;
  2. always engage in the ‘hockey stick’ rule (i.e., physical distancing of two metres; six feet), including with essential workers;
  3. only one family member should attend the essential service, not more;
  4. only buy groceries, get gas, get your drugs, etc. no more than one per week; no social browsing or shopping – if possible, limit it to once bi-weekly;
  5. do not attend with your own bags or containers;
  6. minimize any chit-chat and social interaction with any other customers or essential service workers; no gathering; no idle talking;
  7. strictly adhere to all COVID-19 containment measures, including coughing, if necessary, into your elbow, washing your hands thoroughly immediately before and after you attend the essential service;
  8. minimize your time in the essential service – prepare and take a list in advance; no browsing;
  9. importantly, do not vent to the essential workers – they are endangering themselves to help you; none should be exposed to ridicule, criticism, complaints or general frustration;
  10. thank every essential worker you see, if possible – just a quick, “Thank you for everything” – no need to engage in a discussion;
  11. if possible, consider providing a tip to an essential worker and, if so: a) strictly physically distance; and b) provide the cash tip in an envelope and lay it at the counter only; and
  12. be civil, respectful, polite, courteous and cordial to everyone, particularly the essential workers, as you would at any time before the onset of this pandemic.

Altruism and comity must triumph; it is how we will overcome this crisis.

 

read more

UPDATE - NEW WAGE SUBSIDY - AVOID LAY OFFS - YOUR CHEAT SHEET TO KEEPING EMPLOYEES ON PAYROLL - GOVERNMENT WILL PAY 75% OF WAGES - AS OF MAR. 2, 2020

More details about the federal government's new wage subsidy, intended to encourage employers to avoid lay offs and keep employees on the payroll: 

NEW 75% CANADA EMERGENCY WAGE SUBSIDY – ALL EMPLOYERS [REFUND]:

  • all employees are eligible, except public sector;
  • 75 per cent wage subsidy on the first $58,700 normally earned by employees [a benefit of up to $847 per week];  
  • will be available a 12-week period, from March 15 to June 6, 2020;
  • government will refund the wage subsidy; not an adjustment to income tax source deductions, etc.
  • employer must show a drop in gross revenues of at least 30 per cent in March, April or May, compared to the same month in 2019;
  • non-profit organizations and registered charities affected by a loss of revenue, the government will continue to work with the sector to ensure the definition of revenue is appropriate to their circumstances;  
  • government is also considering additional support for non-profits and charities, particularly those involved in the front line response to COVID-19 - further details to follow;
  • an eligible employer’s entitlement to this wage subsidy will be based entirely on the salary or wages actually paid to employees;  
  • all employers would be expected to at least make best efforts to top up salaries to 100% of the maximum wages covered;
  • eligible will be able to access the subsidy by applying through a Canada Revenue Agency online portal, which should be available within three to six weeks;
  • does not replace the previously announced 10% wage subsidy for eligible employers;  
  • employers eligible for both subsidies for a period, any benefit from the 10% wage subsidy an employer receives is expected to reduce the amount available to that employer from the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy;
  • more information here: https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/news/2020/04/government-announces-details-of-the-canada-emergency-wage-subsidy-to-help-businesses-keep-canadians-in-their-jobs.html

EXISTING 10% WAGE SUBSIDY [CREDIT; REDUCTION IN TAX PAYABLE]:

  • small-and-medium business that do not suffer revenue reductions;
  • still available for employers that do not qualify for the 75% subsidy;
  • 10% wage subsidy for the period March 18 to before June 20;
  • maximum subsidy of $1,375 per employee and $25,000 per employer;
  • when the subsidy is calculated, reduce the current payroll remittance of income tax (but not EI nor CPP);
  • employees’ pay and deductions remain unchanged; and
  • more information here: https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/campaigns/covid-19-update/frequently-asked-questions-wage-subsidy-small-businesses.html#h1

NOTE:

Employees will not be able to receive both the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy and the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB). 

You can apply for the CERB as of April 6.

NEW ONTARIO HELP FOR BUSINESSES TO SUPPLY PPE AND MEDICAL EQUIPMENT:

On April 1, 2020, the Ontario government announced the launch of a $50-million fund named the Ontario Together Fund.  

The purpose of the fund is to “help businesses provide innovative solutions or retool their operations in order to manufacture essential medical supplies and equipment, including gowns, coveralls, masks, face shields, testing equipment and ventilators.” 

The fund will be available to companies and organizations across the province. 

Businesses may submit proposals to the government through the Ontario Together portal.

read more

UPDATE TO SEPARATED AND DIVORCED CO-PARENTS - THE TEST YOU NEED TO MEET TO CHANGE THE EXISTING PARENTING ARRANGEMENTS DURING THE PANDEMIC - GENERAL CONCERN IS NOT ENOUGH

If any co-parent seeks to change the existing parenting arrangements arising from, or related to, COVID-19, the following test will be applied by the Family Court before the request will be considered:
[1] firstly, the co-parent must prove specific evidence or examples of behavior or plans by the other parent which are inconsistent with COVID-19 protocols;
[2] the co-parent responding to such an urgent motion will be required to provide specific and absolute reassurance that COVID-19 safety measures will be meticulously adhered to – including social distancing; use of disinfectants; compliance with public safety directives; etc.
[3] both parents will be required to provide very specific and realistic time-sharing proposals, which fully address all COVID-19 considerations, in a child-focused manner; and
[4] Family Court judges will likely take judicial notice of the fact that social distancing is now becoming both commonplace and accepted, given the number of public facilities which have now been closed.
General concern about exposure is insufficient.
This is a very good time for both custodial and access parents to spend time with their child at home - this is strongly recommended by the Family Court during this turbulent times.
No co-parent should attempt to take any tactical parenting advantage over the other co-parent related to the pandemic. The Family Court will be loathe to sanction any such conduct.
Guerin v. Guerin, March 31, 2020, FC-20-576
read more

SELF-EMPLOYED/BUSINESS OWNERS/NOT-FOR-PROFITS - WHAT IS BEING DONE RIGHT NOW TO HEP ME/US BY BOTH THE FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS AND THE BIG BANKS? YOUR ANSWERS, AS OF APR. 1, 2020

As of April 1, 2020, here is a summary of the financial and other assistance being offered to self-employed individuals and small-to-medium-size businesses in Ontario, including non-profit and charitable organizations:

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:

Income Tax:

Businesses can defer payments, until after August 31, 2020, on any income tax amounts that become owing on or after March 18, 2020 and before September 2020. No interest or penalties will accumulate during this period. Nothing further needs to be done by businesses to access this relief.

The CRA has also indicated that it will not initiate any post assessment GST/HST or Income Tax audits in the next four weeks. 

Business Credit Availability Program:

The Business Credit Availability Program includes: [1] Canada Emergency Business Account; [2] Loan Guarantee for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises; [3] Co-Lending Program for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. These three programs are expected to roll out April 20, 2020.

Additional capital is promised and soon-to-be-available to support businesses experiencing cash flow interruptions through the Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC) and Export Development Canada (EDC).

Businesses must contact their financial institution for an assessment of their situation, which will refer the business either to BDC or EDC if their financial need is greater than what can be offered in the private sector.

It is anticipated that BDC will evaluate each business on a case by case basis, and loans will only be approved for businesses that were financially viable except for the cash flow interruption caused by COVID-19.

The Canada Emergency Business Account will also provide interest-free loans of up to $40,000 to small business and not-for-profits.

To qualify, the organization must have paid between $50,000 to $1 million in total payroll in 2019.

Loan Guarantee for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises and Co-Lending Program for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises will also offer loans of up to $6.25 million.

Canada Emergency Response Benefit (“CERB”):

Self-employed individuals and others who would not otherwise be eligible for Employment Insurance (“EI”) would be covered by CERB. CERB will provide a taxable benefit of $2,000 a month for up to four months, and the portal to apply for the benefit will be available in early April.

CERB will also apply to any employees who are not receiving income because of disruptions to work.

You can more information from us about CERB here: http://wardlegal.ca/31585663827847.

Expanded Wage Subsidy:  

On March 28, the federal Government announced changes this program, including a 75 per cent wage subsidy, for up to three months, retroactive to March 15, 2020.

This wage subsidy is available to all companies, non-profits organizations that experience a drop of at least 30 per cent of its revenue.

The cap for the subsidy is 75 percent of $57,800, which is up to $847 each week.

There is no cap on the size of the company nor the number of employees.

You can more information from us about this wage subsidy here: http://wardlegal.ca/31585663827845.

GST/HST Deferment:

GST and HST payments, and duties and taxes on imports, will be deferred until June.

Work-Sharing Program:

Work-Sharing is an existing adjustment program designed to avoid layoffs when there is a temporary reduction in normal business activity for specific industries.

This is a three-party agreement between employers, employees and Service Canada, where an agreement is reached to reduce scheduled work and to share the available work.

Under the program, the maximum duration of Work-Sharing agreements is now 76 weeks.

You can find more information from us about working-sharing here: http://wardlegal.ca/31582887996646

THE ONTARIO GOVERNMENT:

Child-Related Assistance:

They have offered a one-time payment of $200 per child up to 12 years of age, and $250 for those with special needs, including children enrolled in private schools.

They will also provide emergency child care options to support parents working on the front lines, such as health care workers, police officers, firefighters and correctional officers.

Electricity and Energy Costs:

They promise more affordable electricity bills for eligible residential, farm and small business consumers, by providing approximately $5.6 billion for electricity cost relief programs in 2020-21.  

They also promise to set electricity prices for residential, farm and small business time-of-use customers at the lowest rate, known as the off-peak price, 24 hours a day for 45 days to support ratepayers in their increased daytime electricity usage as they respond to the COVID-19 outbreak, addressing concerns about time-of-use metering.

The Ontario government represents it will provide $9 million in direct support to families for their energy bills by expanding eligibility for the Low-income Energy Assistance Program (LEAP) and ensuring that their electricity and natural gas services are not disconnected for nonpayment during the COVID-19 outbreak.

Employer Health Tax Exemption:

They will cut taxes by $355 million for about 57,000 employers through a proposed temporary increase to the Employer Health Tax (EHT) exemption.

Corporate Tax Credit (Specific Regions):

They will help support communities or regions lagging in employment growth with a proposed new Corporate Income Tax Credit, the Regional Opportunities Investment Tax Credit.

Charitable and Non-Profit Organizations:

The Ontario government promises to enhance funding by $148 million for charitable and non-profit social services organizations such as food banks, homeless shelters, churches and emergency services to improve their ability to respond to COVID-19, by providing funding directly to Consolidated Municipal Service Managers and District Social Service Administration Boards who would allocate this funding based on local needs.

Tax Relief and Other Financial Incentives:

The government's plan also includes measures that will make available $10 billion in support for people and businesses through tax and other deferrals to improve their cash flows over the coming months, including:

  • making available $6 billion by providing five months of interest and penalty relief for businesses to file and make payments for the majority of provincially administered taxes;

  • over $1.8 billion by deferring the upcoming June 30 quarterly municipal remittance of education property tax to school boards by 90 days, which will provide municipalities the flexibility to, in turn, provide property tax deferrals to residents and businesses, while ensuring school boards continue to receive their funding; and

  • making available $1.9 billion by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) allowing employers to defer payments for up to six months.

THE BIG BANKS:

The Bank of Montreal, CIBC, National Bank of Canada, RBC Royal Bank, Scotiabank and TD Bank have made a commitment to work with personal and small business banking customers on a case-by-case basis to provide flexible solutions to help them manage through challenges such as:

  • pay disruption due to COVID-19; 

  • childcare disruption due to school closures; and

  • those facing illness from COVID-19

This support will include up to a six-month payment deferral for mortgages, and the opportunity for relief on other credit products.

More information is available here: Canada's Six Biggest Banks Take Decisive Action To Help Customers Impacted by COVID-19

https://cba.ca/canada-six-biggest-banks-take-decisive-action-to-help-customers-impacted-by-covid-19

read more

NEED EMERGENCY FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO PAY RENT, BUY ESSENTIAL GOODS? UNEMPLOYED? DO NOT QUALIFY FOR EI OR CERB? DON'T GIVE UP - CONTACT YOUR MUNICIPALITY TO APPLY FOR SUPPORT

Do you need emergency financial support, but do not qualify for any federal payments (EI, CERB)?

Need to pay rent, or buy essential goods? Unemployed? Vulnerable? Living in poverty? 

Don’t give up – you can actually apply to the City of Kawartha Lakes (or your own municipality) for emergency support.

Emergency financial support may also be available to you, if you are experiencing financial crisis due to the virus pandemic, and who are unable to access other financial support, such as the new federal Government’s CERB.

This may include those of us who are vulnerable, such as living in poverty, homeless or those who are, or who have become, unemployed related to COVID-19.

Under the provincial Emergency Assistance program, if you have been laid off, told you cannot work or you are unable to work due to COVID-19, you may be entitled to receive up to $1,170 for a 48-day period.

Families with two children could be entitled to $2,000 for a 48-day period, if eligible.

Based on recent changes, you may also be entitled to access these benefits more than one time in any six-month period. 

This emergency benefit is intended to help with paying for needs, including food, rent, medicine, and other essential items.

If you do not qualify for EI regular or sickness benefits, you cannot access the new CERB, and you have limited access to other income/assets to assist you, you can apply for these emergency benefits, too. 

You should contact the City of Kawartha Lakes about this potential benefit and information on how to apply for your benefits.

To date, it does not appear that the City has made available an online application process.  You may have to apply by ‘phone.

The Ontario government is working on and trying to roll out a more streamlined and accessible application – it should be available soon from the province, too.

For now, and although the City does not appear to have information on its Web site about this potential benefit to you, you should contact the City’s Social Services division:

Toll free: 1-877-324-9870

Tel: 705-328-2875

You can also email that division here: https://www.kawarthalakes.ca/en/living-here/social-services.aspx

You can find more information here:

https://news.ontario.ca/opo/en/2020/03/changes-to-ontarios-emergency-assistance-program-in-response-to-covid-19.html

read more

MAR. 31 - UPDATE ON CERB - WHAT IT IS - WHO QUALIFIES - WHEN TO APPLY - TOP UPS - TAXABLE? - WHAT IF I GET EI? YOUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED

The Canada Emergency Response Benefit (the "CERB") is now available for residents of the City of Kawartha Lakes who qualify for this financial support. 

Here is an update on the CERB, including about how it affects employees' entitlements to Employment Insurance ("EI") benefits. 

WHAT IS CERB?

The CERB provides $2,000 a month for up to four months to individuals who have ceased working due to COVID-19. By contrast, EI benefits are 55% of normal weekly earnings, up to a maximum of $573 per week.

The CERB replaces the previously announced Emergency Care Benefit and the Emergency Support Benefit.

WHEN IS IT AVAILABLE

The online portal to apply for CERB will be available in early April 2020. The Federal Government has committed to making CERB payments within 10 days of application.

The CERB is paid every four weeks and available from March 15, 2020 until October 3, 2020.

WHO IS ELIGIBLE?

The CERB is available to individuals aged 15 or over who:

  • had income of at least $5,000 in 2019 or the 12 months preceding their application for the CERB;

  • cease working for reasons related to COVID-19; and

  • receive no income for at least 14 consecutive days within the four-week period for which the CERB is claimed, regardless of whether they are EI-eligible or not.

 

This includes residents in the City of Kawartha Lakes who are: 

  • unemployed due to termination of employment;

  • sick;

  • quarantined;

  • taking care of someone who is sick with COVID-19;

  • working parents who must stay home without pay to care for children who are sick or at home because of school and daycare closures;

  • still employed, but are not receiving income because of disruptions to their work situation due to COVID-19; and

  • contract workers and self-employed individuals who would not otherwise be eligible for EI.

An employee who quits voluntarily is not eligible for the CERB.

DO I APPLY FOR CERB OR EI? 

CERB is available to eligible individuals, whether they qualify for EI or not. 

The Federal Government has indicated that:

  • individuals who are already receiving EI regular and sickness benefits would continue to receive their benefits and should not apply for the CERB;

  • individuals who have already applied for EI and whose application has not yet been processed would not need to re-apply. It is not clear whether this means that the EI applications already in the system will continue to be processed in the normal course or be automatically "converted" into CERB applications; and

  • individuals whose EI benefits cease before October 3, 2020 could apply for the CERB once their EI benefits cease, if they are unable to return to work due to COVID-19.

 

It is not clear whether the CERB will replace EI entirely during the period of March 15, 2020 to October 3, 2020, as the Federal Government's announcement seems to suggest that individuals can continue to apply for EI.

CAN I GET A TOP-UP FROM MY EMPLOYER, TOO

No, at least not for now. 

Individuals are eligible for the CERB if they do not receive income from employment or self-employment during the days on which they have ceased working. It remains to be seen if the Federal Government will introduce regulations that would allow individuals to receive top-up benefits from their employers without eliminating or reducing the CERB, similar to the Supplemental Unemployment Benefit Program for EI.

IS IT TAXABLE

Yes, at least for now, but deductions will not be made at source. 

Therefore, individuals will receive the entire $2,000 every four weeks.

More details for CERB are being rolled out, including how to apply. 

Credit: 

Bonny Mak, Fasken, published Mar. 30, 2020 

 

 

read more

I'M ORDERED TO CLOSE THE BUSINESS, OR HAVE TO DUE TO LACK OF WORK - DO I LAY OFF THE EMPLOYEES? DO I PLACE THEM ON EMERGENCY LEAVE OF ABSENCE? HOW DO I CHOOSE? HOW DO I DO THE ROE?

FIRST QUESTION - ARE YOU “ESSENTIAL”?  

Review the list of essential workplaces here:

https://www.ontario.ca/page/list-essential-workplaces?_ga=2.260478349.1694204923.1585063245-661911018.1585063245

Make sure you are certain whether your business may continue in operation lawfully, or shut down by the Ontario government’s emergency order.

If you are not an “essential workplace”, per the list, you may have to determine whether your employees will be laid off, or placed on a Declared Emergency Leave (a “DEL”), per the recent changes to Ontario’s Employment Standards Act, 2000 (the “ESA”) (primarily the new job-protected, unpaid leave of absence available to employees who cannot work due or, or arising from, COVID-19.

You can find more information from us about the DELs here: http://wardlegal.ca/31582887996624 and here: http://wardlegal.ca/31582887996626

Remember, teleworking and online commerce are permitted at all times for all businesses.

WHAT IF YOU ARE “ESSENTIAL”, BUT NEED TO TEMPORARILY CLOSE DUE TO THE VIRUS?

You may need to consider temporary suspension of your business operations because of: (1) lack of work; or (2) the perception publicly, or otherwise, that you are not an essential business and are required to close, except for the ability to continue by teleworking or by remote operations.

This is important, because if your business is an “essential workplace”, but you stop operations anyway, it may impact whether you should lay off your employees, or place them on a DEL, legally. 

CAN I USE ‘WORK-SHARING’ TO AVOID LAY OFFS?

The federal work-sharing program is a potentially viable alternative to lay offs, if you qualify.

You can find more information from us on avoiding lay offs by using work-sharing here: http://wardlegal.ca/31582887996646

DO I LAY OFF EMPLOYEES OR PLACE THEM ON A DECLARED EMERGENCY LEAVE UNDER THE ESA?

If your business is not an “essential workplace” and, therefore, is required to cease operations due to the emergency order by the Ontario government, your employees are very likely eligible to be placed on a job-protected, unpaid DEL under the ESA and, as a result, they will also very likely be eligible to obtain employment insurance benefits (“EI”) or, alternatively, the new CERB, from the federal government. However, since a DEL is a statutory leave of absence permitted by the ESA, if your employees have extended health benefits, they should be continued during the DEL.

You can find more information from us about EI benefits and the CERB here: http://wardlegal.ca/31585663827847

However, if your business is not required to close by order, but you will be stopping your operations for other legitimate reasons, such as lack of work and demand, etc., this may still be temporary lay-off under the ESA and, therefore, your staff are eligible to apply for benefits under the EI Act.

EI benefits may offer your employees a greater financial benefit than the CERB, or vice versa.

Also, if you lay off employees, you have a statutory duty to call them back in thirteen weeks, unless the pandemic continues at that time and subject to any emergency orders in effect at that time.

Therefore, whether to lay off or place employees on DEL depends on:

[1] whether you are an “essential workplace”;

[2] whether you are closing by order, or voluntarily and, if the latter, whether you have legitimate business reasons to do so; and

[3] which route would increase the financial benefit to your employees during this pandemic; and

[4] if you have choice, whether you are comfortable, from a business perspective, with the potential obligation to call back your employees within a specified period of time, per the ESA, subject to the uncertain, future events for this pandemic. 

HOW DO I COMPLETE RECORDS OF EMPLOYMENT (ROEs)?

Here is how:

A – For layoff (i.e., lack of work)

D – For illness or injury (i.e., illness or quarantine due to COVID-19)

N – For leave (i.e., DEL in Ontario)

You can find more information about ROEs here: https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/corporate/notices/coronavirus.html

Service Canada has indicated that:

If your employees are directly affected by the coronavirus (COVID-19) and they are no longer working, you must issue a Record of Employment (ROE). When the employee is sick or quarantined, use code D (Illness or injury) as the reason for separation (block 16). Do not add comments. When the employee is no longer working due to a shortage of work because the business has closed or decreased operations due to coronavirus (COVID-19), use code A (Shortage of work). Do not add comments. When the employee refuses to come to work but is not sick or quarantined, use code E (Quit) or code N (Leave of absence), as appropriate. Avoid adding comments unless absolutely necessary.”

You should not use code E (i.e., the employee quit) without seeking legal advice before doing so, even if the employee refuses to go to or attend work, rightly or wrongly.

read more

MAR. 31 - UPDATE ON THE NEW FEDERAL WAGE SUBSIDY - 75% FOR EACH EMPLOYEE - IT'S A CREDIT, NOT A DIRECT PAYMENT - WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

As of March 30, 2020, businesses and organizations in the City of Kawartha Lakes who suffer a loss of not less than thirty per cent of revenue related to, or arising from, COVID-19, are now eligible for a wage subsidy of up to seventy-five per cent of each employee’s wages.

This program is called the “Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy” (the “Program”).

According to the federal Government’s announcements for the Program:

[1] it will provide a subsidy of up to seventy-five per cent of an employee’s wages (up from ten per cent, previously announced);

[2] it will apply to and extend to charities, non-profit organizations and both “large and small” businesses (before this, the only business corporations eligible were Canadian-controlled, private corporations that qualify for the small business deduction);

[3] it will benefit employers that have experienced a revenue decrease of at least thirty per cent due to, or arising from, COVID-19;

[4] apply to the first $58,700 earned per employee, being equivalent to up to $847 per week per employee (there is no longer any cap at the lesser of $1,375 per employee and $25,000 per employer); and

[5] be retroactive to March 15, 2020.

It is anticipated that the wage subsidiary will be available to businesses and organization by allowing an eligible employer to reduce the amount the employer would otherwise have to remit to the Canada Revenue Agency for payroll withholdings. In other words, it is an indirect wage subsidy, rather than a direct payment from the federal Government, at least for now. 

Legislation will also have to be enacted by the federal Government to solidify the Program, which hopefully will be tabled and passed promptly. It will need to be retroactive, too.    

The Program, as it currently stands, does not mean that employers pay employees only the seventy-five per cent the covered by the Program.

Rather, employers may only claim a credit for seventy-five per cent of what they actually pay their employees.

Claiming a tax credit under false pretences is an offence under the federal Income Tax Act.

The Program may continue to change and evolve as the pandemic continues.  

 

read more

COVID-19: NOT COMPLYING? BIG FINES. IMPRISONMENT. QUARANTINE IN CUSTODY.

Many residents locally express increasing concerns about and rightfully question what enforcement measures are being taken, for example, to:

[1] force returning travelers, who are not taking precautionary virus measures, to self-isolate; and

[2] ensure compliance generally with other emergency health declarations and orders in effect by the provincial and federal Governments, applying to everyone during this pandemic.

CANADA

To date, federally, the following orders have been made, with the corresponding enforcement measures being taken by the federal Government:

[1]      TRAVELERS RETURNING:

There is now a federal Emergency Order in effect, requiring any person entering Canada by air, sea or land to self-isolate for fourteen days, whether or not they have symptoms of COVID-19. The Government of Canada will use its authority under the federal Quarantine Act to ensure compliance with the order. Failure to comply with this Order is an offense under the Quarantine Act.

Maximum penalties for non-compliance include:

- a fine of up to $750,000; and/or
- imprisonment for six months.

[2]      EVERYONE (NOT ONLY RETURNING TRAVELERS):

In addition, for everyone, any person who causes a risk of imminent death or serious bodily harm to another person while wilfully or recklessly contravening the Quarantine Act could be liable for:

- a fine of up to $1,000,000; or
- imprisonment of up to three years, or to both.

Spot checks will be conducted by the Government of Canada to verify compliance.

All individuals permitted to enter Canada are subject to this order, with the exception of certain persons who cross the border regularly to ensure the continued flow of goods and services, and those who provide essential services. Individuals exempt from the order will still need to practice social distancing and self monitoring and contact their local public health authority if they feel sick.

Individuals displaying symptoms of COVID-19 after arriving in Canada may not use public transportation to travel to their place of isolation. They also may not isolate in a place where they will be in contact with vulnerable people, such as seniors and individuals with underlying health conditions.

Since 2005, we have had the Quarantine Act available to require and govern preventative measures due to pandemic, like COVID-19, including mandatory self-isolation and quarantine and enforcement measures. The federal Health Minister is also statutorily empowered to require Ontario to take quarantine measures, including stay-at-home orders, closure of non-essential businesses and to establish self-isolation/quarantine facilities for those who do not comply.

Notably the federal Government has yet to enact the Emergencies Act, which would give it sweeping, broad powers to centrally control virus containment enforcement across the country. Many continue to question this decision, but if the so-called curve does not flatten fairly soon, it is expected the federal Government will also take this extraordinary “war times” measure.   

ONTARIO

The Government of Ontario has so far announced, for example, a $750 fine for failing to comply with a provincial order, including an emergency health declaration. There are additional fines that could be levied for obstructing a person ($1,000). Corporations can face much higher fines for non-compliance with Ontario’s emergency health orders, such as being closed if not classified as an essential service (up to $500,000). 

The Ontario Provincial Police have announced they will enforce any provincial health orders, such as closing non-essential businesses and maximum gathering capacity. They also report they will, under Ontario’s Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, continue to strictly enforce any further health emergency declarations by the federal and provincial government.

It is unclear how much enforcement has been undertaken by the OPP to date. It does not appear there have been any imprisonments, at least. 

MUNICIPAL

There is no consistent, unified approach among municipalities, or their municipal police services.

Few municipalities seem to be taking pro-active, decisive and independent enforcement measures. Others, such as the City of Toronto, have announced very significant fines and imprisonment terms for those who violate provincial orders. That city continues to set up its enforcement team, led by Toronto Public Health. Non-compliance will escalate to the Toronto Police service, if necessary.

The City of Kawartha Lakes, which has authority to establish its own enforcement measures, as it has officially declared a state of emergency, has yet to adopt or implement any specific enforcement measures for non-compliance with either provincial or federal orders. As it stands, the Lindsay Police Service, for example, working with both our Health Unit and the City, will rely on Canada’s Criminal Code, existing governmental orders and municipal licensing standards to enforce safety and containment measures.

Municipally-driven enforcement measures are ostensibly piecemeal and uncoordinated. Some municipalities, particularly those more urbanized, are doing more than others.

As a result, there is an increasing call throughout Ontario, and other provinces, for the federal Government to enact the Emergencies Act, including to centralize and directly control a country-wide standard for enforcement measures in an effort to contain the virus. 

read more

COVID-19 - NEW HELP FOR SMALL BUSINESSES - WAGE SUBSIDY AND GUARANTEED LOANS

The federal government has now announced more financial support to small and medium-sized businesses, including to avoid lay offs and try to maintain payroll during the pandemic.

Specifically, a new 75% wage subsidy has been declared. Previously the federal Government has announced a 10% wage subsidy.

Secondly, small and medium-sized business can apply for and obtain loans, that the federal Government will GUARANTEE for up to $40,000.

These loans must be interest-free for the first year of the loan.

If you qualify as an eligible small business and you maintain employing your staff on a full-time basis, you may reduce the amount of tax you pay at end-of-month payroll by 75% of wages paid (i.e., an indirect wage subsidy).

You, or your payroll agent, will have to self-calculate your monthly wage subsidy, which you realize by way of reduced tax deductions at source.

Get more information and keep updated here, including when to begin the wage subsidy program:

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/news/2020/03/canadas-covid-19-economic-response-plan-support-for-canadians-and-businesses.html?fbclid=IwAR2bwxtdMg1SmbBIOh59r22eUOKfJJCltLmDf-emma8pEkKGDTB75RCSE8I

read more

QUICK LINKS TO THE FEDERAL FINANCIAL SUPPORT YOU MAY NEED - COVID-19

You are a click away from asking for federal financial support: employment insurance, emergency benefits, mortgage help, increased child tax benefits.

Here are the quick links to the help you may need:

EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (Regular Benefits):

Laid off, told to stay home, etc. How to apply:
https://www.canada.ca/en/services/benefits/ei/ei-regular-benefit/apply.html
 
EMERGENCY SUPPORT BENEFIT:
Laid off, reduced hours, do not qualify for EI regular benefits above:
 
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/economic-response-plan/covid19-individuals.html#emergency_support_benefit
 
EMERGENCY INSURANCE SICKNESS BENEFIT:
 
No Paid Sick Leave, quarantined, sick? [New "CERB"]
 
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/economic-response-plan/covid19-individuals.html#improved_access_employment_insurance_sickness_benefit
 
EMERGENCY CARE BENEFIT:
 
Do not qualify for EI, but you are sick, quarantined and/or taking care of children at home or family members:
 
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/economic-response-plan/covid19-individuals.html#emergency_care_benefit
 
NEED MORTGAGE HELP?
 
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/economic-response-plan/covid19-individuals.html#mortgage_support
 
INCREASED CHILD CARE BENEFITS:
 
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/economic-response-plan/covid19-individuals.html#increasing_canada_child_benefit
 
EXTENDED TAX DEADLINE - JUNE 1:
 
www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/economic-response-plan/covid19-individuals.html#extra_time_income_taxes
 
DEDICATED EI TELEPHONE:
 
1-833-381-2725
read more

THE VIRUS - THE COST OF NON-COMPLIANCE. BIG FINES. JAIL. QUARANTINE IN CUSTODY.

Many residents locally express increasing concerns about and rightfully question what enforcement measures are being taken, for example, to:

[1] force returning travelers, who are not taking precautionary virus measures, to self-isolate; and

[2] ensure compliance generally with other emergency health declarations and orders in effect by the provincial and federal Governments, applying to everyone during this pandemic.

CANADA

To date, federally, the following orders have been made, with the corresponding enforcement measures being taken by the federal Government:

[1]      TRAVELERS RETURNING:

There is now a federal Emergency Order in effect, requiring any person entering Canada by air, sea or land to self-isolate for fourteen days, whether or not they have symptoms of COVID-19. The Government of Canada will use its authority under the federal Quarantine Act to ensure compliance with the order. Failure to comply with this Order is an offense under the Quarantine Act.

Maximum penalties for non-compliance include:

- a fine of up to $750,000; and/or
- imprisonment for six months.

[2]      EVERYONE (NOT ONLY RETURNING TRAVELERS):

In addition, for everyone, any person who causes a risk of imminent death or serious bodily harm to another person while wilfully or recklessly contravening the Quarantine Act could be liable for:

- a fine of up to $1,000,000; or
- imprisonment of up to three years, or to both.

Spot checks will be conducted by the Government of Canada to verify compliance.

All individuals permitted to enter Canada are subject to this order, with the exception of certain persons who cross the border regularly to ensure the continued flow of goods and services, and those who provide essential services. Individuals exempt from the order will still need to practice social distancing and self monitoring and contact their local public health authority if they feel sick.

Individuals displaying symptoms of COVID-19 after arriving in Canada may not use public transportation to travel to their place of isolation. They also may not isolate in a place where they will be in contact with vulnerable people, such as seniors and individuals with underlying health conditions.

Since 2005, we have had the Quarantine Act available to require and govern preventative measures due to pandemic, like COVID-19, including mandatory self-isolation and quarantine and enforcement measures. The federal Health Minister is also statutorily empowered to require Ontario to take quarantine measures, including stay-at-home orders, closure of non-essential businesses and to establish self-isolation/quarantine facilities for those who do not comply.

Notably the federal Government has yet to enact the Emergencies Act, which would give it sweeping, broad powers to centrally control virus containment enforcement across the country. Many continue to question this decision, but if the so-called curve does not flatten fairly soon, it is expected the federal Government will also take this extraordinary “war times” measure.   

ONTARIO

The Government of Ontario has so far announced, for example, a $750 fine for failing to comply with a provincial order, including an emergency health declaration. There are additional fines that could be levied for obstructing a person ($1,000). Corporations can face much higher fines for non-compliance with Ontario’s emergency health orders, such as being closed if not classified as an essential service (up to $500,000). 

The Ontario Provincial Police have announced they will enforce any provincial health orders, such as closing non-essential businesses and maximum gathering capacity. They also report they will, under Ontario’s Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, continue to strictly enforce any further health emergency declarations by the federal and provincial government.

It is unclear how much enforcement has been undertaken by the OPP to date. It does not appear there have been any imprisonments, at least. 

MUNICIPAL

There is no consistent, unified approach among municipalities, or their municipal police services.

Few municipalities seem to be taking pro-active, decisive and independent enforcement measures. Others, such as the City of Toronto, have announced very significant fines and imprisonment terms for those who violate provincial orders. That city continues to set up its enforcement team, led by Toronto Public Health. Non-compliance will escalate to the Toronto Police service, if necessary.

The City of Kawartha Lakes, which has authority to establish its own enforcement measures, as it has officially declared a state of emergency, has yet to adopt or implement any specific enforcement measures for non-compliance with either provincial or federal orders. As it stands, the Lindsay Police Service, for example, working with both our Health Unit and the City, will rely on Canada’s Criminal Code, existing governmental orders and municipal licensing standards to enforce safety and containment measures.

Municipally-driven enforcement measures are ostensibly piecemeal and uncoordinated. Some municipalities, particularly those more urbanized, are doing more than others.

As a result, there is an increasing call throughout Ontario, and other provinces, for the federal Government to enact the Emergencies Act, including to centralize and directly control a country-wide standard for enforcement measures in an effort to contain the virus. 

read more

THE VIRUS - DOES IT CANCEL CONTRACTS? RENTAL AGREEMENTS? SEPARATION AND PARENTING AGREEMENTS? MAYBE - READ ON

The virus - does it mean your contract with another person will be cancelled, or be unenforceable by you or the other party? Your rental agreement with a landlord or tenant? What about my separation or parenting agreement with my former partner or spouse?

The answer: maybe. 

It is early days; the litigation of the issues is yet to happen. 

It ultimately depends on whether your contract has a "force majeure" cause (or an "Act of God" clause) or, alternatively, if you (or the other party to your contract) can prove that the contract is "frustrated" for reasons beyond the control of the party seeking relief from the contract; namely, due to the pandemic and the remedial actions taken by all three levels of government and directions of health officials. 

This issue is certain to arise, likely very soon. Meanwhile, the Courts are temporarily closed, except for truly urgent matters, offering very limited judicial resources to help in the event of contractual disputes. 

Below is an excellent explanation of the law regarding contracts and enforceability of contractual obligations during the virus crisis. 

It remains to be seen how this will impact of all of us, but it certainly will become an increasingly important issues for many of us. 

As of today, medical authorities estimate that over 300,000 people have been infected with the novel coronavirus, COVID-19.  As a result of the need for social distancing, some businesses have had to close their doors, while many other businesses have slowed, even while their operations continue. Given the resulting economic uncertainty, people are understandably less inclined to buy; businesses have less money to pay rent to their landlords and salaries to their employees; and landlords and other businesses have less money to make mortgage payments to their lenders.  Stores cannot pay for merchandise.  It may not be anyone’s fault, but people are going to lose money.  A storm of litigation is brewing and the winners or losers of those lawsuits may depend on whether the contracts between these parties have a force majeure clause and whether it will be applied in respect of our present situation.  Alternatively, it may depend on whether a litigant can prove that circumstances beyond a party’s control frustrated their ability to comply with their contractual obligations.

This blog is intended to provide a brief overview of force majeure clauses and the equitable principle of frustration of contract and their potential applicability to the COVID-19 pandemic.

What is a Force Majeure Clause?

Many commercial agreements contain a provision that allows parties to be released from their contractual obligations and responsibilities in the event of serious unforeseen circumstances. These provisions are often referred to as “force majeure” clauses. The Supreme Court of Canada described the operation of a force majeure clause as follows:

An act of God clause or force majeure clause […] generally operates to discharge a contracting party when a supervening, sometimes supernatural, event, beyond control of either party, makes performance impossible. The common thread is that of the unexpected, something beyond reasonable human foresight and skill.1

force majeure clause often includes a laundry list of events that would fall under the purview of an “event beyond the control of either party”. For example, in Tom Jones & Sons Ltd. v. R.2 the force majeure clause at issue in that case commenced upon any of the following events:

If by reason of strikes, lockouts, governmental restriction, acts of God, non-availability of labour or materials, unavoidable casualty, civil commotion, war, fire, hindering subsurface condition existing on the site, extreme weather conditions […] or, any other cause beyond the control.3

Does COVID-19 Trigger Force Majeure Clauses?

The answer is a definitive “maybe”.  At the outset, force majeure clauses are drafted differently from contract to contract.  As a result, the express language contained in such a clause will greatly impact its interpretation and potential application.  Similarly, even if such a clause could potentially apply, the clause itself may limit the scope of what terms of the contract a party will be relieved from.

The events surrounding COVID-19 intuitively suggest that they could fall within the Supreme Court’s definition of a force majeure clause.  The fact that it is being described as a “pandemic” by the World Health Organization and its global impact would suggest that such clauses may be applicable, but again, each clause is unique and will turn on its own specific wording.  These terms would have to be reviewed carefully to assess whether such a clause could be relied upon.

As an example, if we again turn to the language contained in the force majeure clause in Tom Jones, it makes no express reference to terms such as “pandemic”, “epidemic”, or “disease” as being a basis upon which the clause could apply.  On the other hand, given that various levels of government in Canada have disseminated various directives, ordered businesses and borders to close, and declared various states of emergency,4 it may be argued that these actions fall under the auspices of the term “governmental restriction”.

Again, an assessment of these clauses must be conducted on a case-by-case basis as the specific wording of the clause could be the determining factor.

Can a COVID-19 Related Economic Downturn Trigger a Force Majeure Clause?

Assuming that a force majeure clause does not contain a specific term or phrase that would be triggered by COVID-19, clients may query as to whether the related economic-downturn that has followed in the wake of COVID-19 could prompt parties to rely upon a force majeure clause to vitiate their contractual obligations.

Generally speaking, courts have held that force majeure clauses may not be resorted to where circumstances affect the profitability of a contract or the ease with which a party’s obligations can be performed.  For example, in Domtar Inc. v. Univar Canada Ltd.,5 the defendant sought to rely on a force majeure clause when sudden market changes made it more expensive to supply caustic soda at the contract price. The clause in question read as follows:

The term “force majeure” means any contingency beyond the reasonable control of Supplier or Customer (for example, war or hostilities, Acts of God, accident, fire, explosion, public protest, breakage of equipment, governmental actions or legislation, or labour difficulties) which interferes with Supplier’s or Customer’s production, supply, transportation or consumption practices.6

The Court held the force majeure clause would not apply to a contract simply because it became more expensive due to market changes.7

Similarly, In the case of Tandrin Aviation Holdings Ltd. v. Aero Toy Store LLC,8 the defendant claimed it was unable to accept delivery of an executive jet aircraft that was the subject of the contract because of the “unanticipated, unforeseeable and cataclysmic downward spiral of the world’s financial markets”. The Court disagreed, observing that “it is well established [ … ] that a change in economic/market circumstances, affecting the profitability of a contract or the ease with which the parties’ obligations can be performed, is not regarded as being a force majeure event”.9

In conclusion, courts have been skeptical of allowing a change in market circumstances to trigger a force majeure clause.

Frustration of Contract

If a contract does not contain a force majeure clause, or the clause is of no assistance because of its terms, a party may, in very limited circumstances, be able to argue that it is relieved from its contractual obligations by claiming the contract is “frustrated.”

Frustration occurs when an event, through no fault of either party, creates a new circumstance which has the effect of making the contract impossible to fulfill. In such situations, both parties are discharged from further performance of their obligations under the contract.10 The parties are relieved of their obligations because to force performance despite the new and changed circumstances would be to order the party to do something fundamentally different from what the parties originally bargained for.11

COVID-19 and Frustration

The threshold required for frustration is a very high one. In order to rely on it, a party must show that the original reason for entering into the transaction was completely destroyed by a supervening event.

Generally, as in the case of force majeure clauses, courts have not accepted economic disruption or falling markets to constitute an event that would frustrate a contract. For example, the case of Forest Hill Homes v. Ou12 involved a home that was to be purchased from, and built by, the plaintiff. The parties agreed to the purchase in November of 2016, but the closing date was not until 2019. At the date of closing the plaintiff was ready to close, but the defendant took the position that the contract had been frustrated due to the “drastic and unforeseeable drop in the real estate market”, which made it impossible for them to close.13

The judge concluded that there is nothing about changes in the market that amounts to an unforeseen event which would trigger frustration and that, even if there were, it was incumbent upon the buyer to adduce real estate market evidence in support thereof.14

Conclusion

Parties who may seek to rely on a force majeure clause should have a legal professional carefully review the precise language of the clause to determine whether it may cover the intervening event and to determine the scope of relief that may be available under the contract, even if the clause could potentially apply.

Similarly, in the event a party is unable to perform a contract, legal advice should be sought to assess the strengths of a claim that a contract has been frustrated.

On a practical basis, given the current COVID-19 circumstances, the existence of a force majeure clause (even if there are arguments both for and against its applicability) may facilitate an approach to the other contracting parties to see if they are prepared to renegotiate a mutually-agreeable outcome before litigation could arise from the application of such a clause.

Footnotes

  1.   Atlantic Paper Stock Ltd. v. St. Anne-Nackawic Pulp & Paper Co., 1 S.C.R. 580 at para. 4 (Atlantic Paper). 
     
  2.   Tom Jones & Sons Ltd. v. R. 31 O.R. (2d) 649, (H.C.) (Tom Jones). 
     
  3.   Tom Jones & Sons Ltd. v. R. 31 O.R. (2d) 649, (H.C.) at para. 13. 
     
  4.   “Ontario Enacts Declaration of Emergency to Protect the Public. Ontario News Room, March 17, 2020; “Coronavirus: Canada to bar entry for most foreigners. BBC, March 16, 2020Nunavut declares state of public health emergency.” CBC News, March 18, 2020; “Alberta declared a public health emergency over COVID-19.” CTV News, March 17, 2020. 
     
  5.   Domtar Inc. v. Univar Canada Ltd., 2011 BCSC 1776. 
     
  6.   Domtar Inc. v. Univar Canada Ltd., 2011 BCSC 1776 at para. 75. 
     
  7.   Domtar Inc. v. Univar Canada Ltd., 2011 BCSC 1776 at para. 92. 
     
  8.   Tandrin Aviation Holdings Ltd. v. Aero Toy Store LLC, (2010) EWHC 40 (Cmm) (Tandrin). 
     
  9.   Tandrin Aviation Holdings Ltd. v. Aero Toy Store LLC, (2010) EWHC 40 (Cmm) at para. 30. 
     
  10.   Naylor Group Inc. v. Ellis-Don Construction Ltd., 2011 SCC 58. 
     
  11.   Naylor Group Inc. v. Ellis-Don Construction Ltd., 2011 SCC 58 at para. 55. 
     
  12.   Forest Hill Homes v. Ou, 2019 ONSC 4332 (Forest Hill). For other examples see: Bang v. Sebastian, 2018 ONSC 6226; Paradise Homes North West Inc. v. Sidhu, 2019 ONSC 1600. 
     
  13.   Forest Hill Homes v. Ou, 2019 ONSC 4332 at para. 5. 
     
  14.   Forest Hill Homes v. Ou, 2019 ONSC 4332 at paras. 5-6 

Credit: 

Bradley Phillips and Robert Alfieri, Wagner Sidlofsky, published March 23, 2020

read more

ARE YOU APPOINTED A POWER OF ATTORNEY FOR PERSONAL CARE? FOR AN ELDERLY PERSON? COVID-19 - YOU MUST BE PREPARED. A CHECKLIST.

Are you appointed as another's power of attorney for personal care, particularly an elderly person who may be residing at a retirement or long-term living facility?

If so, during this pandemic, you need to be prepared to act in your fiduciary capacity, including to make difficult healthcare decisions on behalf of the person who appointed you, the "grantor". 

In these very uncertain times, when the virus continues to evolve and new developments happen and information is obtained very day, as a power of attorney for personal care, you must be ready and informed about your duties, if they arise. 

Here is a helpful summary about your role and duties as a power of attorney for personal care: 

In Ontario, powers of attorney for personal care are generally governed by the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 (the “SDA”). The Health Care Consent Act, 1996 also applies to certain decisions made by attorneys for personal care.

Personal care decisions are about health care, medical treatment, diet, housing, hygiene, and safety.  An attorney for personal care will be able to make almost any decision of this nature that the grantor would normally make for him/herself when they were capable.

According to the SDA, an attorney for personal care must follow the known wishes of the grantor or make decisions in the best interest of that person.  In doing so, the attorney must choose the least restrictive and intrusive course of action that is available and is appropriate in the circumstances.

If you are appointed as an attorney for personal care, below is a non-exhaustive list of steps you should take or obligations you may have:

  • Obtain a copy of the POA PC and determine whether it is in effect. The POA PC only comes into effect once the grantor is incapable of making his or her personal care decisions.
  • Determine whether there are any specific instructions/restrictions in the POA PC.
  • Encourage the grantor’s participation in decision-making and try to foster the grantor’s independence as much as possible.
  • Encourage and facilitate communication between the grantor and his/her family and friends.
  • Consider developing a guardianship plan. While this is not mandatory for an attorney whose powers stem from a POA PC, it may help provide a roadmap for future decisions.

The above checklist is non-exhaustive list of some of the obligations an attorney for personal care have. Section 66(4) of the SDA also sets out a number of factors to consider when determining what personal care decisions are in the incapable person’s best interest.  Most importantly, an attorney for personal care must not lose sight of the fact that he/she is a fiduciary and held to a higher standard.

Making decisions as an attorney can be difficult, particularly in uncertain circumstances.  It is important to be prepared.  The Ministry of the Attorney General also provides some useful information about an attorney’s obligations here.  A lawyer should be consulted so the attorney understands their duties.

Credit: 

Jenna Bontorin, Hull & Hull LLP, hullandhull.com, published March 26, 2020. 

 

read more

THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE TO LAY OFFS - EMPLOYEE TIME CAN BE REDUCED UP TO 60%, BUT OPERATIONS CONTINUE. YOU MAY QUALIFY FOR THE WORK-SHARING PROGRAM.

Canada’s “Work-Sharing” program is an adjustment program, which may offer relief and an alternative to employers financially impacted by COVID-19, including those experiencing a slow down in business, but who continue to operate at some level.

The program is intended to assist employers to avoid layoffs, particularly during this pandemic, if the employer experiences a temporary reduction in the usual amount of business activity that is beyond the control of the employer, as may be the case with COVID-19. 

The program involves a three-party agreement between the employer, the employees and Service Canada.

Work-sharing allows employees to work reduced hours and share work equally between one another.

The other key aspects of the program are:

  • the employer must apply to the program at least thirty days in advance of the start date of the program;

  • the employees will be eligible for benefits through the program if they agree to work reduced hours;

  • there must be at least two employees willing to share job duties;

  • the employer must be: a publicly-held company; a private enterprise or a non-profit organization, which must in business for at least one year, reduced from 2 years due to COVID-19;

  • the employer must demonstrate a temporary work shortage, beyond their control, of 10% or more;

  • the employees undergoing work shortages must be “core employees” (i.e., not seasonal, casual employees);  

  • the mandatory “cooling-off” period, where an employer cannot re-enter a work sharing agreement with the same employees, has been waived temporarily due to COVID-19; and  

  • the maximum duration of the work sharing has been increased from 38 weeks to 76 weeks due to COVID-19.

Employees who participate in the program who do the same, or substantially similar, work will become part of the "Work-Sharing unit".

Employees in a Work-Sharing unit can have their hours reduced by up to 60%. 

To apply to the program, employers must submit:

  • the application for work sharing;

  • the attachment to the application (PDF or Excel); and

  • a recovery plan, which must demonstrate that the employer will implement activities during the period of the work-sharing agreement to alleviate the work shortage in order to return the work-sharing unit(s) to normal working hours by the end of the agreement.

Employees eligible to participate are those who:

  • are "core" employees, meaning they are permanent full-time or part-time employees who are required to carry out the everyday functions of normal business activity, and not seasonal or casual employees/students;

  • are eligible to receive EI benefits; and

  • agree to a reduction in their normal working hours in order to share work.

More information is available here:

https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/services/work-sharing.html

read more

COVID-19 IS SPREADING; END THE RACISM SURGING WITH IT - OUR OPINION.

Both regrettably and predictably, racism and discrimination appear to be surging with the spread of the COVID-19 virus. 

Credible sources now report that xenophobia, racially-motivated acts of discrimination and harassment towards ethnic groups is increasing. 

Through public messaging by some, including the President of the United States, COVID-19 has been referred to as the "Chinese" and the "Wuhan" virus, on the basis that it is believed to have originated in Wuhan, China. 

Doing so only serves to reinforce negative connotations, perception and stigma, inescapably encouraging more pronounced and insidious racist ideologies and prejudices directed at a specific ethnic group.

As a result, members of our Asian ethnicities have been targeted. Some report experiencing more racist acts during the pandemic, presumably attributable to existing racist views, assumptions and unconscious biases of racialized people and groups, as well as stigma, fear, or being misinformed.

There is some legal protection against these unjustified acts, promulgated by Canada's Criminal Code (hate crimes, etc.). 

In addition, employees in Ontario are protected by Ontario's Human Rights Code (the "Code") in terms of the COVID-19 pandemic. Currently, those protections include: 

- it is discriminatory to treat employees who have, or are perceived to have, contracted COVID-19, in a negative manner, for reasons unrelated to public health and safety;

- employers have a duty to accommodate employees in relation to COVID-19, unless it would amount to undue hardship based on cost, or health and safety; 

- employers should not treat employees in a differential manner over COVID-concerns, unless these concerns are reasonable and consistent with the most recent advice of medical and public health officials;   

- unless an employee can provide a legitimate reason why he or she cannot work, employers have a right to expect they will continue to perform their work. If an employee is required to self-isolate for legitimate reasons, the employer can explore alternative options to allow the employee to continue to work; 

- employers may not discipline or terminate individual employees who are unable to come to work because medical or health officials have quarantined, or advised them to self-isolate and stay home because of COVID-19 concerns; 

- employers should accommodate employees who have care-giving responsibilities to the point of undue hardship, which may include working from home, reduced hours or leave without pay; 

- employers should take requests for accommodation in good faith and avoid requiring medical notes to justify employee absences where such notes are unnecessary; and 

- it is not discriminatory to lay off employees if there is no work for them to do because of the impacts of COVID-19.

Employers should also remind employees that it is unacceptable to treat other employees or members of the public differently, or assume they might be infected with COVID-19 on the basis of their race, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin or ancestry.

Differential treatment related to this virus is not permissible and prohibited by Ontario's law.

COVID-19 does not discriminate against specific ethnic groups, why would we? 

We should all raise our voices against stigma and discrimination

Nervous fear is natural and expected in this crisis, but it cannot translate into short-signed, divisive hate-mongering. This is not a "Chinese" virus, as a certain leader may espouse. Rather, this is global pandemic, of which we are all, by necessity, a part.

Civility must prevail. Solidarity and altruism, not bigotry, will triumph.

We are all in this together.

 

read more

COVID-19 - FAMILY COURT AFFIRMS - SEPARATED AND DIVORCED CO-PARENTS CANNOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF COVID-19 - EMERGENCY MOTIONS CAN BE MADE AND WILL BE DECIDED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS

The Superior Court has affirmed that separated and divorced co-parents must work cooperatively, flexibly and together to parent children during this unprecedented crisis. 

The Family Court in this, and every other Ontario, jurisdiction is closed, except that only urgent and emergency matters will be considered, despite the extraordinarily strained judicial resources available currently. 

We have written on this very important issue previously.

Here are the links to those articles: 

"COURT RELEASE IMPORTANT DECISION COURT RELEASES IMPORTANT DECISION TO SEPARATED PARENTS - WORK TOGETHER - DO NOT USE COVID-19 TO TRY TO GAIN A TACTICAL PARENTING ADVANTAGE "- http://wardlegal.ca/31582887996636

- and - 

"COVID-19 - HELP TO SEPARATED/DIVORCED PARENTS" - http://wardlegal.ca/31582887996602

Justices loathe any parent who may attempt to take advantage of COVID-19 to gain a tactical advantage over a co-parent regarding the parenting of a child - that is clear. 

However, the Court acknowledges that we are in "unchartered territory" currently, without the benefit of proper knowledge and understanding of the true nature of the virus and the science surrounding it, making it very difficult to assess the potential risks to a child arising from co-parenting arrangements. 

The test is always the best interests of a child, which is very rarely served if a co-parent has no opportunity to be with the child - the Court regularly espouses this principle. 

While a co-parent is permitted to file an "Urgent Motion" seeking co-parenting relief, such as withholding access or seeking it, the Court will initially determine whether the motion is truly urgent, before it will consider evaluating the merits of each party's position in terms of the child's best interest and where and when the child should reside, or be. 

In every case so far, where a co-parent sought urgent relief by motion to the Family Court during the pandemic, the Court has ruled that the issue is NOT URGENT and granted no relief, except to dismiss the motion. 

On March 25, 2020, another Family Court Justice made the same decision. A copy of the decision is reproduced below, as it should be read carefully by every co-parent, particularly those that may have, or have the propensity to be engaged in, conflict on the parenting issues. 

In this case, there was no Court order in place regarding the parenting arrangements for the child, but the parents had established a pattern for their parenting (i.e., a status quo). The mother withheld the child, alleging to do otherwise would pose risk and harm to the child due to exposure to COVID-19. The mother's allegations appear in the decision below. 

The father disputed this and brought an urgent motion seeking reinstatement of the alleged, pre-existing (status quo) parenting arrangements. 

The Court is sympathetic to the circumstances, but does not grant the father any relief by deciding, at the initial threshold test, that the matter is not urgent. Accordingly, the best interests of the child generally, in terms of parenting time and place, were not addressed by the Court, due to the threshold test not being achieved. 

This decision below is a must-read for any co-parent concerned about a child during the pandemic. 

However, the Court will decide each case on a case-by-case - the Court has made that clear in its decisions. 

Therefore, if a co-parent can produce strong evidence that the other co-parent is not engaging in proper containment measures, as recommended and/or directed by our governments and applicable health officials, the Court may determine the matter is urgent, as the potential harm to the child is established and proved on an urgent basis; specifically, to protect the child from potential harm. 

In this case, however, the Court did not find the circumstances sufficiently urgent to allow the motion to proceed. 

What is clear, though, from the decisions of the Court is that a co-parent cannot attempt to utilize the COVID-19 crisis to gain some tactical advantage against the other co-parent. Even if a motion to address it may be determined to be not urgent, such conduct will most certainly be considered as soon as possible by the Family Court and may have negative consequences to the manipulating co-parent, and potentially the child. 

Here is the decision: 

COURT FILE NO.: 684/19
DATE: 2020/03/25
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Douglas (Applicant) v. Douglas (Respondent)
BEFORE: Justice W.L. MacPherson
APPEARANCES: None
COUNSEL: Virginia Workman
Applicant
Bruce Macdonald
Respondent


E N D O R S E M E N T -- COVID 19 PROTOCOL

[1] AS A RESULT OF COVID-19 regular Superior Court of Justice operations are suspended at this time as set out in the Notice to Profession of the Chief Justice of Ontario. See the Notice to the Profession dated March 18, 2020 available at https://www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/covid-19-suspension-fam/ [“the Chief’s Notice”].


[2] In accordance with the Regional Notice to Profession dated March 18, 2020 and replaced by a subsequent Notice dated March 24, 2020, electronic materials were filed by the applicant’s counsel through the Courthouse email address.

[3] This matter was referred to me as Triage Judge, for a determination of urgency and how this matter is to proceed.

[4] At this point I have received and reviewed the following:

a) Form 14B Motion Form dated March 24, 2020;
b) Affidavit of the Applicant sworn March 24, 2020 and various exhibits, including emails between the parties.
-
[5] The following evidence has been provided by the father:

a) The parties were married on August 26, 2011 and have been separated since December 10, 2018. There is one child, H , who is 6 1/2 years of age.
b) A court action was commenced by the father. A case conference was held on January 10, 2020. The Office of the Children’s Lawyer was requested to be become
involved, but they declined. There are currently no court orders in place dealing with parenting time.
c) The father alleges that the mother has demonstrated a pattern of denying access. Nevertheless, since in or about February 2019 the father has apparently had regular time
with the child on alternating weekends from Friday at 4 p.m. until the commencement of school on Monday and if it is a non-school day return of the child takes place at 8:00 a.m.
In addition, the father has had the child each Thursday following his access weekend from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
d) The father last had access to the child during the weekend of March 13, 2020 to March 16, 2020.
e) On March 18, 2020 the mother advised the father by email that the child would remain in her care. She noted concerns about the father’s exposure to the COVID-19 virus
at work (as an Assistant Manager at Lowe’s) ; the need for social distancing and that she was practicing same in her household, her workplace (location not disclosed) and the State of Emergency declared in the Province of Ontario; that travel from one parents’ home to the other (according to the father being a 14 minute car ride) was “unnecessary travel”; and the child having recently been ill (weekend of March 13, 2020 for which the mother had provided detailed treatment instructions as that was father’s access weekend.
f) When the father expressed his disagreement that the child should remain with the mother, she then raised additional concerns about potential exposure while in the father’s
care due to: a recent national hiring day at Lowes; he had allowed the child to play with another child; the father’s family travels and the need for them to be self-isolating and not involved in caring for H . No assurances by the father to address each of these concerns were acceptable to the mother who insisted that the child must remain in her care.
g) On March 19, 2020 the father attended at the mother’s home to exercise the regular Thursday access, but this was refused by the mother.
h) Facetime visits have been requested by the father and although it appears from the emails that the mother did offer such a visit on March 18, 2020, according to the father, as
of March 24, 2020, no such visits have taken place.

[6] The father has brought a motion seeking the reinstatement of status quo arrangements permitting the father to have access to H on alternating weekends and alternating Thursdays.

[7] The issue to be determined: Is this motion urgent?

[8] The COVID-19 pandemic is unprecedented. The situation changes daily, if not hourly. To address the risks posed by the virus, as those risks are known at any particular time, government authorities and public health officials issue directives to address the perceived risks.

[9] There is no game plan for how parents should react, and many are understandably worried for themselves and their families and confused about what to do in such an atmosphere. It is certainly expected that parents would act in the best interests of their own child which consideration must include not only the child’s physical well-being, but also their emotional wellbeing. Total removal of one parent from any child’s life must be exercised cautiously.

[10] This is uncharted territory for the court, as well. The safety and well-being of children and families remain the principal concerns for the court. However, the court must take guidance from the Chief’s notice that confirms that all court operations are suspended with the exception of those
that are urgent and emergency matters. The Chief’s notice defines such matters in the context of family files to be relative to “the well-being of a child including essential medical decisions or issues relating to the wrongful removal or retention of a child.”

[11] The matter is understandably very important to the father. However, in my view it is not urgent nor is it an emergency. There is no indication that H ’s safety is at risk. While father’s counsel might wish to have this court interpret the mother’s actions as wrongfully retaining the child, from my perspective, the language used in the Chief’s notice was done purposefully to mirror the language under the Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abductions (the “Hague Convention”) and would not be applicable when the issue is parenting time. It may be that
there will be some limited scenarios involving an abduction of a child where relief is sought under the Children’s Law Reform Act, and a court finds such matter to be urgent. But this is not one of those cases.

[12] Within that context, I find that the motion is not urgent at this time.

[13] I would point out that in the Chief’s notice, the Chief Justice of Ontario called “upon the cooperation of counsel and parties to engage in every effort to resolve matters” during the period of suspension of regular court operations.

[14] The parties have experienced family law counsel representing them. It does not appear that mother’s counsel has responded to father’s counsel in any meaningful way to reach a reasonable resolution. He is encouraged to do so. Surely a complete termination of all contact between the
child and his father cannot be in the child’s best interests even in these unprecedented times.

[15] Finally, all counsel and parties must be aware that actions taken in these unusual circumstances, may very well be judged once court operations resume, as not being appropriate nor in the best interests of their children.

Justice W.L. MacPherson
DATE: March 25, 2020

read more

COVID-19: WHAT HAPPENS IF A PERSON BECOMES INCAPABLE TO MAKE CARE DECISIONS DUE TO THE VIRUS AND HAS NO POA? HERE'S WHO MAKES THE DECISIONS

During the COVID-19 pandemic, what happens when a person in Ontario becomes disabled or incapacitated due to the virus, to the extent that the person cannot make decisions about his or her own health care or treatment? 

In short, someone else is authorized or appointed to make those decisions for the incapacitated person, subject to certain rules and duties imposed by law. 

However, we have a hierarchy of decision-making power in Ontario.

Here is an excellent article by Sydney Osmar of Hull & Hull explaining this hierarchy and how personal health care decisions are regulated for incapable people:  

"Section 20 of the Health Care Consent Act (“HCCA”) provides for a legislative hierarchy of substitute decision makers for persons who have been found incapable with respect to treatment. The hierarchy is as follows:

  1. The incapable person’s guardian of the person;
  2. The incapable person’s attorney for personal care;
  3. The incapable person’s representative appointed by the Consent and Capacity Board;
  4. The incapable person’s spouse or partner;
  5. A child or parent of the incapable person, or an agency that replaces the parent’s authority;
  6. A parent of the person who only has a right of access;
  7. A brother or sister of the incapable person; and
  8. Any other relative of the incapable person.

Those in the above list may only give or refuse consent on behalf of the incapable person if they are: at least 16 years of age, are not prohibited by court order, are available, and are willing to assume this responsibility. A person from the above hierarchy may only act as the substitute decision maker with regard to treatment, if there is not a person who also meets these requirements who ranks higher within the hierarchy.

Sections 20(5) and 20(6) of the HCCA sets out that if no one in the above list meets the requirements to make treatment decisions, or, if there are two equally ranking parties who both meet requirements but disagree on the treatment decision, the decision will devolve to the Public Guardian and Trustee (“PGT”).

As is clear by the placement within the above hierarchy, the act of granting a power of attorney for personal care (“POAPC”) holds great weight when it comes to determining substitute decision makers with regard to treatment decisions. However, the significance of the act of revoking a POAPC in relation to the legislative hierarchy is less clear.

For example, it is quite common for a person to grant a POAPC to their spouse or child, however, in revoking the POAPC, the spouse or child could still remain the legal substitute decision maker under the section 20 hierarchy, should there be no other higher ranking individual willing and able to make treatment decisions, and if the grantor fails to execute a new POAPC.

I have located two decisions of the Consent and Capacity Board (the “Board”), which suggests that in such circumstances, the Board will pull language from other sections of the HCCA to circumvent the hierarchy provided under section 20, where it is clear to do so would be in the incapable person’s best interests.

In A(I) Re, Mrs. I.A. had previously appointed her two children as her attorneys for care. However, this POAPC was later revoked, with Mrs. I.A. informing her lawyer she feared her two children would be unable to reach agreements on important health care decisions. Two distant relatives were instead appointed pursuant to a new POAPC. However, when Mrs. I.A. lost capacity, and a treatment decision needed to be made, the distant relatives felt they were not best suited to make such a decision.

Both children applied to act as Mrs. I.A.’s representative under s. 33 of the HCCA. In coming to its decision the Board accepted that Mrs. I.A.’s overt act of revoking the POAPC that appointed her children was a prior expressed relevant value and belief, however, this did not impact the fact that both children still qualified as decision makers under the section 20 hierarchy. The Board ultimately determined that it was not in Mrs. I.A.’s best interests to have her children act as decision makers, and concluded they could not agree, such that the decision devolved to the PGT.

In D(D) Re, this issue again arose, where the incapable person, D.D. (prior to becoming incapable) granted a POAPC to her husband, later revoking the POAPC when she believed that her husband would not act in her best interests. Because a new POAPC was never executed, the husband remained the legal decision maker under section 20. D.D.’s daughter, J.R., brought an application to the Board to act as her representative. In coming to its conclusion, the Board noted that it was clear that D.D. had not understood that by revoking the POAPC, her husband would remain the decision maker under the HCCA hierarchy, and that it was equally clear her intention had been to remove her husband as the legal decision maker. Therefore, to circumvent the hierarchy, the Board turned to a best interests analysis and ultimately appointed D.D.’s daughter as her decision maker." 

read more

YOUR NEW CHEAT SHEET FOR EI BENEFITS DURING COVID-19. LAID OFF? TAKING CARE OF KIDS? CAREGIVER? THE NEW DEAL [AS OF MAR. 25, 2020]

The federal Government continues to develop and change employment insurance benefits during this pandemic. 

Here is a list of the employment insurance (EI) benefits available to you for emergency financial support, as of March 25, 2020:

EXISTING - REGULAR EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE:

EI regular benefits provides benefits to individuals who lose their jobs through no fault of their own (i.e., due to shortage of work, seasonal or mass lay-offs), including attributable to COVID-19.

To be eligible:

 the employee must have worked 600 insurable hours in the last 52 weeks; and

 the employee must have lost his or her employ through no fault of his or her own

If you have been laid off from your work as a result of your employer`s response to COVID-19 you are eligible for Regular Employment Insurance.

You can apply at this link:

https://www.canada.ca/en/services/benefits/ei/ei-regular-benefit.html

EXISTING – EI SICKNESS BENEFIT:

Employment Insurance (EI) sickness benefits provide up to 15 weeks of income replacement and is available to eligible claimants who are unable to work because of illness, injury or self-quarantine, to allow them time to restore their health and return to work.

Canadians who are self-quarantined (as instructed by either a public health official or an occupational health official through their workplaces) can apply for EI sickness benefits.

You can apply here:

https://www.canada.ca/en/services/benefits/ei/ei-regular-benefit.html

To be eligible:

 the employee must be unable to work for medical reasons;  

 the employee accumulated 600 insured hours of work in the 52 weeks before the start of your claim; and  

 the employee has been instructed by either a public health official or occupational health official through the workplace to self-quarantine (i.e. post-out-of-Ontario travel, after testing positive for COVID-19, or while awaiting test results).

More information on the EI sickness benefit here:

https://www.canada.ca/en/services/benefits/ei/ei-sickness.html

EXISTING – FAMILY CAREGIVER BENEFIT:

The Family Caregiver Benefit for Children allows eligible caregivers to receive up to 35 weeks of financial assistance to provide care or support to a critically ill or injured child.  

To be eligible:

o the patient/child’s life must be at risk of illness or injury;  

o the patient/child must be experiencing a significant change in their baseline state of health;  

o the patient/child must require the care and support of one of more family members; and  

o a primary physician must declare how long the patient/child would require the caregiving support of the parent/family member.  

With respect to COVID-19, caregivers are not likely to be eligible for this EI benefit unless their child tests positive for COVID-19 and is actively receiving treatment.

NEW – CANADA EMERGENCY RESPONSE BENEFIT (“CERB”):

The Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) offers income support for up to SIXTEEN weeks to those who lose pay because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The federal Government reports that CERB will be a "simpler and more accessible" program, now covering employees who lost their jobs, got sick, are under quarantine or have to stay home because of school closures.

The CERB collapses and replaces entirely the two, previously announced benefits; specifically, the Emergency Care Benefit and the Emergency Support Benefit.

CERB is available to wage earners, contract workers and self-employed people, who do not otherwise qualify for EI benefits, as explained above.

Specifically, the CERB will provide a taxable benefit of $2,000 monthly ($500 weekly), for up to four months to:

  • those who must stop working due to COVID19 and do not have access to paid leave or other income support;
  • workers who are sick, quarantined, or taking care of someone who is sick with COVID-19;
  • working parents who must stay home, without pay, to care for children that are sick or need additional care because of school and daycare closures;
  • workers who still have their employment, but are not being paid because there is currently insufficient work and their employer has asked them not to come to work; and
  • those who are self-employed, in the gig economy or operate as freelancers, including contract workers, who would not otherwise qualify for EI benefits, as explained above.

The online portal to apply for CERB will be available in early April, and most Canadians can expect payments within ten days. 

CERB payments will be issued every four weeks, and will be available from March 15, 2020 to Oct. 3, 2020.

WHAT ABOUT THOSE ALREADY RECEIVING EI?

Canadians already receiving EI regular benefits and/or sickness benefits will, as of March 25, 2020, continue to receive those benefits and should not apply to the CERB.

Canadians who already have applied for EI, but whose application has not yet been processed, do not need to reapply.

Canadians who are eligible for EI regular and/or sickness benefits may still access those benefits if he or she remains unemployed after the sixteen-week period covered by the CERB.

More information about the CERB is available here:

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/economic-response-plan/covid19-individuals.html#new_canada_emergency_response_benefit

CLAWBACKS AND DEDUCTIONS AGAINST EI BENEFITS (FOR WORKING):

If an employee works while receiving EI (sickness or regular) benefits, the employee is able to keep only one-half (i.e., $0.50) of the EI benefits for every dollar earned earn, up to 90% of the weekly insurable earnings used to calculate the employee’s EI benefit amount (i.e., the earnings threshold). If the employee earns any income above the earnings threshold, the Commission will deduct those amounts dollar-for-dollar from the benefits received by the employee. Whether an employee’s income during an EI benefit period will be deducted depends on whether the income falls within the meaning of “earnings” in the EI program.

Certain kinds of income will not impact EI benefits, including:

[a] disability benefits;

[b] survivor or dependent benefits;

[c] worker's compensation benefits paid under specific regulations;

[d] additional insurance benefits paid under an approved private plan (for example, payments for pain and suffering or medical expenses that received from an insurance company after an employee has been injured in a car accident);

[e] additional sickness benefits paid by an employer from a registered supplemental unemployment benefit plan (as long as the income, benefits, and additional amounts combined do not exceed 95% of the weekly earnings);  

[f] sickness or disability payments received under a private wage loss replacement plan; and

[g] retroactive salary increases.

Here is a chart explaining what constitutes earnings for EI:

https://www.canada.ca/en/services/benefits/ei/earnings-chart.html

EMPLOYER-PAID “TOP UP” TO EI BENEFITS [SIMILAR TO PARENTAL OR MATERNAL LEAVE]:

If an employer tops-up an employees earnings, beyond the EI (sick or regular) benefits, it will be considered “earnings” and will be deducted or clawed-back from the employee’s benefits, unless the top-up was given under a formalized “top up” plan, otherwise known as a “Supplemental Unemployment Benefit”. Therefore, employees who received an informal, non-registered top-up, at least currently, are likely to be subject to claw-back against their EI benefits.

SUB PLANS – SUPPLEMENTAL UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT PLAN (“SUB”) – NO CLAWBACK:  

Any employer can utilize a SUB to increase employees’ weekly earning during a period of unemployment, when they are unemployed as a result of a temporary stoppage or shortage of work, training, illness, injury or quarantine. Payments from SUBs must be registered with Service Canada – they are not considered to be earnings and are not deducted from EI (sick and regular) benefits.  

SUBs must be registered by Service Canada, as of the date on which the application for the SUB is filed by the employer. SUBs must be registered before the effective date of the SUB. If a SUB plan is not registered, at least currently, any top-up payments by the employer to EI (sick or regular) benefits will be deemed as “earnings”, and be subject to deduction or claw-back, as explained above.

More information about SUBs is available here:

https://www.canada.ca/en/privy-council/corporate/transparency/reporting-spending/departmental-results-reports/2016-2017/supporting-information-sub-programs.html

A sample SUB is available here:

https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/ei/ei-list/reports/supplemental-unemployment-benefit/sample.html

PROVINCIAL (ESA) LEAVES OF ABSENCE AND EI BENEFITS – TIED TOGETHER:

Note that the new, statutory leaves of absence authorized by Ontario in response to COVID-19 are tied to, and rely on, the federal EI program to compensate employees while they are away from work. However, this is subject to change depending on what funding is allocated to the program in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

More information about Ontario’s COVID-19-related authorized leaves of absence can be found here:

http://wardlegal.ca/31582887996624

read more

COURT RELEASES IMPORTANT DECISION TO SEPARATED PARENTS - WORK TOGETHER - DO NOT USE COVID-19 TO TRY TO GAIN A TACTICAL PARENTING ADVANTAGE

The COVID-19 pandemic requires urgent communication, co-operation and flexibility between separated and divorced co-parents.

Both co-parents and their child(ren) must isolate at home, like everyone else. This may require adjustments to existing parenting orders or arrangements. 

Please refer to our earlier article regarding advice and guidance to separated parents during this pandemic here: http://wardlegal.ca/31582887996602  

In the meantime, the Superior Court has released a very important decision, which all separated and divorced parents should read carefully, particularly if there is any parenting dispute arising from, or during, this pandemic. 

The Superior Court is closed, subject only to truly urgent motions, including for family law matters. 

Here, the mother sought to deny access to the father due to her concerns about COVID-19 and that the father would not take precautionary measures to protect the children. 

The Court's decision appears below. Notably, the Court denied granting any relief, as it was not deemed to be urgent. More importantly, the Court, if not expressly, than by inference, admonishes all parents against attempting to gain any tactical advantage related to the COVID-19 crisis. 

The Court's decision: 

March 24, 2020 Triage Judge Endorsement (COVID-19 Protocol)
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, FAMILY COURT (HAMILTON) File #: 517/19
File Name: Ribeiro v Wright
Appearances: None

1 AS A RESULT OF COVID-19 which has caused the suspension of regular Superior Court of Justice operations at this time, as set out in the Notice to the Profession
dated March 18, 2020, this matter was referred to me as Triage Judge, for a determination as to how the file is to proceed. See the Notice to the Profession dated March 18, 2020 available at https://www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/covid-19-
suspension-fam/


2 Electronic materials were filed through the Courthouse email address: Hamilton.Family.Superior.Court@ontario.ca Upon the resumption of court operations all materials will be duly filed in the physical record at the courthouse.

3 At this point I have received and reviewed:

a. Emergency Notice of Motion of Applicant dated March 22, 2020 (with the return date marked “To Be Determined”.
b. Affidavit of the Applicant dated March 22, 2020.

4 The issue:

a. The parties have had joint custody of their now nine year old son since a final order in 2012. Primary residence has always been with the mother.
b. The father has always had access. In 2019 he brought a motion to expand parenting time. That motion is currently outstanding.
c. The most recent access arrangement is set out in a (consent) temporary order dated September 6, 2019. The father has access on alternate weekends from
Friday 6:00 p.m. to Sunday at 6:30 p.m.
d. The mother has brought an urgent motion to suspend all in-person access because of COVID-19.
e. The mother expresses concern that the father will not maintain social distancing for the child during periods of access.
f. In any event, the mother says she and her family are practicing social isolation in their home for the duration of the COVID-19 crisis. She doesn’t want her son leaving the home for any reason – including seeing the father.

5 I want to clearly explain why, as Triage Judge, I am not authorizing this matter proceeding as an urgent hearing at this time.


6 The health, safety and well-being of children and families remains the court’s foremost consideration during COVID-19. This is an extremely difficult and stressful
period for everyone.


7 On the one hand, in this case there is an existing parenting order. There is a presumption that all orders should be respected and complied with. More to the point, there is a presumption that the existing order reflects a determination that meaningful personal contact with both parents is in the best interests of the child.


8 On the other hand, the well-publicized directives from government and public health officials make it clear that we are in extraordinary times; and that our daily routines and activities will for the most part have to be suspended, in favour of a strict policy of social distancing and limiting community interactions as much as possible.


9 Parents are understandably confused and worried about what to do. Similarly, this is uncharted territory for our court system. We all have to work together to show flexibility, creativity and common sense – to promote both the physical and emotional well-being of children.

10 None of us know how long this crisis is going to last. In many respects we are going to have to put our lives “on hold” until COVID -19 is resolved. But children’s lives –
and vitally important family relationships – cannot be placed “on hold” indefinitely without risking serious emotional harm and upset. A blanket policy that children should never leave their primary residence – even to visit their other parent – is
inconsistent with a comprehensive analysis of the best interests of the child. In troubling and disorienting times, children need the love, guidance and emotional support of both parents, now more than ever.


11 In most situations there should be a presumption that existing parenting arrangements and schedules should continue, subject to whatever modifications may
be necessary to ensure that all COVID-19 precautions are adhered to – including strict social distancing.


12 In some cases, custodial or access parents may have to forego their times with a child, if the parent is subject to some specific personal restriction (for example, under
self -isolation for a 14 day period as a result of recent travel; personal illness; or exposure to illness).


13 In some cases, a parent’s personal risk f actors (through employment or associations, for example) may require controls with respect to their direct contact with a child.

14 And sadly, in some cases a parent’s lifestyle or behaviour in the face of COVID -19 (for example, failing to comply with social distancing; or failing to take reasonable health-precautions) may raise sufficient concerns about parental judgment that direct parent-child contact will have to be reconsidered. There will be zero tolerance for any parent who recklessly exposes a child (or members of the child’s household) to any COVID-19 risk.


15 Transitional arrangements at exchange times may create their own issues. At every stage, the social distancing imperative will have to be safeguarded. This may result
in changes to transportation, exchange locations, or any terms of supervision.


16 And in blended family situations, parents will need assurance that COVID-19 precautions are being maintained in relation to each person who spends any amount
of time in a household – including children of former relationships.


17 Each family will have its own unique issues and complications. There will be no easy answers.


18 But no matter how difficult the challenge, for the sake of the child we have to find ways to maintain important parental relationships – and above all, we have to find ways to do it safely.


19 Most of our social, government and employment institutions are struggling to cope with COVID-19. That includes our court system. Despite extremely limited
resources, we will always prioritize cases involving children. But parents and lawyers should be mindful of the practical limitations we are facing.


20 If a parent has a concern that COVID-19 creates an urgent issue in relation to a parenting arrangement, they may initiate an emergency motion – but they should not presume that the existence of the COVID-19 crisis will automatically result in a suspension of in-person parenting time. They should not even presume that raising COVID-19 considerations will necessarily result in an urgent hearing.


21 We will deal with COVID-19 parenting issues on a case-by-case basis.


a. The parent initiating an urgent motion on this topic will be required to provide specific evidence or examples of behavior or plans by the other parent which are
inconsistent with COVID-19 protocols.
b. The parent responding to such an urgent motion will be required to provide specific and absolute reassurance that COVID-19 safety measures will be meticulously adhered to – including social distancing; use of disinfectants;
compliance with public safety directives; etc.
c. Both parents will be required to provide very specific and realistic time-sharing proposals which fully address all COVID-19 considerations, in a child-focused manner.
d. Judges will likely take judicial notice of the fact that social distancing is now becoming both commonplace and accepted, given the number of public facilities which have now been closed. This is a very good time for both custodial and access parents to spend time with their child at home.


22 Everyone should be clear about expectations during this crisis. Parents want judges to protect their children. But with limited judicial resources and a rapidly changing landscape, we need parents to act responsibly and try to attempt some simple problem-solving before they initiate urgent court proceedings.


23 Judges won’t need convincing that COVID-19 is extremely serious, and that meaningful precautions are required to protect children and families. We know there’s a problem. What we’re looking f or is realistic solutions. We will be looking to see if parents have made good faith efforts to communicate; to show mutual respect; and to come up with creative and realistic proposals which demonstrate both parental insight and COVID-19 awareness.


24 In family court we are used to dealing with parenting disputes. But right now it’s not “business as usual” for any of us. The court system will always be here to deal with truly urgent matters, especially involving children. But that means there will be little time or tolerance f or people who don’t take parenting responsibilities or COV ID-19 seriously.


25 I have carefully reviewed the materials filed on this case. Even in the absence of responding materials from the father, I have had the benefit of considering the e-mails he exchanged with the Applicant’s lawyer in relation to COVID -19 considerations.


26 While the mother’s concerns about COVID -19 are well-founded, I am not satisfied that she has established a failure, inability or refusal by the father to adhere to appropriate COVID-19 protocols in the future.


27 Every member of this community is struggling with similar, overwhelming COVID-19 issues multiple times each day.
a. The disruption of our lives is anxiety producing for everyone.
b. It is even more confusing for children who may have a difficult time understanding.
c. In scary times, children need all of the adults in their lives to behave in a cooperative, responsible and mature manner.
d. Vulnerable children need reassurance that everything is going to be ok. It’s up to the adults to provide that reassurance.
e. Right now, families need more cooperation. And less litigation.


28 I would urge both parents in this case to renew their efforts to address vitally important health and safety issues for their child in a more conciliatory and productive manner.
29 My denial of authorization to proceed with an urgent motion is without prejudice to the issue being returned to court if more serious and specific COVID-19 problems arise.


Any future motion would again have to be reviewed by the Triage Judge. However, I hope that both parents will understand the limitations of the family court process at this critical time.

30 None of us have ever experienced anything like this. We are all going to have to try a bit harder – for the sake of our children.


Justice A. Pazaratz
(Original copy will be placed in court file)

read more

COVID-19: BUSINESS OWNERS - CHECK YOUR COMMERCIAL POLICY - YOU MAY HAVE A CLAIM FOR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION INSURANCE

Generally, business interruption insurance is part of first-party commercial property insurance.

Usually, the insurer agrees to pay to, or reimburse, the business owner for the actual loss of business income the business experienced because of the interruption to the business itself, including while the business if being restored, when the interruption was caused by direct physical loss, damage, or destruction to property, caused by an insured against peril.

Accordingly, physical damage to the place of business is a prerequisite. 

In addition, the interruption must have been caused by the physical damage.

With COVID-19, it may be problematic to prove direct physical loss or damage.

Furthermore, it not uncommon for a business interruption policy to exclude perils such as viruses and disease.

There may also be problems establishing that virus caused the business losses. For example, for businesses deemed to be "essential" by the Ontario Government, the insurer may take the position that, for example, the losses were caused by the owner's decision to preemptively close the business due to fear of the virus.

For "essential" businesses, that may not be such an issue.  

In any event, insurers do sell policy coverage and endorsements offering protection for business interruption caused by a disease. If any owner had such coverage, it would be advisable to consider making a claim.

There may also be an insurance endorsement covering business loss sustained by the owner due to an inability to access the business premises, particularly where it is prohibited by any government order, or the directive of any other civil authority.  This is certainly the case currently for "non-essential" businesses in Ontario. It is also likely that more businesses will, in the near future, be declared "non-essential", as the virus progresses throughout our province. 

Moreover, a business owner may also have purchased “contingent business interruption” coverage, which protects the business from losses resulting from damage caused by interruption of supply. However, often the business interruption must be caused by damage to the suppliers’ property.

Often whether there is available coverage will depend on the specific language in the policy or endorsement; not all policies are the same - there is no standard language. In fact, may policies vary in terms of the language and coverage options. It will also depend on the nature of the loss, having regard to the language of the policy.  

Therefore, if you are a business owner with a commercial insurance policy, you should promptly review your policy and speak to your insurance broker for additional guidance. Ultimately a claim should potentially be considered for business loss arising from COVID-19 and the municipal, provincial and federal government's remedial responses to the virus pandemic. 

Indeed, keep a watchful eye on this issue, as the governments' response will surely develop and change as the virus continues to spread.  

Interestingly,  the March 18, 2020 “National Law Review” reports that a lawsuit was commenced by a restaurant owner in the State of Louisiana asking for the Court declare that its insurance policy did not contain any exclusion for viral pandemic. The owner claimed the commercial policy covers the restaurant business for any future government-related shutdown orders, due to physical loss from COVID-19 contamination. The owner also claimed the insurer should be legally required to provide income coverage if COVID-19 were to contaminate the restaurant.

The owner basically claimed that contamination of the insured place of business by COVID-19 constitutes a direct physical loss, thereby necessitating remediation to clean the surfaces of the establishment. 

The Court has not made its final decision, but certainly the issue is already being raised judicially. 

Mind you, this is entirely different jurisdiction, whose laws do not apply directly in Ontario. 

This said, this issue is certainly to find its way into the Ontario Courts in the near future, if not already. 

What should you, as a business owner, do? 

If you have a commercial insurance policy, review it. 

Contact your broker for his or her advice on whether business interruption insurance should be claimed to the insurer. 

Ultimately it is the insurer who must either allow or deny the claim - a broker cannot do so and you should not exclusively rely on your broker's advice about whether to bring a claim, or not - rather, your broker's advice and guidance is a factor to consider in your decision.  

Even if a tenable claim cannot now be made, that may change in the future, as the uncertainty of this virus continues to move forward. 

 

read more

I'M IN AN "ESSENTIAL WORKPLACE" - DO I HAVE TO GO TO WORK? I'M WORRIED. NOT IF YOU QUALIFY FOR EMERGENCY LEAVE

The Ontario Government has ordered the mandatory closure of all non-essential workplaces, effective March 24, 2020 at 11:59 p.m. This order will be in effect for fourteen days with the possibility of being extended as the circumstances evolve.

Here is a list of “essential workplaces” in Ontario, as declared:

ttps://s3.amazonaws.com/files.news.ontario.ca/opo/en/2020/03/list-of-essential-workplaces-2.html

For the purposes of this order, businesses include any for-profit, non-profit or other entity providing the goods and services described by the list. This does not preclude the provision of work and services by entities not on the list either online, by telephone or by mail/delivery. Furthermore, teleworking and online commerce are permitted at all times for all businesses. Businesses can operate virtually and remotely, in other words.

If there is any issue whether an organization constitutes an “essential workplace”, the Government also announced that it will be setting up a 1-800 number and Web site for inquiries.

If your employer is an “essential workplace”, you may be legally permitted not to attend work due to COVID-19.

Your position will be job-protected, but your employer will not be required to pay your regular pay during your leave of absence. However, the federal Government has established new employment insurance (“EI”) benefits to correspond with these measures by Ontario. They are intended to work together. 

Employer’s Duty to Provide a Safe Work Environment:

Firstly, for background on the issue, employers have an obligation to ensure the safety of their workers under occupational health and safety legislation. That obligation includes taking every reasonable precaution in the circumstances for the protection of their workers, even in the situation of a pandemic. They are expected to put the necessary measures in place to protect workers from infectious diseases, and inform, instruct and supervise workers in order to protect their health and safety.

Since March 13, 2020, the Public Health Agency of Canada and various other public health authorities have recommended that Canadians self-isolate for a period of fourteen days if:

  • they have travelled anywhere outside of Canada (including the United States of America).
  • they live with, provided care for, or spent extensive time with someone who:
    • has tested positive for COVID-19; or
    • is suspected of having COVID-19; or
    • has respiratory symptoms (fever, cough, or shortness of breath) that started within fourteen days of travel outside of Canada.

If you meet any of these requirements, you should immediately self-isolate at home only.

New Infectious Disease Emergency Leave (i.e., COVID-19):

We now have "declared emergency" and "infectious disease emergencies" leaves of absence from the workplace, per the new legislation the Ontario government passed very recently, retroactive to January 25, 2020; namely, Bill 186 – the Employment Standards Amendment Act (Infectious Disease Emergencies), 2020, to amend the job-protected leaves of absence under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA) (“Bill 186).

Under this new legislation, employees of “essential workplaces” are entitled to take an unpaid leave of absence if they are unable to work for any of the following reasons:

- the employee is under individual medical investigation, supervision, or treatment, in connection with COVID-19;

- the employee is acting in accordance with an order by a medical officer of health or by the Ontario Court of Justice under the Health Protection and Promotion Act;

- the employee is in isolation, quarantine, or subject to some other control measure (including self-isolation) where the employee is acting in accordance with public health information or directions issued by a public health official, a qualified health practitioner, Telehealth Ontario, the government of Ontario or Canada, a municipal council, or board of health;

- the employee is acting in accordance with a direction of the employer in response to a concern of the employer that the employee may expose other individuals in the workplace to the designated infectious disease;

the employee needs to provide care or support to a specified individual (as set out below), for example because of a school or daycare closure;

- the employee cannot return to Ontario as a result of travel restrictions related to the designated infectious disease; and/or

- any other reasons(s) that the Government may further declare.

Incidentally, COVID-19 has been designated as a designated infectious disease.

For both declared emergencies and designated infectious disease emergencies, the leave is available if the employee cannot perform their job duties as a result of having to provide care or support for a specified individual. Bill 186 significantly expands the list of specified individuals to increase the availability of the leave. The specified individuals for the purposes of these leaves are:

- the employee’s spouse;

- a parent, step-parent or foster parent of the employee or the employee’s spouse;

- a child, step-child or foster child of the employee or the employee’s spouse;

- a child who is under legal guardianship of the employee or the employee’s spouse;

- a brother, step-brother, sister or step-sister of the employee;

- a grandparent, step-grandparent, grandchild or step-grandchild of the employee or the employee’s spouse;

- a brother-in-law, step-brother-in-law, sister-in-law or step-sister-in-law of the employee;

- a son-in-law or daughter-in-law of the employee or the employee’s spouse;

- an uncle or aunt of the employee or the employee’s spouse;

- a nephew or niece of the employee or the employee’s spouse;

- the spouse of the employee’s grandchild, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece;

- a person who considers the employee to be like a family member, provided the prescribed conditions, if any, are met; and

- any individual prescribed as a family member by the Government for the purposes of the above.

Employees wishing to take this Infectious Disease Emergency Leave will not be required to provide a medical note to employers. However, employers can require that employees provide evidence that is reasonable in the circumstances (at a time that is reasonable in the circumstances) to substantiate their absence. The official for Bill 186 suggests that employers can request things such as a note from a daycare or evidence of a cancelled flight. Employers are permitted to request supporting evidence of entitlement from an employee who takes the leave; however, this right is somewhat qualified. The evidence requested must be “reasonable in the circumstances” and must be provided at a time that is also “reasonable in the circumstances.” Importantly, the employer is not permitted to request a medical certificate as evidence of entitlement to the leave.

The job protection under Bill 186 is retroactive to January 25, 2020, which is the date that the first presumptive COVID-19 case was confirmed in Ontario. The Ontario Government indicates that these measures will remain in place “until COVID-19 is defeated”.

Declared Emergency Leave:

In addition to the Infectious Disease Emergency Leave, the Declared Emergency Leave remains available to all employees, if an employee cannot perform his or her job duties as a result of a declared emergency under Ontario’s Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act (EMCPA) and:

- because of an order that applies to the employee under the EMCPA;

- because of an order that applies to the employee under the Health Protection and Promotion Act;

- because the employee is needed to provide care or assistance for a specified individual (as set out above); or

- any other reason that may be prescribed by the Government.

The Declared Emergency Leave is also unpaid and will be available for the duration of the declared emergency.

General:

The usual ESA protections for statutory leaves of absence apply equally to these new emergency leaves, including anti-reprisal provisions, the right to continue to participate in certain benefits unless the employee opts not to continue to pay their share of the premiums (if any), and the right to reinstatement.

COVID-19 continues to have a significant impact on Canadian workplaces resulting in employers having to layoff staff due to work shortages and temporary closures. Employers should proceed with caution and obtain legal advice before seeking to temporarily layoff an employee who may be eligible for an ESA leave. The amendments also provide flexibility to employees in terms of providing supporting evidence of the entitlement to the leave. It is conceivable that in certain circumstances, it would be reasonable for an employee to provide evidence after the leave is taken.

Should My Employer Pay Me During my Emergency Leave?

The question of whether an employer should remunerate an employee during the fourteen-day shutdown period can be complex. There is no one-size-fits-all approach.

Employees who are not employed by essential workplaces, or who qualify for the new emergency leaves, may also apply for the corresponding EI benefits now available from the federal Government.

What if an employee has symptoms but does not meet the requirements to self-isolate?

If an employee has the symptoms of COVID-19 (coughing, and/or difficulty breathing), they should not be attending work. If they are febrile, they may have contracted an infectious virus and should not be in the workplace. They should go home and come back to work when the fourteen-day period has elapsed or when a medical professional authorizes them to return to work.

What if an employee does not want to self-isolate?

If an employer has a reasonable basis to believe that an employee should be self-isolating (i.e., meeting one of the public health-identified criteria for self-isolation) management should make careful notes of the basis for that belief and send the employee home. They should direct him or her not to come to work for the duration of the self-isolation fourteen-day period. Employers have a duty to ensure the safety of the workplace and must weigh the balance between employee wishes and workplace safety.

What if an employee wants to social distance and work-from-home?

Given the advice from public health authorities, many employers are utilizing remote work as a means to promote social distancing. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has advised all Canadians to work from home where possible. From both a public health and occupational safety perspective, working from home is a sound policy to implement , provided it is feasible for your workplace.

Public health authorities recognize, however, that there are a number of workplaces where remote work is not possible. Even in circumstances where an employee is not required to self-isolate or cannot work remotely, all employees should exercise precaution and self-monitor for symptoms of COVID-19. Employers should inform their employees of their duty to abstain from work and to report any symptoms or risk of COVID-19 to their employer during this crisis.

Does an employer have to pay an employee during quarantine?

There is no one-size-fits-all approach to the issue of whether an employer must pay an employee that is self-isolating, and will depend on the particular circumstances. No matter what, employers should be clear with the employee, in writing via email, about whether they will/will not be paid during the quarantine period. The employer's message should be sympathetic, and should confirm in writing exactly what is changing for that employee, and that the steps taken are a temporary necessity.

In addition, the Federal government has initiated new, corresponding measures to support workers affected by COVID-19 and placed in quarantine:

  • the one-week waiting period for EI sickness benefits will be waived for new claimants who are quarantined;
  • a new dedicated toll-free phone number is established to support enquiries related to waiving the EI sickness benefits waiting period;
  • employees claiming EI sickness benefits due to quarantine are not required to provide a supporting medical certificate; and
  • employees who cannot complete their claim for EI sickness benefits due to quarantine are permitted to apply later and have their EI claim backdated to cover the period of delay. 
read more

COVID-19 - NON-ESSENTIAL? LAID OFF AT WORK? WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW. YOUR RIGHTS.

Due the shutdown of non-essential workplaces, effective March 24, 2020, many employers will be considering temporarily laying off employees, at those employers who do not qualify as “essential workplaces”.

This is not a risk-fee, easy-to-do step by an employer, despite the catastrophic circumstances.

Ontario’s Employment Standards Act, 2000 (the “ESA”) allows employers to invoke a temporary layoff, which does not amount to a termination or severance of employment.

Temporary Lay Off – Defined:

A temporary lay off is:

1. a layoff of not more than 13 weeks, in any period of 20 consecutive weeks;

2. a layoff of more than 13 weeks, in any period of 20 consecutive weeks, if the layoff is less than 35 weeks in any period of 52 consecutive weeks and:

  • the employee continues to receive substantial payments from the employer;
  • the employer continues to make payments for the benefit of the employee under a legitimate retirement or pension plan or a legitimate group or employee insurance plan;
  • the employee receives supplementary unemployment benefits;
  • the employee is employed elsewhere during the layoff and would be entitled to receive supplementary unemployment benefits if that were not so;
  • the employer recalls the employee within the time approved by the Director of Employment Standards;
  • in the case of an employee who is not represented by a union, the employer recalls the employee within the time set out in an agreement between the employer and the employee; or

3. in the case of an employee represented by a union, a layoff longer than a layoff described in clause 2 above, where the employer recalls the employee within the time set out in an agreement between the employer and the union (i.e., recall rights in a collective agreement).

Any employers who temporarily lays an employee off, without specifying a recall date, is deemed not to have terminated the employ of the employee, unless the period of the layoff exceeds that of a temporary layoff.

So, if a layoff exceeds this period above, an employee will be deemed to have been terminated and, therefore, will be entitled to ESA termination pay and severance pay, if applicable.

In addition to providing pay in lieu of notice when a layoff exceeds the period in which it is considered temporary, employers in Ontario must provide employees who have more than five years of service with statutory severance pay when the layoff exceeds 35 weeks in a 52 week period. Similarly, federally regulated employers are required to pay statutory severance pay when a layoff exceeds certain timeframes.

Employers are not required to provide employees with notice in advance of a temporary layoff, but unionized employers may be subject to notice requirements under their collective agreements, which may create significant difficulty due to the Ontario Government’s reasonably unexpected order.

In a unionized workplace, there may also be layoff and recall procedures that must be followed.

In addition, if the layoff of a unionized employee extends beyond 34 weeks (i.e. lasts for 35 weeks or more) and the employer and the union have an agreement that requires a recall period of 35 weeks or more, the employee may elect to take statutory termination pay and severance pay, if applicable, or retain their recall rights, but not both.

Mass Layoffs:

The notice/pay in lieu of notice to which employees are entitled increases significantly when a layoff is considered a mass layoff. Layoffs are considered to be mass layoffs when:

  • more than 10 employees are impacted within certain periods of time in New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan; and

  • more than 50 employees are impacted within certain periods of time in Alberta, BC, Manitoba and Ontario.

In addition, employers in many provinces must provide notice, sometimes in a specific form, to the government. The same applies for federally regulated employers.

Exceptions:

If the lay off exceeds the required temporary period, there are also exceptions to an employer’s obligation to provide notice/pay in lieu of notice, including severance pay, if applicable, under the ESA, such as:

• when the employment contract is impossible to perform due to:                      

• unforeseeable or unpreventable causes beyond the employee's control; or            

• a fortuitous or unforeseeable event or circumstance;                   

• the temporary or indefinite termination of employment because of lack of work; or

• the actions of any government authority that directly affects the operations of the employer.

These exceptions would, it appears, clearly be invoked by the COVID-19 pandemic and, if so, an employee may not be entitled to any statutory pay. 

When employees are temporarily laid off, employers should issue Records of Employment, so the employees may apply for Employment Insurance (“EI”) benefits, if they qualify.

The Legal Debate:

Historically, even thought the ESA permits lay offs, if there is no term in an employment agreement (express or implied) permitting temporary layoffs (or in some cases an established practice relating to temporary layoffs), a layoff, even if intended to be temporary, may result in the risk of constructive dismissal claims. In other words, even if a temporary layoff under the ESA is carried out properly, such that employment is not deemed terminated under the ESA, if there is no agreement to the contrary and/or a well established practice, a unilateral layoff by an employer may result in triggering a termination of employ, pursuant to Ontario’s common law (i.e., Judge-made law).

However, COVID-19 is unprecedented. As a result, it is doubtful that the traditional legal approach would prevail, if an employee were to sue due to being temporarily laid off. Arguably there is an implied term in every employment relationship that a temporary lay off would be permissible in these catastrophic circumstances, particularly if an employer has been ordered shut down by the Government.

In addition, the virus and its extraordinary implications may create an argument that an employment relationship has been frustrated, unable to be performed due to circumstances beyond the parties’ control or management. Frustration is a legal principle providing that an unforeseen change to the circumstances underlying the contract, through no fault of the parties, renders the contract incapable of performance.

Moreover, a constructive dismissal claim may arise where there has been a unilateral change by the employer, which substantially alters an essential term of the parties’ employment contract, verbal or in writing. Therefore, if a change to the terms and conditions of employment are not imposed by the employer, but are rather imposed as a result of a mandatory closure ordered by the Ontario Government, it is very questionable in these extraordinary circumstances whether an employee would be able to successfully argue that the temporary layoff constitutes a constructive dismissal. An employee claiming constructive dismissal also has an obligation to mitigate any damages they allege to have suffered, which means that if a laid off employee is recalled to work and declines, a Court may subsequently determine that the employee failed to mitigate his or her damages, reducing the amount awarded for the termination.

Some employers, if financially able to do so, should consider continuing benefits and/or providing supplementary unemployment benefits to qualify for the longer temporary layoff period under the ESA.

Finally, employees are also entitled to a job-protected, unpaid leave of absence if the employee will not be performing the duties of his or her position due to emergency declared under Ontario’s Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act (“EMCPA”). Employees may also qualify for infectious disease leave of absence, too, being a job-protected, unpaid leave of absence as well, for which EI benefits are also available.

 

read more

COVID-19: HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTIONS FOR EMPLOYEES. NO DIFFERENT TREATMENT. ABILITY TO REFUSE WORK.

Employees in Ontario are protected by Ontario's Human Rights Code (the "Code") in terms of the COVID-19 pandemic. Currently, those protections include: 

- it is discriminatory to treat employees who have, or are perceived to have, contracted COVID-19, in a negative manner, for reasons unrelated to public health and safety;

- employers have a duty to accommodate employees in relation to COVID-19, unless it would amount to undue hardship based on cost, or health and safety; 

- employers should not treat employees in a differential manner over COVID-concerns, unless these concerns are reasonable and consistent with the most recent advice of medical and public health officials;   

- unless an employee can provide a legitimate reason why he or she cannot work, employers have a right to expect they will continue to perform their work. If an employee is required to self-isolate for legitimate reasons, the employer can explore alternative options to allow the employee to continue to work; 

- employers may not discipline or terminate individual employees who are unable to come to work because medical or health officials have quarantined, or advised them to self-isolate and stay home because of COVID-19 concerns; 

- employers should accommodate employees who have care-giving responsibilities to the point of undue hardship, which may include working from home, reduced hours or leave without pay; 

- employers should take requests for accommodation in good faith and avoid requiring medical notes to justify employee absences where such notes are unnecessary; and 

- it is not discriminatory to lay off employees if there is no work for them to do because of the impacts of COVID-19.

Employers should also remind employees that it is unacceptable to treat other employees or members of the public differently, or assume they might be infected with COVID-19 on the basis of their race, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin or ancestry.

Assuming that someone has the virus because they happen to have exhibited one of the symptoms of the virus and because of an assumption about where they are from based upon how they look would most likely be considered discrimination.

If an employer were aware of this differential treatment and chose to do nothing about it, they could be exposed to liability since employers are in most cases vicariously liable for the actions of their employees.

Differential treatment related to this virus is not permissible.

Employers should likely go further and communicate that any employee who behaves in such a manner will be subject to corrective action and, possibly, discipline.
 

Credit: 

Anne Lemay and Nathan Hoo, Gowlings WLG, published March 19, 2020, via Lexology.com 

 

 

 

read more

I'M WORRIED. I HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF MY KIDS. DO I HAVE TO GO TO WORK? WHAT ARE MY OPTIONS?

You have options and may be legally permitted not to attend work. Your position will be job-protected, but your employer will not be required to pay your regular pay during your leave of absence.

We now have "declared emergency" and "infectious disease emergencies" leaves of absence from the workplace, per the new legislation the Ontario government passed very recently, retroactive to January 25, 2020:

[Bill 186 – the Employment Standards Amendment Act (Infectious Disease Emergencies), 2020, to amend the job-protected leaves of absence under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA)]:

Declared Emergencies:

The amended declared emergency leave remains available if an employee cannot perform his or her job duties as a result of a declared emergency under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act (EMCPA) and:

- because of an order that applies to the employee under the EMCPA;

- because of an order that applies to the employee under the Health Protection and Promotion Act;

- because the employee is needed to provide care or assistance for a specified individual (as set out below); or

- any other reason that may be prescribed by regulation.

The declared emergency leave is unpaid and will be available for the duration of the declared emergency.

Infectious Disease Emergencies:

The new infectious disease emergencies leave is available only for “designated infectious diseases, ” which means that the particular disease must be designated in a regulation under the ESA. Once a disease is designated, the unpaid, job-protected leave is available if an employee will not be performing their job duties as a result of one or more of the following reasons related to the designated infectious disease:

- the employee is under individual medical investigation, supervision, or treatment;

- the employee is acting in accordance with an order by a medical officer of health or by the Ontario Court of Justice under the Health Protection and Promotion Act;

- the employee is in isolation, quarantine, or subject to some other control measure (including self-isolation) where the employee is acting in accordance with public health information or directions issued by a public health official, a qualified health practitioner, Telehealth Ontario, the government of Ontario or Canada, a municipal council, or board of health;

- the employee is acting in accordance with a direction of the employer in response to a concern of the employer that the employee may expose other individuals in the workplace to the designated infectious disease;

- the employee needs to provide care or support to a specified individual (as set out below), for example because of a school or daycare closure;

- the employee cannot return to Ontario as a result of travel restrictions related to the designated infectious disease; or
any other reasons that may be prescribed by regulation.
COVID-19 has been designated as a designated infectious disease.

General:

For both declared emergencies and designated infectious disease emergencies, the leave is available if the employee cannot perform their job duties as a result of having to provide care or support for a specified individual. Bill 186 significantly expands the list of specified individuals to increase the availability of the leave. The specified individuals for the purposes of these leaves are:

- the employee’s spouse.

- a parent, step-parent or foster parent of the employee or the employee’s spouse.

- a child, step-child or foster child of the employee or the employee’s spouse.

- a child who is under legal guardianship of the employee or the employee’s spouse.

- a brother, step-brother, sister or step-sister of the employee.

- a grandparent, step-grandparent, grandchild or step-grandchild of the employee or the employee’s spouse.

- a brother-in-law, step-brother-in-law, sister-in-law or step-sister-in-law of the employee.

- a son-in-law or daughter-in-law of the employee or the employee’s spouse.

- an uncle or aunt of the employee or the employee’s spouse.

- a nephew or niece of the employee or the employee’s spouse.
The spouse of the employee’s grandchild, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece.

A person who considers the employee to be like a family member, provided the prescribed conditions, if any, are met.

Any individual prescribed as a family member for the purposes of this section.

Employers are permitted to request supporting evidence of entitlement from an employee who takes the leave; however, this right is somewhat qualified. The evidence requested must be “reasonable in the circumstances” and must be provided at a time that is also “reasonable in the circumstances.” For a designated infectious disease emergency leave, the employer is not permitted to request a medical certificate as evidence of entitlement to the leave.

On March 17, 2020, Ontario passed an Order-in-Council declaring the COVID-19 outbreak to be an “emergency” under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act (EMCPA). This declaration enables the government to access a broad number of general powers set out under the EMCPA to respond to the emergency. The government used these powers to issue two orders to assist in reducing the spread of COVID-19. The first order requires the following establishments to remain closed until March 31, 2020:

- all facilities providing indoor recreational programs;
- all public libraries;
- all private schools under the Education Act;
- all licensed child care centres;
- all bars and restaurants (except takeout food and delivery);
- all theatres and movie cinemas; and
- all concert venues.

The second order prohibits all “organized public events of over fifty people.” This order includes parades, events, and communal services within places of worship, and will also extend to March 31st, 2020, unless terminated earlier.

The usual ESA protections for statutory leaves of absence apply equally to these new emergency leaves, including anti-reprisal provisions, the right to continue to participate in certain benefits unless the employee opts not to continue to pay their share of the premiums (if any), and the right to reinstatement.

COVID-19 continues to have a significant impact on Canadian workplaces resulting in employers having to layoff staff due to work shortages and temporary closures. Employers should proceed with caution and obtain legal advice before seeking to temporarily layoff an employee who may be eligible for an ESA leave. The amendments also provide flexibility to employees in terms of providing supporting evidence of the entitlement to the leave. It is conceivable that in certain circumstances, it would be reasonable for an employee to provide evidence after the leave is taken.

The rapid introduction and passing of Bill 186 to provide job-protected, unpaid leave entitlements to employees is part of the Ontario government’s response to manage the ongoing impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Credit: Emond Harnden - ehlaw.ca, published Mar. 20, 2020

read more

YOUR COMPLETE GUIDE TO EI BENEFITS AVAILABLE TO YOU DURING THIS CRISIS

If you have been laid off, cannot attend work due to the virus, or must stay home to care for children due to the school closures, here is a complete guide to the federal government’s Employment Insurance benefits available to you during this crisis and emergency, including answering your questions about being self-employed and “top-ups” from your employer, if any.

EMERGENCY BENEFITS AVAILABLE FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:

Employees and parents are entitled to apply for new financial assistance through EI due to the COVID-19 crisis; specifically:

[1] a short-term Emergency Care Benefit, offering up to $900.00 bi-weekly, for up to 15 weeks, administered through the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”), available to:

[a] employees (including self-employed, gig economy and freelance workers), quarantined or sick with COVID-19, but do not qualify for regular EI sickness;  

[b] employees (including self-employed, gig economy and freelance workers), taking care of a family member who is sick with COVID-19, including an elderly parent, but who do not quality for EI sickness benefits; or

[c] parents who care or supervise their child(ren) because of the school closures and, as a result, cannot attend work and earn any income, regardless whether that parent may otherwise qualify for EI benefits.   

Applications for this benefit cannot be made until April, 2020. Each applicant will have to verify he or she is eligible for the benefit, including ongoing verification while the benefit is being received. A doctor’s note will not be required.    

 [2] a longer-term Emergency Support Benefit (i.e., income support program) for employees, administered through the CRA, offering up to $5 billion in support to workers who are ineligible for EI and are, or will be, unemployed, together with a proposed, one-time special funding payment by May of 2020 to low and modest-income families, administered through the Goods and Services Tax Credit – it is estimated that the average increase to income for those benefitting from this funding measure will be approximately $400.00 for single individuals and close to $600.00 for couples;

[3] an increase to the maximum annual Canada Child Benefit payment amounts for the 2019-20 benefit year by $300.00 per child;  

[4] emergency funding for targeted groups, who may be more vulnerable to the effects of COVID-19, including First Nations, Inuit and Metis Nation communities, and people repaying their student loans; and

[5] EI sickness benefits, providing up to 15 weeks of income replacement to eligible workers unable to work due to illness, injury or quarantine, intended to give workers adequate time to return to good health and to work, including those quarantined due to COVID-19, who are eligible for this benefit, too. Note: [a] the usual one-week wait period for EI sickness benefits will be waived for new claimed quarantined, so they are paid for the initial week of their claim; [b] priority EI application processing will reportedly be utilized for those claiming EI sickness benefits due to quarantine, who do not need to provide a doctor’s note or medical certificate in order to apply and receive this benefit; [c] it remains uncertain if a qualified worker will be required to provide ongoing updates and reporting, such as every two weeks, verifying continuous qualification for the benefit; and [d] workers who are unable to complete their claims for EI sickness benefits because of quarantine may apply in future and their claims will reportedly be backdated to over the quarantine-related delay;

QUALIFYING FOR EI SICKNESS BENEFITS (ELIGIBILITY):

To qualify for EI sickness benefits, you must:

[1] be employed in insurable employ;

[2] have had your normal weekly earnings have been reduced by more than 40%;

[3] have accumulated at least 600 hours of insurable employment during the qualifying period; and

[4] be self-employed, registered for EI and submitting premiums for at least one year.

If you are ineligible for EI sickness benefits, you may qualify for regular EI benefits.

More information is available about qualifying for regular EI benefits here:

https://www.canada.ca/en/services/benefits/ei.html.

SELF-EMPLOYED:

If you are self-employed, you can access EI special benefits by entering into an agreement, or registering, with the Canada Employment Insurance Commission. There are six types of EI special benefits currently:

  • Maternity benefits are for people who are away from work because they’re pregnant or have recently given birth (up to 15 weeks).
  • Parental benefits are for parents who are away from work to care for their newborn or newly adopted child. When applying for parental benefits, you need to choose between 2 options: standard or extended.
    • Up to 40 weeks of standard parental benefits can be paid to parents sharing benefits, but one parent cannot receive more than 35 weeks. If parents share benefits, they must choose the same option.
    • Up to 69 weeks of extended parental benefits can be paid to parents sharing benefits, but one parent cannot receive more than 61 weeks. If parents share benefits, they must choose the same option.
  • Sickness benefits are for people who cannot work due to injury, illness, or the need to be isolated in quarantine because they may be carrying a disease (up to 15 weeks).
  • Compassionate care benefits are for caregivers who must be away from work temporarily to provide care or support to a person who is seriously ill with a significant risk of death (up to 26 weeks). The 26 weeks of benefits can be shared between different caregivers who applied and are eligible to receive them.
  • The family caregiver benefit for children is for caregivers who must be away from work to provide care or support to a critically ill or injured child under 18. Either one or more caregivers can share up to 35 weeks of benefits between them.
  • The family caregiver benefit for adults is for caregivers who must be away from work to provide care or support to a critically ill or injured adult. Either one or more caregivers can share up to 15 weeks of benefits between them.

More information for self-employed individuals and EI benefits is here:

https://www.canada.ca/en/services/benefits/ei/ei-self-employed-workers.html

CLAWBACKS AND DEDUCTIONS AGAINST EI BENEFITS (FOR WORKING):

If an employee works while receiving EI (sickness or regular) benefits, the employee is able to keep only one-half (i.e., $0.50) of the EI benefits for every dollar earned earn, up to 90% of the weekly insurable earnings used to calculate the employee’s EI benefit amount (i.e., the earnings threshold). If the employee earns any income above the earnings threshold, the Commission will deduct those amounts dollar-for-dollar from the benefits received by the employee. Whether an employee’s income during an EI benefit period will be deducted depends on whether the income falls within the meaning of “earnings” in the EI program.

Certain kinds of income will not impact EI benefits, including:

[a] disability benefits;

[b] survivor or dependent benefits;

[c] worker's compensation benefits paid under specific regulations;

[d] additional insurance benefits paid under an approved private plan (for example, payments for pain and suffering or medical expenses that received from an insurance company after an employee has been injured in a car accident);

[e] additional sickness benefits paid by an employer from a registered supplemental unemployment benefit plan (as long as the income, benefits, and additional amounts combined do not exceed 95% of the weekly earnings);  

[f] sickness or disability payments received under a private wage loss replacement plan; and

[g] retroactive salary increases.

Here is a chart explaining what constitutes earnings for EI:

https://www.canada.ca/en/services/benefits/ei/earnings-chart.html

EMPLOYER-PAID “TOP UP” TO EI BENEFITS [SIMILAR TO PARENTAL OR MATERNAL LEAVE]:

If an employer tops-up an employees earnings, beyond the EI (sick or regular) benefits, it will be considered “earnings” and will be deducted or clawed-back from the employee’s benefits, unless the top-up was given under a formalized “top up” plan, otherwise known as a “Supplemental Unemployment Benefit”. Therefore, employees who received an informal, non-registered top-up, at least currently, are likely to be subject to claw-back against their EI benefits.

SUB PLANS – SUPPLEMENTAL UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT PLAN (“SUB”)NO CLAWBACK:  

Any employer can utilize a SUB to increase employees’ weekly earning during a period of unemployment, when they are unemployed as a result of a temporary stoppage or shortage of work, training, illness, injury or quarantine. Payments from SUBs must be registered with Service Canada – they are not considered to be earnings and are not deducted from EI (sick and regular) benefits.  

SUBs must be registered by Service Canada, as of the date on which the application for the SUB is filed by the employer. SUBs must be registered before the effective date of the SUB. If a SUB plan is not registered, at least currently, any top-up payments by the employer to EI (sick or regular) benefits will be deemed as “earnings”, and be subject to deduction or claw-back, as explained above.

More information about SUBs is available here:

https://www.canada.ca/en/privy-council/corporate/transparency/reporting-spending/departmental-results-reports/2016-2017/supporting-information-sub-programs.html

A sample SUB is available here:

https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/ei/ei-list/reports/supplemental-unemployment-benefit/sample.html

PROVINCIAL (ESA) LEAVES OF ABSENCE AND EI BENEFITS – TIED TOGETHER:

Note that the new, statutory leaves of absence authorized by Ontario in response to COVID-19 are tied to, and rely on, the federal EI program to compensate employees while they are away from work. However, this is subject to change depending on what funding is allocated to the program in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

More information about Ontario’s COVID-19-related authorized leaves of absence can be found here:

https://www.facebook.com/jwpeppaTest/posts/3595895590481430?__tn__=K-R

read more

COVID-19 - CAN MY EMPLOYER FORCE ME TO STAY OR WORK FROM HOME? IF SO, DOES MY EMPLOYER STILL HAVE TO PAY ME?

Pending a provincial lock-down, except for essential services, which is imminently expected in Ontario, many employees are concerned about the ability of their employer to disallow them attending work.

The other issue is entitlement to pay for employees who are requested not to attend work, or who elect to take a new, statutory leave of absence related to COVID-19 and its implications. 

Below is a very good explanation of these issue, as it currently stands in Ontario, and subject to further directives from both the provincial and federal government.  

All of this is subject to change at any time as the provincial and federal response to this pandemic modulates and develops:  

As a result of the recent COVID-19 pandemic Canadian health authorities over the past week have requested that individuals exercise social distancing, and in certain circumstances self-isolation, to stymie the spread of the virus. Many employers are in the difficult position of determining how they can implement these public health measures in their workplace.

Duty to Provide a Safe Work Environment

Employers have an obligation to ensure the safety of their workers under occupational health and safety legislation. That obligation includes taking every reasonable precaution in the circumstances for the protection of their workers, even in the situation of a pandemic. They are expected to put the necessary measures in place to protect workers from infectious diseases, and inform, instruct and supervise workers in order to protect their health and safety.

Since March 13, 2020, the Public Health Agency of Canada and various other public health authorities have recommended that Canadians self-isolate for a 14-day period if:

  • they have travelled anywhere outside of Canada (including the United States of America).
  • they live with, provided care for, or spent extensive time with someone who:
    • has tested positive for COVID-19; or
    • is suspected of having COVID-19; or
    • has respiratory symptoms (fever, cough, or shortness of breath) that started within 14 days of travel outside of Canada.

Should an employee meet any of the above requirements, they should self-isolate at home.

The question of whether an employer should remunerate an employee during the 14-day period can be complex. There is no one-size-fits-all approach, and it is recommended that employers speak with a member of Gowling WLG's Employment, Labour & Equalities Group to develop an appropriate approach for your workplace.

What if an employee has symptoms but does not meet the requirements to self-isolate?

If an employee has the symptoms of COVID-19 (coughing, and/or difficulty breathing) they should not be attending work. If they are febrile, they may have contracted an infectious virus and should not be in the workplace. They should go home and come back to work when the 14-day period has elapsed or when a medical professional authorizes them to return to work.

What if an employee does not want to self-isolate?

If an employer has a reasonable basis to believe that an employee should be self-isolating (i.e. meeting one of the public health-identified criteria for self-isolation) management should make careful notes of the basis for that belief and send the employee home. They should direct him or her not to come to work for the duration of the self-isolation 14-day period. Employers have a duty to ensure the safety of the workplace and must weigh the balance between employee wishes and workplace safety.

What if an employee wants to social distance and work-from-home?

Given the advice from public health authorities, many employers are utilizing remote work as a means to promote social distancing. On March 16, 2020, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau advised all Canadians to work from home where possible. From both a public health and occupational safety perspective, working from home is a sound policy to implement , provided it is feasible for your workplace.

Public health authorities recognize, however, that there are a number of workplaces where remote work is not possible. Even in circumstances where an employee is not required to self-isolate or cannot work remotely, all employees should exercise precaution and self-monitor for symptoms of COVID-19. We recommend that employers inform their employees of their duty to abstain from work and to report any symptoms or risk of COVID-19 to their employer during this crisis.

Does an employer have to pay an employee during quarantine?

There is no one-size-fits-all approach to the issue of whether an employer must pay an employee that is self-isolating, and will depend on the particular circumstances. No matter what, employers should be clear with the employee, in writing via email, about whether they will/will not be paid during the quarantine period. The employer's message should be sympathetic, and should confirm in writing exactly what is changing for that employee, and that the steps taken are a temporary necessity.

The Federal government has initiated a series of policy changes to support workers affected by COVID-19 and placed in quarantine:

  • The one-week waiting period for EI sickness benefits will be waived for new claimants who are quarantined;
  • A new dedicated toll-free phone number is established to support enquiries related to waiving the EI sickness benefits waiting period;
  • Employees claiming EI sickness benefits due to quarantine are required to provide a supporting medical certificate;
  • Employees who cannot complete their claim for EI sickness benefits due to quarantine are permitted to apply later and have their EI claim backdated to cover the period of delay. 

Credit: Gowling WLG - André Poulin-Denis, published March 23, 2020, via Lexology.com 

 

read more

ONTARIO SHUTDOWN - QUICK GUIDE TO EMERGENCY INCOME AND OTHER SUPPORT AVAILABLE TO YOU

Due to the provincial shutdown, effective on Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 11:59 p.m., if you are laid off or cannot be employed remotely, here is a Quick Reference Guide to the income and other supports available to you during this emergency: 

INCOME SUPPORT:

If you are laid off due to work closures:

If you are facing reduced work hours:

If you are facing unemployment AND you don’t qualify for EI:

  • Apply for the Emergency Support Benefit (long-term income support)

  • Applications will open in April through the CRA Web site and a toll-free number

  • Amounts and eligibility are not announced yet (total funding is $5 billion)

If you are unable to work due to illness/self-quarantine:

If you are self-quarantined and ineligible for EI:

  • Apply for the Emergency Care Benefit

  • Applications will open in April through the CRA website and a toll-free number

  • Up to $900 every 2 weeks for up to 15 weeks

  • No doctor’s note required

If you are self-employed:

  • Apply for the Emergency Care Benefit (see above)

If you are staying home to care for someone:

  • Apply for the Emergency Care Benefit (see above) if you are staying home to take care of a family member with COVID-19 who doesn’t qualify

  • Apply for the Emergency Care Benefit (see above) if you are a parent staying home to care for children due to school closures, whether or not you qualify for EI

ADDITIONAL SUPPORTS

  • NOTE: Tax filing deadline has been extended to June 1, payments due August 31

  • Low to middle income Canadians: GST credit top-up (average of $400 for single adults, $600 for couples) available as soon as May 2020

  • Families: Enhanced Canada Child Benefit this year (additional $300 per child)

  • Homeowners: Deferral of mortgage payments for affected Canadians by up to 6 months (disruptions to your pay interruptions to child care, or unexpected health needs)

  • Students: Freezing all Canada Student Loans payments and interest for 6 months (average savings $160 per month)

  • Seniors: Reducing mandatory withdrawal from RRIFs by 25%

  • Indigenous: New $305 million Indigenous Community Support Fund

  • Vulnerable Population: Additional $50 million available to shelters and centres for women and children fleeing domestic violence

GENERAL & MEDICAL INFORMATION

Call 1-888-COVID19/1-888-268-4319 for non-medical information on the virus, covering everything from travel recommendations to social distancing (available in more than 110 languages from 7:30am – 8:00pm, 7 days a week)

read more

COVID-19 - USING CANADA'S QUARANTINE ACT

Since 2005, we have had federal legislation enacted to require and govern preventative measures due to pandemic, like COVID-19, including mandatory self-isolation and quarantine and enforcement measures. The federal Health Minister is also statutorily empowered to require Ontario to take quarantine measures, including stay-at-home orders, closure of non-essential businesses and to establish self-isolation/quarantine facilities for those who do not comply.

The legislation is comprehensive and provides for all necessary preventative measures and enforcement. 

Link to the legislation: 

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/sc-2005-c-20/latest/sc-2005-c-20.html

 

 

read more

COVID-19 - HELP TO SEPARATED/DIVORCED PARENTS

The COVID-19 pandemic requires urgent communication, co-operation and flexibility between separated and divorced co-parents.

Both co-parents and their child(ren) must isolate at home, like everyone else. This may require adjustments to existing parenting orders or arrangements. 

Co-parents must immediately:

[1] self-isolate and socially distance not only themselves, even when the child is not residing with that co-parent, but at every other time – no visitors, no exposure from others – strictly engage in and comply with all COVID-19 preventative measures (every family member);

[2] flexibly and co-operatively modify existing parenting arrangements to protect the safety and well-being of every child, and those with whom the child may come in contact, by isolating the child, requiring the child to stay at home and minimizing the child’s contact with any person other than the child’s immediate family members, with whom the child primarily resides;

[3] minimize, if not eliminate, access exchanges for the child – children should isolate together and in one home – if parenting arrangements currently require a child to be residing in both homes on a back-and-forth basis, arrangements should be made to extend residency periods in each home, rather than engaging in regular back-and-forth – at a minimum, week-by-week altering residency should be implemented, if not longer;

[4] minimize, if not eliminate, exposure of children to anyone not within the children’s immediate family, with whom the children are residing on a full-time basis – no playdates, birthday parties, shopping, or social visiting – provide regular assurances to the other co-parent that COVID-19 isolation and other required steps are being undertaken;

[5] facilitate and encourage regular and ongoing communication between a child and the other co-parent, unless to do so would be harmful to or threaten the safety or well-being of the child on a reasonable basis, even if this may not be required by existing Court orders, separation agreement or parenting plans;

[6] in addition to telephone, text and other traditional communication, download and implement virtual and online communication methods for every child to communicate with a non-residential parent, such as Facetime, Zoom, Hangout Meet, Skype, etc.

[7] if communication between co-parents is strained, utilize parenting communication platforms to achieve the COVID-19 containment objectives, such as Our Family Wizard, so a proper record is maintained and secured of both co-parents’ reasonable efforts, flexibility and co-operation;          

[8] at a minimum, strictly follow and adhere to any communication requirements in an existing Court order, separation agreement or parenting plan;

[9] discuss and co-ordinate a strategy for discussing the COVID-19 pandemic with the child, including to identify and ease any anxiety, confusion or fear the child may be experiencing;

[10] promptly notify the other co-parent of any changes to a child’s health, particularly related to COVID-19 symptoms, and respond to any enquiries by the other co-parent on a prompt and reasonable basis;

[11] if child support is an issue, co-parents should continue the status quo arrangements, unless they can agree, on a reasonable basis, to modify the financial arrangements to reflect changes or modifications to the parenting arrangements – for example, if the parenting is modified temporarily from an equal time sharing arrangement to a child residing only with one co-parent primarily, it may be appropriate to temporarily modify the child support arrangements, subject to the ability of the co-parents to do so, financially; and

[12] other than these emergency, urgent measures undertaken to attempt to contain the virus, co-parents should otherwise follow strictly their existing Court orders, separation agreements and parenting plans, except as agreed otherwise by them to address these extraordinary circumstances.                                                                                                      

For any child who may be vulnerable, have pre-existing conditions or compromised immuno-related conditions, co-parents must act immediately, prudently and jointly to protect the child – extraordinary arrangements may be required urgently, at least on a temporary basis. Every co-parent must act reasonably, responsibly and selflessly, to serve the best interests of the child, including emotionally.

If co-parents cannot mutually agree on modifying their parenting arrangements for the well-being and safety of their children, and the community at large, their Court order, separation agreement or parenting plan must govern and be followed. However, in these circumstances, co-parents must jointly, flexibly and co-operatively adjust their child’s parenting arrangements to not only protect the child, but themselves, other family members and the public generally.

Co-parents must immediately rise above their past or historical conflict, if any, to protect their child and the community at large – each has a duty to do so, legally and morally.  

Unless the safety or well-being of a child is, on a reasonable basis, placed at risk, co-parents must modify and change their parenting arrangements to achieve and comply with the containment measures undertaken by everyone, including social isolation and avoiding leaving home.

While this may be a challenge for some co-parents, it is critical that co-parents work together, flexibly, co-operatively and with a child’s best interest being paramount, to adjust parenting during this time of crisis. Every co-parent must do his or her part, like every other person in the community, to ensure that every child is socially isolated, exposed to minimal, if any, risk outside of the home, and is responsibly parented during this pandemic. 

The Superior Court in Central East jurisdiction, like many other jurisdictions, has very limited resources available currently to resolve parenting conflict. While there is limited opportunity to submit motions to the Court, they must be urgent. The Court will also be tremendously strained if facing an influx of motions by co-parents who cannot agree on taking reasonable steps to protect the health and safety of their children and for the benefit of everyone else. More information about the suspension of the Family Court is here: https://www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/covid-19-suspension-fam/.

The local police agencies are already strained and operating at reduced capacity. Involving the police in a co-parenting dispute is a very last resort and must only be undertaken if absolutely necessary. The police should be contacted if the safety or well-being of any child is at risk, but co-parents must act responsibly, reasonably and in accordance with the directions, recommendations and advice by government and healthcare officials, which outline monitoring steps, preventative measures and available resources if COVID-19 exposure is a concern or potentially detected.

If you have a conflict, you could also try to contact and seek the assistance of a family law lawyer, which may also be challenging currently and may not achieve an expedient resolution in times when urgency is a necessity. 

 

read more

EMERGENCY FINANCIAL HELP AVAILABLE TO YOU DURING COVID-19

During this COVID-19 crisis, these emergency, financial resources or benefits are available to you from the provincial and federal governments, as of March 22, 2020:

EI BENEFITS – FOR EMPLOYEES:

If you are laid off from your employ, you should apply for EI benefits, if you qualify. Generally, the recall period is thirteen weeks. The one-week waiting period to receive EI benefits has been waived for the next six months. If you qualify for EI (many employees do, except freelancers), the typical benefit is fifty-five per cent of your pre-tax income, up to a maximum weekly benefit of $573 for up to forty-five weeks. These benefits may change further; it is important to watch the EI Web site for updates.

EMERGENCY SUPPORT BENEFIT – IF YOU DO NOT QUALIFY FOR EI BENEFITS:

Even if you do not qualify for EI benefits (such as gig workers and freelancers), you may qualify for the new “Covid-19 emergency support benefit”.  Details of this benefit continue to be released; full information is not yet available.

EMERGENCY CARE BENEFIT – IF YOU DO NOT HAVE PAID SICK LEAVE AND CANNOT ATTEND WORK DUE TO THE VIRUS:

If you do not have paid sick leave through your terms of employment, you may qualify for the new “Emergency Care Benefit”, available to any worker, including gig workers and freelancers. It is available for those who cannot attend work due to having, or caring for someone infected with, COVID-19, or those who are in self-isolation or quarantine, including if you must be absent due to the recent school closure in Ontario. 

This benefit will pay up to $900 bi-weekly for a period of up to fifteen weeks. No doctor’s note is required. You can apply in April on the Canada Revenue Agency’s and/or Service Canada’s Web site. There will also be a toll-free number available.

CANADA CHILD BENEFIT:

The CCB is a monthly, pre-tax payment for any Canadian resident having children under the age of eighteen, who otherwise qualify. This is an additional, one-month increase to the current CCB for those parents who cannot attend work to care for children who cannot attend school due to COVID-19.

If you are a parent, you may be entitled to receive a further $300, per child, as part of your next CCB benefit payment in May. For example, a two-child family initially receiving $900 monthly for CCB may, in May, be eligible to receive $1,500 in CCB payment. 

TAX FILING AND PAYMENT DEADLINES – EXTENDED:

Your deadline to file your personal income tax return is extended from April 30 to June 1, 2020. It may be extended further, depending on events in the next weeks. Despite this, many financial experts recommend you file by April 30, if you believe you may be entitled to a refund.

If you owe tax (now, or as of the extended deadline), you may defer your tax payment until August 31, 2020. This deadline may be extended further. It may make sense for you to utilize this extended deadline, particularly if you are in the gig economy, a freelancer or self-employed, and you anticipate reduced income between now and then, or potential losses.

CREDIT CARD RELIEF:

The “Big Six” Canadian banks are offering, “the opportunity for relief on other credit products”, in addition to mortgage payments. The details of this remain uncertain; the banks have not yet specified the relief specifically and what credit products may apply. Presumably it will include reduced interest rates, or potentially a payment plan in lieu of regular, monthly payments, at least temporarily until the economic conditions normalize. You should contact your bank for more information and details.   

DEFERRAL OF MORTGAGE PAYMENTS:

The “Big Six” Canadian banks are offering a six-month deferral on all mortgage payments. It is yet unclear whether you’ll be able to defer your mortgage payments on an interest-free basis, or if interest on deferred mortgage payments will accrue until the payments are made. These details are yet not known and may vary between each bank. 

RRIF MINIMAL WITHDRAWAL CHARGES:

If you are seventy-two years of age or more, you are required legally to withdraw minimum amounts from your RRIFs, which may create losses in these economic conditions. These minimum withdrawals have now been reduced, annually, by twenty-five per cent.

read more

WE LOVE TO SAY "SORRY", BUT DID YOU KNOW WE'VE MADE IT PART OF OUR LAW AND IT CAN HELP YOU LEGALLY

In Ontario, unlike any other jurisdiction to my knowledge, we’ve made the act of saying “sorry” part of our legal system, for which there are legal ramifications, both for saying it and for not saying it.

In fact, we’ve made it legislation; namely, Ontario’s “Apology Act” (the “Act”).

This is uniquely an Ontario-only legal initiative.

Before the Act, if an apology were made, such as in a defamation case, that apology could be used against the alleged defamer in Court, including to prove the defamation itself and the harm it must have caused.

Not anymore.

Now, an “apology” is legally defined as “an expression of sympathy or regret” and not “an admission of fault or liability in connection with the matter to which the words or actions relate.”

Before the Act was passed, an “apology” statement could technically be construed as an admission of your guilt or wrongdoing.

The Act is great Ontario law, because now we can say “sorry” without fear, legally speaking.

In fact, in a defamation case, for example, making an apology often impacts the legal case, or least may reduce the damages awarded by the Court.

Making an apology impacts other types of cases, too, legally, so there is always advantage in considering making an apology and, if so, the maker need not be worried that it would legally be held against he or she – it can only help. 

The Act is fairly short and straightforward – the key parts are highlighted below. 

Apology Act, 2009

S.O. 2009, CHAPTER 3

Consolidation Period: From April 23, 2009 to the e-Laws currency date.

No Amendments.

Definition

1. In this Act,

“apology” means an expression of sympathy or regret, a statement that a person is sorry or any other words or actions indicating contrition or commiseration, whether or not the words or actions admit fault or liability or imply an admission of fault or liability in connection with the matter to which the words or actions relate. 2009, c. 3, s. 1.

Effect of apology on liability

2. (1) An apology made by or on behalf of a person in connection with any matter,

(a) does not, in law, constitute an express or implied admission of fault or liability by the person in connection with that matter;

(b) does not, despite any wording to the contrary in any contract of insurance or indemnity and despite any other Act or law, void, impair or otherwise affect any insurance or indemnity coverage for any person in connection with that matter; and

(c) shall not be taken into account in any determination of fault or liability in connection with that matter. 2009, c. 3, s. 2 (1).

Exception

(2) Clauses (1) (a) and (c) do not apply for the purposes of proceedings under the Provincial Offences Act. 2009, c. 3, s. 2 (2).

Evidence of apology not admissible

(3) Despite any other Act or law, evidence of an apology made by or on behalf of a person in connection with any matter is not admissible in any civil proceeding, administrative proceeding or arbitration as evidence of the fault or liability of any person in connection with that matter. 2009, c. 3, s. 2 (3).

Exception

(4) However, if a person makes an apology while testifying at a civil proceeding, including while testifying at an out of court examination in the context of the civil proceeding, at an administrative proceeding or at an arbitration, this section does not apply to the apology for the purposes of that proceeding or arbitration. 2009, c. 3, s. 2 (4).

Criminal or provincial offence proceeding or conviction

3. Nothing in this Act affects,

(a) the admissibility of any evidence in,

(i) a criminal proceeding, including a prosecution for perjury, or

(ii) a proceeding under the Provincial Offences Act; or

(b) the use that may be made in the proceedings referred to in subsection 2 (3) of a conviction for a criminal or provincial offence. 2009, c. 3, s. 3.

Acknowledgment, Limitations Act, 2002

4. For the purposes of section 13 of the Limitations Act, 2002, nothing in this Act,

(a) affects whether an apology constitutes an acknowledgment of liability; or

(b) prevents an apology from being admitted in evidence. 2009, c. 3, s. 4.

5. Omitted (provides for coming into force of provisions of this Act). 2009, c. 3, s. 5.

6. Omitted (enacts short title of this Act). 2009, c. 3, s. 6.

read more

COVID19 - A WORKPLACE CHECKLIST

Despite we are informed there is low risk to us, publicly, precautionary steps should be taken. 

_____________________________________

"The spread of the 2019 novel coronavirus — the virus responsible for COVID-19 — is now anticipated to reach pandemic levels. Officials from the Public Health Agency of Canada reiterate that the risk of a mass outbreak in Canada remains low, but have encouraged and enforced precautionary measures.

Employers should continue to be vigilant in ensuring a safe and healthy workplace. In addition to our previous client alert, employers should be mindful of the following checklist:

1. Appoint one or more coordinators who will be responsible for tracking and communicating the latest developments of COVID-19. The coordinator(s) should have the authority to make or advise on emergency decisions such as office closures and meeting cancellations.

  • According to the size of the employer’s organization, a cross-functional team may be necessary with designated individuals to handle issues such as employee health and safety, medical/personal leaves and accommodations, communications, and compliance.

 

2. Routinely follow reliable public health authorities for news and guidelines on prevention, symptom identification, and treatments as they become available.

Reliable sources include:

3. Review or develop emergency contingency plans with appropriate disease prevention measures.

  • Contingency plans are designed to deal with business disruptions, and often include protocols for emergency communication, decision-making, and working with limited staff.
  • Consider realistic and permissible cost-cutting strategies early on; be forward-looking as the economy braces for COVID-19.
  • Employers may already have a contingency plan that is unique to their environment, but should be aware of best practices specific to epidemics.
  • Common strategies unique to disease prevention can include:
    • directing employees to contact their doctor and local public health units if they believe they have been exposed to COVID-19
    • placing posters or flyers around the workplace that encourage employees to stay home if they are sick, and that outline best practices on hand hygiene, coughing and sneezing, and symptom identification
    • providing tissues and hand sanitizer dispensers
    • routine cleaning of frequently-touched surfaces, including countertops and door knobs

4. Where possible, expand leave and work-from-home policies that are flexible and non-punitive so that employees do not feel pressured to come to work if they feel sick or believe they have been exposed.

  • Employers will be able to require this if they have objective knowledge, or a reasonably held belief, that an employee is displaying symptoms or has been exposed to COVID-19.
  • As always, ensure that employees are aware of their benefits and entitlements in the event that they or a family member fall ill.
  • In screening for infection risks, be cautious of the laws around privacy and human rights.
  • For more information, review our previous alert on COVID-19.

5. Cancel or limit non-essential and work-related travel, especially to areas cautioned against by health authorities. Arrange for alternative methods of communication with business contacts in affected areas.

  • Monitor the travel advisories in Canada and in other countries that the employer organization may have offices in. Follow reliable public health authorities for information on travel restrictions, including:
  • Travelers returning to Canada from areas under advisory may be required to self-isolate and contact their local public health unit to report their arrival and/or symptoms. Any requirements to do so will be on Canada’s updated COVID-19 page.

6. Be aware of special reporting requirements for designated individuals under Ontario’s Health Protection and Promotion Act, and Personal Health Information Protection Act.[1]

  • Certain individuals may be required to report information on people they suspect have, or could have, COVID-19 to Ontario’s chief medical officer. This reporting obligation applies to individuals such as (but not limited to):
    • regulated health professionals
    • hospital administrators
    • laboratory operators
    • school principals
    • superintendents of stipulated institutions
  • Employers and/or employees who operate in these positions should ensure there are reporting protocols in place if applicable.

7. Document why and how certain measures are used to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in the workplace, and who was affected by them.

  • Be mindful of cultural, medical, and other grounds when making decisions about disease prevention in the workplace. This includes how and who employers question about exposure to COVID-19, and how employers use information gathered.
  • In all cases, ensure compliance with human rights, privacy, and employment laws.

For more information, review our previous alert on COVID-19.

[1]E.g. HPPA ss. 25-29; PHIPA ss. 39-40."

This excellent article was written by Jordan Arthur Kirkness and Susan MacMillan, Baker McKenzie, sourced from Lexology.com on March 10, 20120.  

read more

IF A PERSON IS INCAPABLE OF MAKING HEALTH CARE DECISIONS, HERE'S WHO WILL MAKE THOSE DECISIONS

What happens when a person in Ontario becomes disabled or incapacitated, to the extent that the person cannot make decisions about his or her own health care or treatment? 

In short, someone else is authorized or appointed to make those decisions for the incapacitated person, subject to certain rules and duties imposed by law. 

However, we have a hierarchy of decision-making power in Ontario.

Here is an excellent article by Sydney Osmar of Hull & Hull explaining this hierarchy and how personal health care decisions are regulated for incapable people:  

"Section 20 of the Health Care Consent Act (“HCCA”) provides for a legislative hierarchy of substitute decision makers for persons who have been found incapable with respect to treatment. The hierarchy is as follows:

  1. The incapable person’s guardian of the person;
  2. The incapable person’s attorney for personal care;
  3. The incapable person’s representative appointed by the Consent and Capacity Board;
  4. The incapable person’s spouse or partner;
  5. A child or parent of the incapable person, or an agency that replaces the parent’s authority;
  6. A parent of the person who only has a right of access;
  7. A brother or sister of the incapable person; and
  8. Any other relative of the incapable person.

Those in the above list may only give or refuse consent on behalf of the incapable person if they are: at least 16 years of age, are not prohibited by court order, are available, and are willing to assume this responsibility. A person from the above hierarchy may only act as the substitute decision maker with regard to treatment, if there is not a person who also meets these requirements who ranks higher within the hierarchy.

Sections 20(5) and 20(6) of the HCCA sets out that if no one in the above list meets the requirements to make treatment decisions, or, if there are two equally ranking parties who both meet requirements but disagree on the treatment decision, the decision will devolve to the Public Guardian and Trustee (“PGT”).

As is clear by the placement within the above hierarchy, the act of granting a power of attorney for personal care (“POAPC”) holds great weight when it comes to determining substitute decision makers with regard to treatment decisions. However, the significance of the act of revoking a POAPC in relation to the legislative hierarchy is less clear.

For example, it is quite common for a person to grant a POAPC to their spouse or child, however, in revoking the POAPC, the spouse or child could still remain the legal substitute decision maker under the section 20 hierarchy, should there be no other higher ranking individual willing and able to make treatment decisions, and if the grantor fails to execute a new POAPC.

I have located two decisions of the Consent and Capacity Board (the “Board”), which suggests that in such circumstances, the Board will pull language from other sections of the HCCA to circumvent the hierarchy provided under section 20, where it is clear to do so would be in the incapable person’s best interests.

In A(I) Re, Mrs. I.A. had previously appointed her two children as her attorneys for care. However, this POAPC was later revoked, with Mrs. I.A. informing her lawyer she feared her two children would be unable to reach agreements on important health care decisions. Two distant relatives were instead appointed pursuant to a new POAPC. However, when Mrs. I.A. lost capacity, and a treatment decision needed to be made, the distant relatives felt they were not best suited to make such a decision.

Both children applied to act as Mrs. I.A.’s representative under s. 33 of the HCCA. In coming to its decision the Board accepted that Mrs. I.A.’s overt act of revoking the POAPC that appointed her children was a prior expressed relevant value and belief, however, this did not impact the fact that both children still qualified as decision makers under the section 20 hierarchy. The Board ultimately determined that it was not in Mrs. I.A.’s best interests to have her children act as decision makers, and concluded they could not agree, such that the decision devolved to the PGT.

In D(D) Re, this issue again arose, where the incapable person, D.D. (prior to becoming incapable) granted a POAPC to her husband, later revoking the POAPC when she believed that her husband would not act in her best interests. Because a new POAPC was never executed, the husband remained the legal decision maker under section 20. D.D.’s daughter, J.R., brought an application to the Board to act as her representative. In coming to its conclusion, the Board noted that it was clear that D.D. had not understood that by revoking the POAPC, her husband would remain the decision maker under the HCCA hierarchy, and that it was equally clear her intention had been to remove her husband as the legal decision maker. Therefore, to circumvent the hierarchy, the Board turned to a best interests analysis and ultimately appointed D.D.’s daughter as her decision maker." 

read more

EMPLOYERS HAVE A DUTY TO PROTECT WORKERS FROM HARM, NOT ONLY PHYSICAL

The Occupational Health and Safety Act of Ontario statutorily mandates that Ontario employers must take every precaution, reasonable in the circumstances, for the protection of any worker.

This is often referred to, legally, as every employer’s “general duty” in the workplace.  

So, what does that mean? In Ontario, what is required is interpretative, ultimately; namely, the “circumstances of the case” must be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Each case must be considered and assessed for what is a reasonable precaution in the specific workplace [Reference: R. v. Quinton Steel, 2017 ONCA 1006, para. 29].

This general duty does not necessarily apply only to avoiding physical injury in the workplace but could also apply to mental and emotional harm or injury, too, such as resulting from harassment, intimidation or being exposed to a toxic work environment.

As a result of this general duty:

-    every Ontario employer should conduct workplace risk assessments, at least annually, to satisfy this general duty, including with respect to providing a harassment-free workplace, as is required by Ontario law, and to promote and ensure a healthy workplace for everyone;

-    every Ontario employer is required to assess the circumstances of the workplace when doing a workplace risk assessment; and

-    even if an employer's safety policy complies with the applicable regulation, it may not be in legal compliance if the circumstances of the workplace require a higher standard of safety to protect workers.

 

read more

NEW PRIVACY PROTECTION IN ONTARIO – I CAN SUE YOU IF YOU PLACE ME IN A FALSE LIGHT IN THE PUBLIC EYE (ONLINE OR OTHERWISE)

There has been a very important development in Ontario privacy law recently, further protecting an individual’s protection from online attacks and predatory behaviour.

In this family law case, the father had posted on social medial negative and highly personal information about the children at issue, in addition to engaging in a social media-driven smear campaign about his former spouse and her family.

The Court would have none of it, awarding $100,000 damages against the father for his relentless and reckless conduct online, particularly against his own children.

Prior to this case, there were three types of ways to sue for protection of your privacy in Ontario: namely:

[1] intrusion upon your seclusion or solitude, or into your private affairs;

[2] public disclosure of embarrassing private facts about you; and

[3] appropriation, for the other person’s advantage, of your name or likeness.

Now there is a fourth category to protect you: publicity which places you in a false light in the public eye.

This has potentially wide-reaching implications for many issues in a person’s life, like relationship breakdowns, being fired from a job, or other disputes with someone that often escalate to online attacks.

Here is an excellent article further explaining this recent case and its potential implications:

More civil liability for privacy complaints in Ontario after landmark case

FOCUS ON PRIVACY - Tort of 'publicly placing a person in false light' recognized

BY Anita Balakrishnan 19 Feb 2020

A family law case in Ontario’s Superior Court of Justice has added a new tort to Ontario law by focusing on “the best interests of the children, the invasion of their privacy, and the effects of cyberbullying.” 

The ruling could have implications for publishers and public statements by businesses — even as businesses are also seeing tighter regulatory risk on privacy, say lawyers from Torys LLP.

“Ontario law now recognizes the privacy tort of ‘publicly placing a person in false light,’” wrote Torys lawyers in a memo. “This privacy tort goes beyond existing law on defamation. It protects an individual’s right to control how they are publicly presented to the world.” 

The case involved a family’s parenting issues, such as child and spousal support. But the claim also included intrusion on seclusion and invasion of privacy, because the father in the case posted YouTube videos of his interactions with his children, against court orders. The father also created cybercampaigns against the mother and her family, as well as a lawyer and a judge, said the decision, Yenovkian v. Gulian, 2019 ONSC 7279The father, who was not represented in court, was also accused of mocking one of his children with a neurological disorder. (Lawyer Shawn Richard, who acted for Gulian, declined to comment).

“Children are particularly vulnerable to the online postings of a parent which expose the intimacy of a child’s life which only a parent should have access to,” wrote Justice Freya Kristjanson in the decision. “Public posting of recorded in-person and Skype access visits with children, photographs of parental moments, and written and video commentary about the children in a cyberbullying campaign directed to undermining the spouse in family law litigation, viewed objectively, is an offensive intrusion on the privacy of the child.” 

Citing Jones v. Tsige, 2012 ONCA 32, Kristjanson noted that the Ontario Court of Appeal recognized “one aspect of tortious invasion of privacy in the form of intrusion upon seclusion.” But a so-called four-tort catalogue in privacy law dates back to 1960: 1. Intrusion upon the plaintiff's seclusion or solitude, or into his private affairs; 2. Public disclosure of embarrassing private facts about the plaintiff; 3. Publicity which places the plaintiff in a false light in the public eye; 4. Appropriation, for the defendant's advantage, of the plaintiff's name or likeness.

The fourth form of invasion of privacy was already actionable in the province with Athans v. Canadian Adventure Camps Ltd., 1977 CanLII 1255, while the second form was dealt with in Jane Doe Doe 464533 v. N.D. (“Jane Doe 2016”) and Jane Doe 72511 v. N.M., 2018 ONSC 6607, Kristjanson said. 

“With these three torts all recognized in Ontario law, the remaining item in the ‘four-tort catalogue’ of causes of action for invasion of privacy is the third, that is, publicly placing the plaintiff in a false light,” wrote Kristjanson in the decision. “I hold that this is the case in which this cause of action should be recognized.” 

Kristjanson concluded that Yenovkian v. Gulian, 2019 ONSC 7279 was “the exceptional case,” writing that  “the invasion of privacy was intentional, subjectively intended to cause harm, and without lawful justification.” The court ordered Yenovkian to pay damages of $100,000  on the tort of invasion of privacy (false light and public disclosure of private facts), in addition to other payments of post-separation adjustment, spousal support, child support, damages for mental suffering and punitive damages.

“Mr. Yenovkian’s conduct must not only be punished but it should be denounced, and it should be deterred,” wrote Kristjanson. “A significant award of punitive damages may serve to deter Mr. Yenovkian, since the court orders have had no effect in deterring his conduct.  It will also serve to warn other litigants, both represented and self-represented, that cyberbullying another party online, in family law proceedings where the interests of children are in issue, will not be tolerated.” 

The court’s interpretation of the tort of false light and public disclosure of private facts follows a similar formula as what is used in the United States, where proof of defamation is not required, but the false light must be “highly offensive to a reasonable person” and the actor “had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity,” wrote Torys. For businesses, the firm said the tort could mean that businesses could face claims of vicarious liability for “deepfakes,” employee misconduct, misleading ads or social media marketing, for example — and there is no requirement to prove actual malice or economic harm.

Torys senior associate Ronak Shah says that as the tort was tucked away in a family law decision, it’s still making waves as commercial lawyers dissect how it might affect areas like class action law. 

“Not only on the internet — but also within the companies’ public announcements and things like that — we want to make sure that they are portraying the person correctly: As they are, and not in a false light,” he says.

 “It’s making sure statements about investigations, departures of officers or employees, are done in a way that is correct and . . . .  that they have processes in place that actually vet these kinds of statements.” 

Policies will also be needed so employees know what they are allowed to say and when, and how to get permission, says Shah. 

“Especially since it’s not only a malice mandate, it’s a recklessness standard,” he says. 

Some issues from the decision that might get clarified through further case law are the damages framework for this tort, and what defences are available, says Shah. Although the tort itself mirrors U.S. law, Canadian approaches to issues such as risk analysis and s.8 rights will shape the laws here, Shah says.

“For a long time, this tort wasn't recognized partly because of the overlap with defamation. Especially with the new applications like deep fakes, this tort will take on a new light,” he says. 

“It basically helps individuals get better control of how they are portrayed, and that's a general trend that we're seeing in terms of even privacy legislation. It’s moving towards ensuring that organizations respect individuals’ control over their data.”

read more

I SIGNED AWAY MY RIGHTS WHEN I TOOK THIS JOB – CAN I GET THEM BACK, PLEASE? MAYBE.

Commonly employers use contracts to try to limit an employee’s entitlements upon termination (for any reason) to only those statutory minimums mandated by Ontario’s Employment Standards Act, 2000, rather than the so-called one-month-notice-per-year-of-service rule of thumb often adopted by lawyers and the Court.  

Judges tend to scrutinize these efforts fairly closely.

Over the past year, or so, in Ontario, many new cases have refined and developed when an employment contract, which limits an employee’s rights, will be enforced by the Court.

Below is an excellent article explaining the basics:

“For Canadian employers, one of the most important purposes of written employment contracts is to lawfully limit the amount of notice or compensation that they will owe to employees whose employment is terminated without cause.

Absent a written agreement with a valid termination clause, employees are entitled to “reasonable” notice or pay instead of notice. Depending on the employee’s age, position, length of service and ability to find a new job, employers may have to pay terminated employees anywhere from 3 months to as high as 24 months’ pay on a termination without cause. Contracts with valid termination provisions can dramatically reduce an employer’s obligation and risk in this regard.

Written contracts that do contain termination clauses will, however, be carefully scrutinized by our courts, who routinely make findings that such clauses are unenforceable. Some common reasons supporting a finding of unenforceability include:

1.    a lack of “consideration”, where an existing employee has signed a new contract of employment without receiving something of value (a raise or promotion, for example) in exchange;
2.    ambiguity in the contract or language that is not sufficiently clear to lawfully limit the employee’s entitlements; or
3.    a violation of employment standards legislation, where the termination provision is capable of providing for less than minimum statutory requirements on termination, whether at present or at some time in the future.

In recent years, our courts have also become increasingly prepared to invalidate termination clauses on an expanding variety of new technical grounds. This means that contracts with termination clauses that may have been considered enforceable in past years may require revision to catch up with recent judicial rulings.

Employers can best protect themselves by taking the following steps:

1.    if they are not using written contracts already, start doing so with all new hires, and possibly introduce contracts to existing employees for valid consideration;
2.    if they presently have employment contracts in place that are silent on the issue of termination, introduce valid termination provisions for all new hires, and possibly for existing employees where there is adequate consideration; and
3.    if they have contracts with termination clauses, have those clauses reviewed annually to keep up with changes in the law and recent court decisions.

In all of the above cases, the termination language should be drafted and/or reviewed by legal counsel well versed in this specialized area of the law.”

Credit: Peter C. Straszynski, Tokin Manes LLP (via Lexology)

 

read more

2019 NOVA CORONAVIRUS – WHAT TO DO AND KNOW IN YOUR WORKPLACE

An excellent article by Fasken identifying the issues that can arise in your workplace with public health emergency issues, particularly the 2019 Novel Coronavirus:

“The World Health Organization (WHO) has declared the 2019 Novel Coronavirus outbreak a public health emergency of international concern. There are now over 7,500 confirmed cases of the coronavirus reported globally. [i] There are three confirmed cases in Canada with many more possible cases being investigated.[ii] Coronavirus refers to a family of viruses that can infect both humans and animals. [iii] A novel coronavirus is a new strain that has not previously been identified in humans. [iv] According to the latest information from Toronto Public Health and Health Canada, coronavirus symptoms range from mild to moderate and include fever, runny nose, headache, cough, sore throat, and difficulty breathing.[v]

The Public Health Agency of Canada currently assess the public health risk of coronavirus as low for Canada and for Canadian travellers. [vi] However, employers are understandably concerned about their employees and business continuity. This article provides some general guidance on the legal issues that employers may encounter. This is general guidance only and employers should be prepared to obtain specific legal advice to deal with specific workplace issues as matters unfold.

This general guidance will apply to most workplaces.  Workplaces that are health care facilities treating the ill will require a more immediate and tailored response to issues. Employers with unionized workforces will also need to be mindful of specific obligations in their collective agreements, including any obligation to develop a response in consultation with union representatives.

Health and Safety Precautions

Health and safety legislation imposes a general duty on employers to take reasonable precautions to protect employees. This requires employers to take active steps to ensure employees are safe from workplace hazards. The exact steps that an employer must take to protect employees from the coronavirus depends on the likelihood of employees being exposed to and contracting the virus at work. During the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) outbreak in Toronto in 2003, the Ministry of Labour and public health authorities recommended that employers:

•    Ensure that employees with flu-like symptoms do not come to work;
•    Promote good hygiene practices (like handwashing) and ensure the work environment is clean;
•    Ensure that engineering controls (like ventilation) are properly maintained; and,
•    Distribute and train employees in the use of personal protective equipment, as appropriate.[vii]

This is also good preliminary advice for the coronavirus. Employers should monitor bulletins and news releases from health authorities for the latest updates. Their advice will help employers fulfill their duty to take reasonable precautions to protect employees.

Employer also have a duty under health and safety legislation to provide information to employees.  This duty could require employers to tell employees about the risk of contracting the virus at work, and about the measures in place to control or eliminate that risk.  Employees may ask about whether they can wear masks or other personal protective equipment at work. Based on current information, the use of masks, respirators, and glasses is not recommended for those outside of health care employees in close proximity to confirmed cases. Instead, the WHO is recommending standard precautions for the general public to reduce exposure to and transmission of the virus, including:

•    Frequently clean hands by using alcohol-based hand rub or soap and water;
•    When coughing and sneezing cover mouth and nose with flexed elbow or tissue – throw tissue away immediately and wash hands;
•    Avoid close contact with anyone who has fever and cough;
•    If you have fever, cough and difficulty breathing seek medical care early and share previous travel history with the health care provider;
•    When visiting live markets in areas currently experiencing cases of novel coronavirus, avoid direct unprotected contact with live animals and surfaces in contact with animals;
•    The consumption of raw or undercooked animal products should be avoided. Raw meat, milk or animal organs should be handled with care, to avoid cross-contamination with uncooked foods, as per good food safety practices.[viii]

Enhanced precautions will be appropriate for employees in health care working in close proximity to confirmed cases of the coronavirus.

Work Refusals

The WHO emergency declaration and the relatively quick spread of the virus has attracted significant media attention and speculation. This may result in employees refusing to perform work if they believe they may be exposed to the virus.

Employers should be familiar with the employees' right to refuse unsafe work and how these situations must be handled.  Generally, employees have the right to refuse work where they have reason to believe their health and safety is at risk.  The right to refuse is more limited for those working in certain jobs (like healthcare) where the unsafe condition is a normal part of work, or where the refusal would endanger the life, health and safety of another.

If an employee refuses to work, the employer must follow the specific resolution process outlined in health and safety legislation. Employers are generally prohibited from disciplining or threatening employees for exercising their right to refuse work. Employers who are considering disciplining an employee for a bad faith or improper work refusal should seek specific legal advice.

Time Off for Illness or Care Obligations

Employees who are ill or need to care for ill family members may be entitled to paid time off under employer policies or contracts, or unpaid time under employment standards legislation for illness or care obligations.

In Ontario, employees are entitled to take sick leave, family responsibility leave, family caregiver leave, family medical leave, and critical illness leave under employment standards legislation. Depending on the circumstances, the same event can entitle an employee to multiple leaves because each leave is a separate entitlement. These leaves can range significantly in duration. Employers should review the requirements for the different leave entitlements.

Instead of requesting a doctor's note, depending on operational needs and the leave being requested, employers may wish to simply encourage employees who are potentially infected with the coronavirus to stay at home and contact emergency health services if and as appropriate. Requiring a doctor's note in every case may actually do more harm because employees could potentially infect others at their doctor's office.

Accommodation and Discrimination

Employees are protected under human rights legislation from discrimination based on defined grounds including disability, family status, national origin, and racial and ethnic background. The category of disability is interpreted broadly and may, in certain circumstances, include the coronavirus. This is particularly true since the Ontario Human Rights Commission clarified during the 2003 outbreak that SARS should be treated as a "disability" under the Ontario Human Rights Code.  This protection applies whether based on perceived or actual disability.

Employees who are required to take time off work to care for family members may also be protected from discrimination and entitled to accommodation based on family status. In any case where an employee wishes to take a leave of absence to care for themselves or a family member due to the Coronavirus, employers should carefully assess the specific circumstances and ensure they fulfill their procedural and substantive duty to accommodate to the point of undue hardship. This may require extended leaves of absence over and above employment standards entitlements.

Employees are also protected from discrimination based on having a racial, ethnic, or national background that is believed to be associated with the coronavirus. For example, an employee of Asian descent, or an employee who is associated with someone of Asian descent, should not be treated differently from other employees because of their ethnic or national origin. Employers must, of course, be vigilant to control the risk of coronavirus at work, but the employer should take care not to be involved in speculation, alarmism, or fearmongering generally, and particularly about the origins of the virus.

Workers' Compensation

Under the workers' compensation system, employees have a statutory entitlement to compensation for personal injury or illness that arises out of and in the course of their employment, including wage-loss benefits and medical coverage. Employees who become infected and who work in a healthcare setting where they interact with patients infected with the Coronavirus, or who are required to travel to areas where the Coronavirus is known to be prevalent, may be able to claim their infection arose in the course of their employment. Employers in these situations should ensure all appropriate risk-mitigation efforts are implemented based on the latest guidance from public health authorities, and to impose travel restrictions accordingly.  

Emergency Preparedness

Although there will always be unknown and uncontrollable elements to the spread of an infectious illness, employers can take practical measures now to prepare themselves for these contingencies. Employer should.

•    Ensure managers are aware of their duties and obligations under workplace legislation, including in the areas of employment standards, human rights, and occupational health and safety as they relate to the coronavirus.
•    Monitor the latest updates from public health authorities, including municipal, provincial, and federal public health agencies. These agencies will provide objective information about the coronavirus on an ongoing basis, and employers should refer employees to these as their main source of information.
•    Review and update their policy or policies addressing communicable illnesses, and to clarify the protocols that apply to the coronavirus. Generally, these policies should address what illnesses are covered, protocols for disclosure and for staying at home, the application of paid and unpaid leave entitlements to illness and quarantine-related situations, guidelines for work-related travel, and available workplace resources.
•    Develop a broader policy to address how business operations will continue in the event of a more serious outbreak. This can be prepared as a general policy for defined emergency events, including an outbreak of infectious illness such as the Coronavirus, and should outline how core business functions and channels for decision-making will be maintained in such an event.
•    Depending on the nature, size, and sophistication of business operations, emergency preparedness plans may include succession plans for defined roles in the event of employee absences, communication protocols for internal and external parties, general health and safety practices, and operational measures for dealing with facilities that are directly affected.  

Fasken will continue to monitor the situation and will provide timely updates.

________________________________________
[i] World Health Organization. "Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) situation report 10" (26 January 2020), online
[ii] Public Health Agency Canada. "2019 Novel Coronavirus infection (Wuhan, China): Outbreak update" (30 January 2020), online
[iii]World Health Organization. "Coronavirus", online
[iv] World Health Organization. "Coronavirus", online
[v] Toronto Public Health. "Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV)" (27 January 2020), online. "Novel Coronavirus infection: Symptoms and treatment" (26 January 2020), online.
[vi] Public Health Agency Canada. "2019 Novel Coronavirus infection (Wuhan, China): Outbreak update" (26 January 2020), online.[vii] Ministry of Labour, "Workplace Laws and SARS" (10 December 2003).[viii] World Health Organization. "Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) advice for the public", online.”

Credit: Shane Todd and Justin P’ng, Fasken (via Lexology)

 

read more

FIGHT WITH YOUR NEIGHBOUR? THINK TWICE BEFORE AIRING IT OUT IN THE COURT

Having a dispute with your neighbour? Well, before you call your lawyer, think about this well-known (at least in legal circles) decision by the Court about feuding neighbours taking up valuable and limited judicial resources.  

The CaseMorland-Jones v. Taerk, 2014 ONSC 3061 (CanLII)

The Dispute:

Neighbours. Mutual allegations about family pets, profanity, disturbing the peace and misbehaviour generally. An injunction was sought.

The Outcome:

A pox on both their houses. The Court dismissed all of the claims and, effectively, admonished both sides for usurping the limited resources of the judiciary as a forum for their Hatfield-McCoy-style dispute. Both sides, which obviously were sufficiently wealthy to fund this litigation, got no costs.

Here is the actual decision:

ENDORSEMENT

[1]               The parties to this action live across the road from each other in Toronto’s tony Forest Hill neighbourhood. The video footage played at the hearing shows that both families live in stately houses on a well-manicured, picturesque street. They have numerous high end automobiles parked outside their homes.

[2]               The Plaintiff, John Morland-Jones, is an oil company executive; the Defendant, Gary Taerk, is a psychiatrist. They do not seem to like each other, and neither do their respective spouses, the Plaintiff, Paris Morland-Jones and the Defendant, Audrey Taerk.

[3]               In this motion, the Plaintiffs seek various forms of injunctive relief on an interlocutory basis. It all flows from the Plaintiffs’ allegation that the Defendants have been misbehaving and disturbing their peaceful life in this leafy corner of paradise.

[4]               As counsel for the Plaintiffs explains it, the Plaintiffs’ house is ringed with eleven video cameras for security purposes. Two of them are aimed directly at the Defendants’ front door and driveway. They record, 24/7/365, every movement in and out of the Defendants’ home. The Plaintiffs can see when Ms. Taerk leaves to go shopping, they can study what the Defendants are wearing every morning when they pick up their newspaper on the front step, they have a videotaped record of when Mr. Taerk goes to work or walks his dog, etc.

[5]               Nothing that the Defendants do escapes the Plaintiffs’ video camera lens. The cameras trained on the Defendants’ house may or may not provide the Plaintiffs with a sense of security, but as demonstrated by the dozen or so videos produced in this motion, the Plaintiff’s “security system” is as much a sword as it is a shield.

[6]               The hearing before me started off with counsel for the Plaintiffs playing a short excerpt from security footage shot by the Plaintiffs several years ago, in which Ms. Taerk is seen performing a “poop and scoop” after a dog did its business on her front lawn. The Plaintiffs’ security camera shows her crossing the street with the plastic bag-full in hand, and then walking toward the Plaintiffs’ driveway where the garbage cans were out for collection. Although the impugned deed actually takes place off camera, Ms. Taerk can be seen moments later returning to her side of the street empty-handed.

[7]               Apparently, much to the consternation of the Plaintiffs, she deposited the goods in the Plaintiffs’ garbage can. In doing so, she failed to walk to the back of her house to place it in her own receptacle like a truly good neighbour would do.

[8]               The “dog feces incident”, as counsel for the Plaintiffs calls it, is a high point of this claim. At the hearing, it was followed by counsel’s description of a cease and desist letter sent to the Defendants in 2008 by a lawyer then representing the Plaintiffs, which describes what is now referred to by counsel as the “dog urination issue”. This letter enclosed photographs – apparently stills taken from the Plaintiffs’ non-stop video footage – documenting Mr. Taerk walking his dog and occasionally allowing it to lift its leg in a canine way next to the bushes lining the Plaintiffs’ lawn.

[9]               The Defendants did not respond to this erudite piece of legal correspondence. Counsel for the Plaintiffs characterizes this silence as an “admission”, although it is unclear just what legal wrong was being admitted to.

[10]           And it goes downhill from there. For example, the Defendants are accused of occasionally parking one of their cars on the street in a legal parking spot in front of the Plaintiff’s home. The Defendants do this now and then, according to the Plaintiffs, just to annoy them. This accusation was admittedly pressed rather sheepishly by Plaintiffs’ counsel, since the Plaintiffs have conceded that they park one of their own cars in front of the Defendants’ home every day. Indeed, the Plaintiffs cannot help but concede that fact, since their own non-stop video surveillance of the Defendant’s house shows the Plaintiff’s car sitting there day after day.

[11]           The Plaintiffs also complain quite vociferously about the fact that the Defendants – in particular Ms. Taerk – are in the habit of sometimes standing in their own driveway and taking cell phone pictures of the Plaintiffs’ house across the street. Apparently, the Plaintiffs, who keep two video cameras trained on the Defendants’ house night and day, do not like their own house being the target of Ms. Taerk’s occasional point-and-click.

[12]           The Plaintiffs also accuse Ms. Taerk of taking pictures of the Plaintiffs’ housekeeper taking their dog for its daily constitutional. The video tapes show the housekeeper leading the dog to what they describe as its favorite grassy spot in a parkette only feet from the Defendants’ front lawn. The housekeeper has deposed that she goes there with the dog every day. Ms. Taerk has made of show of documenting that activity.

[13]           Another complaint submitted by the Plaintiffs is that Mr. Taerk has taken up the habit of walking by their house with a voice recorder in hand, trying to catch some of the verbal exchanges between the parties. According to Mr. Taerk’s affidavit, Ms. Morland-Jones occasionally shouts profanity or other insults at him when he is on his walks, so he now only ventures onto the road armed with his dictaphone. He tends to hold it at the ready in his right hand as he walks rather than holstering it on his hip. 

[14]           The controversy has even extended to other lucky residents. The Plaintiffs summoned under Rule 39.03 no less than four of their neighbours to testify on the pending motion, no doubt endearing themselves to all of them. One witness, a lawyer, was asked to confirm that he had warned the Plaintiffs about the Defendants when they first moved into the neighbourhood; he responded that can recall saying no such thing. Another witness, a professor, was asked to confirm that she sold her house for below market value just to get away from the Defendants; she said she did not.

[15]           Each of the summonsed witnesses was asked by Plaintiffs’ counsel to confirm the affidavit evidence sworn by Mr. Morland-Jones that the Defendants are difficult people. None of them seemed to want to do that, although one of them did recount that the Defendants had objected to a renovation permit that the Plaintiffs once sought, and that the matter had proceeded to the Ontario Municipal Board. Another of the neighbours was asked to recount the rude nicknames that some neighbourhood children had given Ms. Taerk when she was a substitute teacher at a nearby school.

[16]           In what is perhaps the piece de resistance of the claim, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants – again focusing primarily on Ms. Taerk – sometimes stand in their own driveway or elsewhere on their property and look at the Plaintiffs’ house. One of the video exhibits shows Ms. Taerk doing just that, casting her gaze from her own property across the street and resting her eyes on the Plaintiffs’ abode for a full 25 seconds. There is no denying that Ms. Taerk is guilty as charged. The camera doesn’t lie.

[17]           For their part, the Defendants have not been entirely innocent. They appear to have learned that the Plaintiffs – and especially Ms. Morland-Jones – have certain sensitivities, and they seem to relish playing on those sensitivities. They realize, for example, that Ms. Morland-Jones does not enjoy having her house photographed, and so Ms. Taerk tends to take her cell phone out and point it at the Plaintiffs’ house precisely when Ms. Morland-Jones can see her doing it.

[18]           Ms. Taerk has testified that, in fact, she has not taken any pictures but rather has been pretending to do so by simply pointing her phone and clicking it randomly. Ms. Taerk presents this as a justification for not producing any photographs in the evidentiary record, but of course the explanation reflects more malevolence than what it attempts to excuse. In any case, Ms. Morland-Jones can be counted on to respond as predicted. It is a repeated form of hijinks that could, if a sponsor were found, be broadcast and screened weekly, although probably limited to the cable channels high up in the 300’s.

[19]           The same is true with Mr. Taerk’s voice recording technique. Although Mr. Taerk may have started carrying this device in order to record Ms. Morland-Jones’ spontaneous eruptions, cause and effect have now been reversed. Mr. Taerk appears to enjoy walking by the Plaintiffs’ residence with his dictaphone conspicuously raised to shoulder level when he sees Ms. Morland-Jones in her garden, which then prompts the very outbursts that he was at first reacting to. On one of the tapes, Ms. Taerk can actually be heard prompting Mr. Taerk to go out and goad Ms. Morland-Jones in this fashion.

[20]           The Plaintiffs’ teenage son has testified that when he was 10 years old, Ms. Taerk instructed him to stay off the public parkette adjacent to her home, saying that it belongs to the Defendants. He also deposed that when he was 16 the Defendants appeared to be photographing him one day as he sat in a parked car in front of his house – or, more accurately, just across from the Defendants’ house – with his girlfriend. He speculated, but could not entirely recall, precisely what he and the young woman were doing in the car at that moment.

[21]           The antics have only gotten worse since then. Ms. Morland-Jones has shouted at the Taerks from her front yard, and Ms. Taerk has given Ms. Morland-Jones “the finger” from her front driveway. The Defendants have apparently called the police on the Plaintiffs numerous times in recent years; the Plaintiffs have responded by retaining a criminal lawyer to attempt to have a peace bond issued that would restrict the Defendants’ movements. All of that has been to no avail.

[22]           Now the Plaintiffs have pursued civil litigation. To their credit, or perhaps to the credit of their counsel who has advised them well in this regard, the Defendants have not counterclaimed. Having acted provocatively to egg the Plaintiffs on and to prompt this gem of a lawsuit, the Defendants did not need to bring any claim themselves. The Plaintiffs have been their own worst adversaries.

[23]           In my view, the parties do not need a judge; what they need is a rather stern kindergarten teacher. I say this with the greatest of respect, as both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants are educated professionals who are successful in their work lives and are otherwise productive members of the community. Despite their many advantages in life, however, they are acting like children. And now that the matter has taken up an entire day in what is already a crowded motions court, they are doing so at the taxpayer’s expense.

[24]           As I explained to Plaintiffs’ counsel at the hearing, a court cannot order the Defendants to be nice to the Plaintiffs. Litigation must focus on legal wrongs and legal rights – commodities which are in remarkably short supply in this action. As my colleague Perell J. put it in High Parklane Consulting Inc. v  Royal Group Technologies Ltd., [2007] OJ No 107 (SCJ), at para 36, “[i]t is trite to say that making a living is a stressful activity and that much of life can be nasty and brutish. Tort law does not provide compensation for all stress-causing and nasty conduct that individuals may suffer at the hands of another…”

[25]           I cannot help but comment that the courts as public institutions are already bursting at the seams with all manner of claims. To add to that public burden the type of exchanges that these parties have engaged in would be to let the litigious society stray without a leash – or perhaps without a lis.  I note the observation made to this effect by the Supreme Court of New York in Johnson v Douglas, 734 NYS 2d 847, 187 Misc 2d 509, at 510 (2001):

Although we live in a particularly litigious society, the court is not about to recognize a tortious cause of action to recover for emotional distress due to the death of a family pet. Such an expansion of the law would place an unnecessary burden on the ever burgeoning case loads of the court in resolving serious tort claims for injuries to individuals.

[26]           What is true regarding the death of a family pet is certainly true regarding the scatology of a family pet. There is no claim for pooping and scooping into the neighbour’s garbage can, and there is no claim for letting Rover water the neighbour’s hedge. Likewise, there is no claim for looking at the neighbour’s pretty house, parking a car legally but with malintent, engaging in faux photography on a public street, raising objections at a municipal hearing, walking on the sidewalk with dictaphone in hand, or just plain thinking badly of a person who lives nearby.

[27]           There is no serious issue to be tried in this action. The Plaintiff’s motion is therefore dismissed.

[28]           Both counsel have submitted costs outlines indicating that the parties have spent tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. Costs awards are a discretionary matter under section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act. In exercising that discretion, Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes me to consider a number of factors including, in Rule 57.01(1)(d), “the importance of the issues”.

[29]           There will be no costs order. Each side deserves to bear its own costs.

read more

MANDATORY AND DISCRETIONARY WORKPLACE POLICIES – A REMINDER

Here is an excellent article reminding everyone of the increasing importance of having both the legally required and effective, discretionary policies in your workplace:

“Ontario employers are required by law to have certain workplace policies in place at work. The policies that employers must have include the following:

1.    a Workplace Health and Safety Policy;
2.    a Workplace Violence and Harassment Policy;
3.    an Accessibility Policy; and
4.    a Pay Equity Plan (employers with 10 or more employees).

Failure to have these policies in place is a violation of Ontario law and may result in the imposition of statutory fines and penalties.

While not required by statute, there are other policies that employers are well advised to have in place, including:

1.    a Drug & Alcohol Policy (updated to address medical and non-medical cannabis);
2.    a Social Media Policy;
3.    an Investigations Policy;
4.    a Human Rights Policy;
5.    an Accommodation Policy;
6.    an Absenteeism Policy; and
7.    a Privacy Policy.

These policies not only help employers monitor and govern employee conduct, but also establish internal rules and processes that, if followed, will help employers limit potential liabilities.

Many small or start-up businesses are either unaware of their legal obligation to have policies in place or simply do not know where to start when it comes to drafting and implementing polices.”

Credit: Torkin Manes LLP, Shreya Patel and Peter C. Straszynki, 2019 (via Lexology.com)

 

read more

IF I REPRESENTED MEGHAN AND HARRY? YES, ONTARIO WILL PROTECT YOUR PRIVACY. SUE THOSE CHEEKY MONKEYS.

What would I advise the (former) Royals about the paparazzi if they were living in our province?

Ontario allows a person to sue another for damages for invasion of privacy.

This has not always been the case – it is a fairly new development in Ontario. Many assume a right to privacy, but only recently have our Courts recognized a legal right for a person to actually sue another for damages for infringing on privacy.

The legal protection is not called “invasion of privacy”, but rather “intrusion upon seclusion”.

Our Courts now recognize the following types of breach of privacy protections available to mostly everyone in Ontario:

•  intrusion upon a person’s seclusion or solitude, or into that person’s private affairs
•  public disclosure of embarrassing private facts about a person
•  publicity which places a person in a false or misleading light in the public eye
•  appropriation, for another’s advantage, of a person’s name or likeness

In terms of “intrusion upon seclusion” (i.e., breach of your privacy), to succeed in a lawsuit, you would have to establish:

•  the other person’s conduct was intentional or reckless
•  the other person must have invaded, without lawful justification, your private affairs or concerns
•  a reasonable person would perceive the invasion as highly offensive causing distress, humiliation or anguish to you

In a recent Court of Appeal case that recognized this protection and ability to sue, the Court commented: “We are presented in this case with facts that cry out for a remedy. While [the Defendant] is apologetic and contrite, her actions were deliberate, prolonged and shocking. Any person in [the Plaintiff’s] position would be profoundly disturbed by the significant intrusion into her highly personal information. The discipline administered by [the Defendant’s] employer was governed by principles of employment law and the interests of the employer and did not respond directly to the wrong that had been done to [the Plaintiff]. In my view, the law of this province would be sadly deficient if we were required to send [the Plaintiff] away without a legal remedy.”

But there are limits to breach of privacy, too. For example, the Court of Appeal also held that if you are sensitive or unusually concerned about your privacy, you may be excluded from this protection.

Your privacy is protected in most, if not all, aspects of your life, including in the employment context, for example.
Your right of privacy is also not absolute. For example, it may conflict with other privacy rights, such as freedom of information and privacy legislation in effect in Ontario and Canada. If so, or if a conflict may exist, your privacy protection may be limited or compromised.

However, ultimately, your privacy is now recognized by Ontario Courts and you can sue for damages if it is violated, but only after careful consideration of the circumstances and consultation with your qualified litigation lawyer.

 

read more

WORKPLACE HARASSMENT OR BULLYING? TOXIC WORK ENVIRONMENT? YOU MAY NOT BE ALLOWED TO SUE YOUR EMPLOYER DIRECTLY, ACCORDING TO NEW LAW

There have been important developments recently regarding claims arising from alleged workplace harassment, bullying and toxic work environment, as prohibited by Ontario’s Human Rights Code and the law generally.  

In a recent decision by Ontario’s Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (the “Tribunal”), the employee commenced a lawsuit against her former employer and claimed damages for constructive dismissal as a result of alleged bullying, harassment and a poisoned work environment. The Tribunal found that the employee’s claims flowed directly from her allegations of harassment and bullying in the workplace, which she said caused her to suffer chronic mental distress. The Tribunal found that, under Ontario’s Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 (the “WSIA”), the employee’s lawsuit was statute barred entirely. The employee’s allegations were “inextricably linked” to her alleged workplace injuries. In this particular case, the employee’s right to pursue a civil case against her former employer was barred.  

The case, which deals directly with constructive dismissal claims (rather than outright wrongful termination) is not yet subject to judicial review but may be.

However, employers must now consider whether cases alleging workplace harassment and bullying are more appropriate under the WSIA regime. In the event an employer determines that a case more appropriately belongs under the WSIA regime.

If an employee makes a claim for, effectively, mental stress due to such alleged conduct in the workplace, the employee may be prohibited from bringing a civil claim for damages and, if so, the employee may face a “right to sue” application by the employer.

The Case:

Morningstar v. Hospitality, 2019 ONWSIAT 2324

 

read more

CAN SOMEONE RECORD ME OR TAKE MY PIC IN A PUBLIC PLACE? WHAT ABOUT IN MY SCHOOL OR WORKPLACE?

Increasingly businesses (and employers) and public organizations deploy and use ever-improving surveillance technology, including workplace audio and video recording.  Ontario law has remained vigilant and watchful, attempting to balance legitimately held privacy expectations for everyone against unreasonably invasive privacy intrusion, particularly to foster security, safety and legitimate business or public interests.  

In an important, recent case, a teacher was accused of using a concealed camera to surreptitiously videotape female high school students engaging in “ordinary school-related activities in common areas” of the school. However, the evidence revealed the teacher was recording sexually based images, without audio recording. The school had posted signs notifying of the use of security cameras throughout the school. The school also had a policy prohibiting its teachers from making videos of students, or otherwise tampering with the school’s surveillance cameras. The teacher was charged with voyeurism under Canada’s Criminal Code, a sexually related offence.

The Supreme Court declared that privacy, particularly in a public or semi-private place, is not an all-or-nothing proposition in Canada. There can be no absolute expectation of privacy for anyone, at least not in a public, or semi-private, place. The specific circumstances must be considered, which determine what reasonable expectation of privacy should be legally protected in a contextualized approach.

A person can reasonably expect privacy in a public, or semi-public, place, particularly protection from sexually driven surveillance, but the specific expectation that will be legally protected must be determined by many factors, such as:

•    the nature of the place and its location;
•    the scope and nature of the conduct by the other party, such as observation or recording;
•    whether the person subject to the conduct had consented to being so observed or recorded, at was even was aware of it;
•    the manner in which the observation or recording was undertaken;
•    the subject matter or content of the observation or recording;
•    any applicable rules, policies or regulations that may prohibit or restrict that conduct;
•    the nature of the relationship, if any, between the person being observed or recorded and the person engaging in the observation or recording;
•    the reason for the observation or recording; and
•    the characteristics of the person being observed or recorded, particularly if the person is a child, youth or a vulnerable person.

The teacher's conviction was upheld by Canada's highest Court. The Court concluded that the young, female students at the school had not consented to being recorded in such manner, or even been aware of him doing so. The teacher held a trust relationship with the students, which he violated, when he knew he was not allowed to make these video recordings of the students, particularly when it was sexually driven. The female students’ privacy had been violated in the circumstances.

However, the female students, in the circumstances, could not reasonably have expected to be protected absolutely from such misconduct by their teacher. Rather, the Court engaged in a contextual, multi-factored analysis.

Accordingly, no one can expect absolute protection, at least not by the criminal law, from being observed or recorded in public, even if it may be sexual in nature. Ultimately, the Supreme Court enshrined a case-by-case analysis, which may, or may not, offer the protection of, at least, Canada's criminal law.

Businesses, particularly employers, and other organizations need to have a clear policy prohibiting surreptitious observation and recording in their places of business, absent consent.  They can also be held vicariously liable for improper, unwanted surveillance being conducted in their place of business, including public areas.

In addition to potential criminal charges for those who unlawfully observe or record others, including in public spaces, the offender could potentially be held liable civilly in Ontario, particularly for damages for breaching the tort of “intrusion upon seclusion”, or for violating other privacy law.

However, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case has clarified and shaped the law on a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy, particularly if that person is observed or recording in a public, or semi-private, place.

Ontario Courts and privacy regulators will also continue to review surveillance technology to ensure it is legitimately, justifiably and properly deployed and utilized, minimizing unreasonably invasive infringement on privacy expectation.

Surveillance cannot, of course, be prohibited - it benefits the public, if utilized appropriately and legally. However, whether surveillance exceeds the legal boundary by offending an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy will depend on the specific circumstances and various factors, which will themselves continue to develop as ever-evolving surveillance technology continues to proliferate.

As technology becomes more subtle, sophisticated, accessible and ubiquitous, everyone must remain mindful that their privacy is not absolute and may be subject to observation, or even recording, particularly in public places.

Privacy is not an “all-or-nothing” right. Intrusion upon your seclusion should not be viewed as an inevitably necessary part of your rapidly changing modern life; rather, the law imposes limits which, if offended, may expose the offender to both criminal and civil liability. Privacy is not a lost expectation in our contemporary world, as skeptics contend, but only an evolving one, judiciously straining to keep pace with constantly changing and increasingly innovative technology.   


The Case:

R. v. Jarvis, 2019 SCC 10 (CanLII)

 

read more

THE COURT IS NOW INTOLERANT OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT IN THE WORKPLACE – PERIOD.

In this recent case, a long-time employee (thirty years) was justifiably terminated, without severance, for an isolated incident of sexual harassment in the workplace.

The employee had no prior disciplinary record during his long tenure.

The employee had slapped his female co-worker on the buttocks, in the presence of others.

The employee did not apologize, or even feign remorse.

The employee was aware of the employer’s anti-harassment workplace policy and he also held a supervisory position over the affected female co-worker.

The employer terminated the offending employee summarily.

He sued for wrongful termination, alleging the punishment was too severe for the crime, effectively.  

The Court upheld the termination, for cause.

The Court held:

[The employee’s conduct] …was an act that attacked her dignity and self-respect. This type of conduct is unacceptable in today’s workplace.”

The lesson? The Court is no longer tolerable of any sexually charged misconduct in the workplace, even if it seems innocent or not serious to anyone involved.

Interestingly, the Court granted the target female co-worker limited rights to participate in the case and the trial, which is fairly uncommon in wrongful dismissal cases. The Court concluded that the complainant’s rights, integrity and reputation may be affected, thereby given her the authority to have “intervenor” status in the case.   

The Case:

Render v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator (Canada) Limited, 2019 ONSC 7460.  

 

read more

COMPROMISING/EMBARRASSING PHOTO OF YOU POSTED ONLINE BY ANOTHER? YOUR PRIVACY MAY BE BREACHED. YOU MIGHT BE ENTITLED TO DAMAGES.

Publishing online very personal or intimate information or images of another may be a very costly mistake.

The Ontario Court is increasingly awarding significant damages against those who do so. For example, in a case called Jane Doe 464533 (the Plaintiff’s name cannot be disclosed), the Court ordered damages and costs totaling $141,000, plus an order for the offending Defendant to destroy any video or images he retains of the Plaintiff and prohibiting him from sharing any intimate images of her. He was also ordered not to communicate with the Plaintiff or any of her family.

The Plaintiff was a young woman in her late teens. Due to pressure from her ex-boyfriend, she agreed to share with him a sexually explicit video of herself. He promised he would not share it with anyone else. However, he subsequently posted the intimate video of her on a pornography Web site without her knowledge or consent. The police refused to criminally pursue the matter.

The Plaintiff eventually sued him for breach of her privacy and, specifically, for his public disclosure of embarrassing private information about her, after attempting to settle the matter with lawyers involved. The Defendant boyfriend did not ultimately defend the lawsuit, so the Court decided the case and awarded damages to the Plaintiff without a challenge to the Plaintiff’s claim. However, the Court reviewed the law and provided a well-reasoned, thorough decision, even though the Defendant did not defend the claim. The case is subject to a publication ban of the name of the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff relied on fairly recent, emerging cases in Ontario recognizing an expanding ability for a person to sue another directly for breach of privacy, or for “intrusion upon seclusion”.

The Court awarded the Plaintiff $100,000 in damages (noting that she had limited her claim to this maximum amount in the lawsuit). These damages are much higher than the $20,000 “cap” that had previously been established by Ontario’s Court of Appeal in the earlier cases for intrusion upon seclusion.

Therefore, this case expands on privacy protection in Ontario and allows a person to civilly claim and be awarded significant damages when that person’s personal/private information is published online, provided this test is met.

To succeed, it must be proved that “the matter publicized or the act of the publication” is “highly offensive to a reasonable person” and is not “of legitimate concern to the public”.

Undoubtedly the law of privacy in Ontario continues to grow and expand. More cases will be needed to clarify and further develop this law, but this case clearly indicates the Court’s willingness to do so, including for “public disclosure of embarrassing private facts”.

 

read more

DON’T TAKE SECRET PHOTOS OF OTHERS IN YOUR WORKPLACE – IF YOU’RE CAUGHT, ABRUPT FIRING AND NO SEVERANCE – PRIVACY WAS BREACHED

A car dealership employee surreptitiously took videos and photos of female clients of the dealership.

He then showed them to co-employees and made inappropriate comments, most of which were sexually charged in nature.

He was caught and fired, for cause.

He sued.

The Court held there was justification for his abrupt termination without any compensation whatsoever (i.e., no severance).

He had also been warned previously by the employer not to engage in this type of inappropriate conduct, which sealed his fate in the case.

The Court did not accept this position; namely, that he was only trying to protect the dealership and its best interests.

The lesson? Do not take secret images of others in your workplace and, in particular, do not share those with others in an appropriate manner.

If you do, your firing will be justified – without any severance.

The Case:

Durant v. Aviation A. Auto, 2019 NBQB 214

 

read more

“RELENTLESS” SOCIAL MEDIA ATTACK – BIG DAMAGES (INCLUDING FOR SPOUSES)

Yet another friendly reminder from your local lawyer to be mindful that every text, e-mail and social media post you transmit, or post may end up as evidence against you in Court.

A recent B.C. case affirms the Court’s increasing willingness to award damages for online attacks, recognizing them as having the same impact as traditional means of communication, if not being more pervasive and insidious.

In this case, a spouse, as a result of a relationship breakdown, engaged in a relentless, vitriolic online campaign against her former spouse, to the extent that the target spouse sued for damages for defamation.

While the case is in B.C., the general principles affirmed by the Court would apply to Ontario, too.  

The posting spouse made more than eighty-five offending posts, all of which were listed in chronology in an appendix filed in the case (nearly fifty pages).  

The posts were made on various sites, including Instagram, using a number of pseudonym accounts and names (which were traced back to the posting spouse).

The B.C. Court held (with respect to the posting spouse):

"Ms. Halcrow mounted a campaign against Mr. Rook that was as relentless as it was extensive…….The courts have recognized that the internet can be used as an exceedingly effective tool to harm reputations. This is one such case."

The Court ordered the posting spouse to pay the target spouse $200,000 in general damages and approximately $40,000 in special damages due to the injury to the former partner’s “reputation consultant” fees.  

The Case:

Rook v. Halcrow, 2019 BCSC 2253

 

read more

“VACATION SHAMING” HAS NO PLACE IN YOUR WORKPLACE OR YOUR LIFE

Despite that many employees do not take their contractual or statutory vacation time each year, increasingly “vacation shaming” pervades our workplaces.

Vacation shaming has been defined as, “where co-workers and bosses use peer pressure and guilt trips to discourage employees from taking time off.”

It can be insidious, subtle and indirect – often inducing more stress into the workplace.

Employers must be vigilant to monitor their workplace and ensure a strict prohibition against this practice.

It seems odd for this to be trending in workplaces, considering that recently more than 1,200 full-time U.S. employees were surveyed to gauge their habits regarding taking paid time off of work. According to the survey, an alarming number of the employees were unwilling generally to take their contractual or statutory paid time off work, mostly attributable to management, workload and other cultural pressures.

This Machiavellian practice, whether intentionally undertaken or otherwise, creates more stress in the workplace and irrevocably and inversely reduces productivity.

It benefits neither the employee nor the employer, ultimately.

So, don’t be vacation shamed. Firstly, it is unlawful for your employer to engage in this type of behaviour, however subtle it may be, and secondly, you will be less productive and certainly not as content in your workplace by not taking your paid time away.   

 

read more

JASON’S SPECIAL TIPS FOR YOUR OFFICE X-MAS PARTY

I’m loathe to be Grinchy, but here are some tips for your workplace holiday party or event this year:

Location and Driving:

●    consider holding the event off-site at a licensed event venue

●    pre-arrange designated drivers;

●    provide taxi chits or a credit system with a local taxi service

●    hire a local transportation service, if not a taxi service

●    inform all employees not to personally drive to and from the event, unless that employee will consume no festive cheer at the event

●    arrange for a door supervisor to monitor if anyone leaves the event, after consuming any alcohol, and intends to operate a vehicle and, if there is a concern, for that supervisor to speak to a designated manager on site to intervene

Alcohol:

●    set a fixed time period when alcohol will be available or served

●    provide a set/controlled number of drink chits or tickets per guest

●    hire or use experienced, independent bartender(s) or server(s), with appropriate SMARTserve and training to identify, prevent and help manage over consumption

●    designate non-drinking employees or managers to monitor consumption at the event and identify any potential issues or concerns

●    offer and serve food and non-alcoholic options

Prevention – Discrimination and Harassment:

●    make sure the event is non-denominational

●    offer non-alcoholic alternatives and options to avoid any perception that the event is exclusionary or intended to apply only to certain staff/employees

●    consider setting a dress code for the event and communicating that to all employees/staff in advance

●    circulate your expectations about conduct in advance, in an effective way (mutual respect, professional workplace conduct, treatment of others)

●    ensure your discrimination and harassment policies are posted in the workplace in a common area and at the event

●    consider circulating your workplace discrimination and harassment policies in advance to all invited guests (employees/staff)

●    arrange for designated employee(s) to monitor the event and bring to your attention any concerns, so they can be addressed promptly, discretely and properly before any harm or embarrassment is caused

Happy holidays!

 

read more

X-MAS/HOLIDAY PARTY TIME!!!!!! READ THIS FIRST (FROM YOUR LAWYERS)

It's that time again - holiday party!!!!!!!

With the fun comes the responsibility (and potential liability to employers and co-employees).

Benjamin T. Aberant and Shana Wolch, lawyers at McCarthy Tetrault LLP offer this very helpful blog about tips for office holiday parties:

"The holiday season is a jolly-busy time to be an employment lawyer. Not only do we get to spend time with our friends and families, but we are also often asked to help our clients deal with the fallout of the infamous alcohol induced holiday party incident.  Of course, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure and here are some tips to planning and hosting a successful and (hopefully) incident free holiday party.

1.    Alcohol Consumption

The over-consumption of alcohol can lead to a number of unfavourable outcomes. Consider limiting the in-take of alcohol by guests by: setting a fixed period of time where alcohol will be served; restricting the types of alcohol that are served (e.g. serving wine and beer options, excluding spirits or hard liquor); providing a controlled number of drink tickets per guest; hiring an independent bartender; and, serving lots of delicious food so guests don’t only drink.

2.    Location & Transportation

Consider holding the party offsite. Consider safe transportation options that are available for employees when leaving the party. Pre-arrange designated drivers or transportation with a local company; ensure that there are taxis on standby and/or provide taxi chits to employees; or use a licensed operator to drive the individual and his/her vehicle home.

3.    Discrimination

Given the abundance of faiths, religious denominations and practices with which employees may affiliate themselves, ensure that holiday parties remain non-denominational in nature. Consider the possibility that alcoholics or those recovering might be attending and ensure that there are tasty non-alcoholic alternatives.  Ensure that employees don’t feel excluded and eliminate the likelihood of a human rights violation.

4.    Harassment

Where alcohol is being consumed, there is an increased risk of inappropriate behaviour. In order to remind employees of expectations regarding mutual respect, it is good practice to distribute a copy of the organization’s anti-harassment policy well in advance of the holiday party.  Ensure that employees are mindful of their actions toward others while in attendance. Including a copy of the organization’s dress code may also be worthwhile, reminding employees that expectations for appropriate attire in the workplace remain unchanged.  Consider inviting spouses/partners – it might help keep behaviour in line.

5.    Communication & Monitoring

Transparent and consistent communication of expectations surrounding alcohol consumption, appropriate behaviour and suitable attire, well in advance of the holiday party, will ensure that employees are aware of their responsibilities.

Providing details about transportation options prior to the holiday party, will afford employees with the opportunity to arrange their journey home safely and without setback.

Assigning one or two individuals from the organization with the responsibility to monitor guests’ behaviour and alcohol consumption, and ensure that they obtain appropriate transportation home, will further safeguard employees and reduce the organization’s liabilities."

So, enjoy the blow out, but practice good pre-planning and management of your holiday party.

 

read more

X-MAS TREE SAFETY TIPS - FROM THE GRINCHWARDS

Both real and fake Christmas trees can conflagrate in mere seconds, filling the room with smoke and fire that can spread relentlessly through your entire home.

Sorry, we don’t mean to be The Grinch, but many festive families do not give enough attention to these incendiary homages.

The record is rife with terrible stories about avoidable injury and damage. Even your alarms may not give enough advance warning to keep pace with the agility and speed of the flames.  

 This holiday season, consider taking these steps, if you do not already:

•    Look for a tree with vibrant green needles that are hard to pluck and don't break easily from its branches. The tree shouldn't be shedding its needles readily
•    Always place your tree away from heat sources like fireplaces, radiators, candles, heat vents or lights and keep the tree base filled with water to avoid a dry out
•    Double check your home alarms have fresh batteries and are working properly
•    Make sure all your indoor and outdoor Christmas lights are ESA approved (it should say on the box) and discard/recycle any damaged lights or bulbs
•    Any lights you use outdoors must be labeled suitable for exterior placement and be sure to plug into a ground-fault circuit interrupter protected receptacle
•    Keep all your holiday candles away from your Christmas tree, surrounding furniture and décor
•    Bedtime means lights off - don't forget to turn your Christmas tree light switch each night and, if you use an automated timer, double-check that it is working properly
•    When your tree begins to drop its needles profusely, it's time to say goodbye to your evergreen foliage until next year, even if your holidaying is not quite finished yet
•    If you buy a pre-cut tree, consider sawing off an inch or two from the stump of the tree so water can be easily absorbed

Happy holidays, from the GrinchWards!

 

read more

X-MAS SHOPPING ONLINE? GIFT NOT DELIVERED IN TIME? KNOW YOUR RIGHTS……

In Ontario, many of your rights as a consumer are proscribed primarily by Ontario’s Consumer Protection Act (the “CPA”).

Firstly, when you sign a contract in Ontario:

•    for a product or service you buy from a door-to-door salesperson (also called a direct agreement);
•    to pay in advance to join a fitness club or gym (also called a personal development contracts);
•    to buy a newly-built condo (under the Condominium Act);
•    to get a payday loan (under the Payday Loans Act); and
•    to purchase a time share,

you are statutorily entitled to a “cooling-off period”, being a specific number of days during which you can cancel the agreement without reason or penalty.

You can cancel the contract anytime within the cooling-off period by writing a cancellation letter to the business. Any agreements you made with the purchase, like financing plans, will also be cancelled.

You don’t need to give the business a reason for cancelling.

For most contracts, the company has fifteen days to return your money.

If the contract was for a product, the seller is also responsible for picking up the product or paying for it to be picked up if they want it back.

Secondly, for your holiday shopping, when you order a product, it must be delivered within thirty days of the promised delivery date, or you can ask for a refund.

However, if you choose to keep the item that was delivered late, you lose your right to get a refund for it.

You also cannot be charged for receiving an item or service that you did not request. You can use the item or throw it away.

For more information, contact us or check out ontario.ca by searching “consumer protection”.

 

read more

WARDS LAWYERS’ TIPS FOR A LEGALLY-PRUDENT CHRISTMAS DAY!!!!!!!!!

It will be here before you know it. Our (non-exhaustive) tips to you and your family for a safe, fun and legally-prudent Christmas Day for 2019:

1)       On Christmas Eve after early bed time, apply a liberal, but discreet, thin layer of baby powder on the floor outside each child’s room to discourage middle-of-the-night stocking snooping;

2)       When you retire on Christmas Eve to wait for Santa, fasten green painter’s tape plentifully between the newel posts at the top of the stairs to further discourage over-enthusiastic stocking visitation before Mom and Dad are up, dressed, coffeed-up and ready to go (enough to ensure a child cannot pass through the tape wall without sound and extensive effort);

3)       Turn over the toy gift and actually untie/unravel all of those annoying twist-ties holding your child’s toy in its excessive plastic packaging – don’t try to jam scissors or a sharp knife in to that tight space to try to cut the ties where they wrap around the toy itself; 

4)       Prevent your child (and husband/father) from testing the 9 volt battery for the new toy by pressing it on their tongue – this has actually caused injury and emergency room visits;

5)       Take out all of the pins from your new shirt before trying it on; 

6)       Avoid conveniently grabbing the sharp knife from the kitchen to cut open the hard plastic packaging for that toy – take the time to find and use the correct tool, like scissors or a utility knife with a guard;

7)       Pick up the broken pieces of the hard plastic wrapping from the floor after the gift unwrap – avoid the pieces getting lodged in a barefooted, housecoat-wearing, messy-haired family member;

8)       Read the Pot of Gold chocolate index before selecting – there are reported cases of severe allergic reaction caused by mistakenly believing your choice was the cherry-filled (i.e., avoid the marzipan one);

9)       Don’t carve the turkey after consuming three (3) alcohol drinks or more;

10)     Leave adequate space between you/your children and the Christmas tree branches when retrieving gifts under the tree – eye lacerations are a common Christmas morning accident;

11)     Remind your elderly family members at the Christmas dinner to chew their meat thoroughly – most Christmas mishaps often involve choking at X-Mas dinner;

12)     Ensure the zipper is drawn down before your enthusiastic child tries on that new jumper, coat or hoodie – a common source of eye injury on the holiest of mornings; and

13)     Pull the knife across the avocado and twist it (to remove the stone), rather than stabbing down and prying it out – there are recorded emergency room visits about this. 

read more

WORKPLACE HARASSMENT AND BULLYING – DON’T LET ‘HE SAID/SHE SAID’ DISCOURAGE YOU FROM COMPLAINING – CORROBORATION IS NOT REQUIRED

Employees who experience sexual or other harassment or violence in the workplace should not be discouraged from reporting to their employer simply because no one else witnessed the harassment or violence. He said/she said concerns are no reason to avoid making a complaint to ensure the harasser is properly investigated and, if appropriate, punished.

Under the new anti-workplace harassment and violence laws in Ontario, effective January 1, 2017, incidents of harassment in the workplace must be investigated by employers. The outcome of the investigation must also be reported to both the victim and the harasser. Confidentiality must be maintained at all times.  

However, these changes to Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act, designed to minimize, if not eliminate, workplace sexual and other harassment, do not require that a complaint’s evidence of the harassment be corroborated before a finding of harassment can be made.

Similarly, the Courts and Human Rights Tribunal in Ontario do not require corroboration before a finding of harassment can be made. The law recognizes that often this type of conduct, particularly sexual harassment or violence, occurs in a private setting, often where no witnesses are present.

For example, the Supreme Court recognizes that:  

Corroborative evidence is always helpful and does strengthen the evidence of the party relying on it as I believe Rowles J.A. was implying in her comments. However, it is not a legal requirement and indeed, may not be available, especially where alleged incidents took place decades earlier. Incidents of sexual assault normally occur in private.”

Ontario’s Human Right Tribunal also recognizes that:

There were, however, problems with the investigation conducted by Professional Standards. Det. Young, the investigator assigned to investigate all three matters testified that he had not investigated an allegation of sexual harassment and appeared not to have been given any special training in such matters. He concluded that because there had not been any “independent evidence” the applicant’s allegations could not be “substantiated” and recommended that the matter not proceed to a disciplinary proceeding.

This requirement for “independent evidence” ignores the fact that many allegations of discrimination and harassment take place in private and often there is no evidence “independent” of the two parties to the incidents. Even where witnesses are present, there may be compelling reasons for them to not be forthcoming in an investigation.”

Accordingly, while corroborative evidence will, in most cases, be helpful in the factual investigation, it is not necessary. The Court or other decision-maker should properly consider the veracity, credibility and reliability of the evidence of the victim, alleged harasser and others who may have knowledge of the circumstances.

Merely because a victim cannot corroborate what he or she experienced at the hands of a harasser is certainly no reason to avoid reporting the sexual harassment or violence to ensure the investigator, Court or other decision-making body properly examines the circumstances and makes the necessary findings.

read more

SUING YOUR EMPLOYER FOR FORCING YOU TO QUIT DUE TO WORKPLACE BULLYING, HARASSMENT OR TOXICITY? THINK AGAIN. NOT IF WSIB APPLIES.

Due to a new decision by the Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (the “WSIAT”), an employee in Ontario cannot sue his or her employer for constructive dismissal, if the reason the employee was forced to leave his or her employ was due to chronic mental stress, caused by workplace bullying, harassment or other toxicity in the workplace. 

The employer brought an application to the WSIAT, after it had been named in a civil suit alleging constructive dismissal. Under Ontario law, an employer subject to the provisions of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, may apply to the WSIAT for a determination of whether the employee has a right to sue.

The Plaintiff employee had resigned her position with the employer in February 2018 claiming constructive dismissal as a result of harassment and bullying in the workplace. She filed a Statement of Claim in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on April 2, 2018, claiming damages for constructive dismissal, bullying, harassment and/or a poisoned work environment pursuant to the Occupational Health and Safety Act (the “OHSA”), the tort of harassment, as well as punitive, aggravated and/or moral damages. Of note, she claimed she “was forced to resign from her position with [the Applicant] due to the harassment, bullying and abuse she endured during the course of her employment and the resulting mental distress she experienced and continues to experience.” She also asserted that her claim “relates to the harassment and bullying that [she] experienced as a result of a toxic work environment created by [the Applicant’s] employees and management and her subsequent constructive dismissal.”

The WSIT held, in part:

“[29] … I note that generally the Tribunal has found that the right to bring an action for wrongful dismissal has not been removed by the WSIA. It is only in the exceptional case that this is not so, where the circumstances of the wrongful dismissal claim are inextricably linked to the work injury. See, for example, Decisions No. 3836/17, 1319/01 2, and 566/00.

[30] In my view, that exception applies here. The Respondent’s action against the Applicant is not for wrongful dismissal in the usual sense, but rather is for constructive dismissal, meaning her employment was effectively terminated by the harassing and bullying conduct of co-workers and management which caused her mental distress to such a degree that she was forced to take sick leave and ultimately to resign. I find that these facts, if proven, are inextricably linked to a claim for injury governed by the terms of section 13(4) of the WSIA, as cited above. In other words, I find that the worker’s Statement of Claim is, in essence, a claim for injury resulting from alleged workplace harassment and bullying and thus is within the scope of section 13(4) as amended to provide for entitlement for chronic mental stress arising out of, and in the course of, the Respondent’s employment. Moreover, I find that the other remedies sought by the Respondent are also claimed on the same facts, of harassment and bullying in the workplace. Accordingly, I find the worker’s right of action is taken away by the WSIA, pursuant to section 26 in this case.”

Therefore, if your employer is subject to WSIB enrollment, currently you have no right to sue your employer for being forced to quit or resign due to mental stress you experience in the workplace caused by bullying, harassment and/or other toxic indicia, including those caused by your co-employees. 

The Case:

Morningstar v. Hospitality Fallsview Holdings Inc. (Decision No. 1227/19), 2019 ONWSIAT 2324 (CanLII)

read more

‘PAY IN LIEU’ EXPLAINED – TERMINATION OF EMPLOY – WHAT TO EXPECT

If you are terminated by your employer and:

[1] firstly, there is no “just cause” for your termination; and

[2] secondly, you do not have a written employment agreement or, if you do, there is no clause restricting you to only the statutory notice of termination required by the Employment Standards Act, 2000 of Ontario (the “ESA”) (or, if there is a such a clause, it is not enforceable against you – refer to the checklist in our earlier blog about this),
then, in addition to your statutory entitlements on termination under the ESA, you are likely entitled to “common law” reasonable notice of termination.

An employee’s termination entitlements at “common law” generally are significantly more than those required by the ESA.

COMMON LAW” REASONABLE NOTICE - EXPLAINED:

Employment in Ontario is purely contractual between the employer and the employee. Employers can terminate employees at any time – they do not need a reason.

However, if they do terminate, the obligation of giving “reasonable notice” is imposed by the law of Ontario, both by the ESA and ‘judge-made’ law, subject to any written employment entered by the employer and the employee that varies or changes the general law of Ontario applicable to employment terminations.

Unless the employer and employee agree otherwise in their written employment agreement, the law in Ontario imposes an obligation on employers to give reasonable notice before terminating an employee generally. Either an employer must give this reasonable notice before terminating or, if they do not, they will have to pay to the employee an equivalent amount for that reasonable notice that was not given. Employees must give reasonable notice before resigning, too, but that notice is generally much shorter.  

Generally, “common law” reasonable notice by employers is: (a) determined by the Court, often in wrongful termination lawsuits commenced by employees; and (b) determined based on multiple factors in each case, such as the employee’s age, position, responsibility, years of service, compensation received and ability to find alternative employment.   

Effectively, an obligation to give reasonable notice is designed to lessen the impact of a termination, particularly for the employee. The employer has the opportunity to take the necessary steps to replace the employee and the employee can seek and obtain comparable, alternate employment.

If an employer terminates without providing reasonable notice, but had an obligation to do so, the employer has breached the parties’ employment relationship and will likely have to pay damages equivalent to the amount of reasonable notice that should have been provided to the employee.

These damages are commonly called “pay in lieu of notice” and are calculated based on all, or the global, compensation and benefits the employee would otherwise have earned had he or she actually continued to be employed during the reasonable notice period. Generally, this calculation will include salary, pension contributions, bonuses, commissions, equity grants, if any (such as stock options, etc.), corporate vehicle use and other taxable and non-taxable benefits, if they formed part of the employee’s regular and recurring compensation during employment.

These damages also incorporate and include the statutory notice required by the ESA. However, an employer must actually pay to the employee any statutory severance pay required by the ESA, by lump sum, based on a specific formula set out by the ESA, unless the employee agrees otherwise. In other words, the employer cannot satisfy its statutory severance pay obligation by giving notice of termination to the employee – rather, it must actually be paid.

There is no ‘golden rule’ to accurately predict the amount of reasonable notice for each case of termination. It is difficult to predict, often. Some lawyers use the ‘month-per-year’ rule of thumb, but that is not the law. Every case is different, generally, and must be analyzed based on the specific circumstances of the case. Generally, however, it is reasonably safe to assume that the longer the years of service, older the employee and more responsibility the employee had, the longer will be the reasonable notice period in the case.

Reasonable notice rarely exceeds two (2) years, but there are a few cases in which the Court exceeded this commonly accepted maximum for reasonable notice in Ontario.

Generally, an employee’s entitlement to reasonable notice will be dependent on that employee’s specific factors, all of which must be considered together in that particular case.

WHAT IS ‘WORKING NOTICE’?  

If an employer decides to give reasonable notice of termination before terminating (i.e., during the relationship), it is commonly referred to as ‘working notice’. Employers often use ‘working notice’ to avoid paying an amount to the employee for reasonable notice after termination – it can significantly reduce the liability of the employer. This way, they derive more value, too, because the employee will continue to work for the employer during the reasonable notice period (as opposed to being terminated abruptly, in which case the employer will likely have to pay the equivalent amount for the reasonable notice that was not given to the employee).  

During the working notice period, the employee continues to work ordinarily and the employer continues to pay the usual compensation and benefits – effectively, a status quo arrangement. The employer may progressively discipline the employee during the working notice period and, if proper “just cause” arises, may terminate the employee without compensation. Generally, the employee will be entitled to some time away from work, reasonably, for the purpose of searching for and obtaining alternative employment, such as attending job interviews, etc.

If the ‘working notice’ period is equal to or more than what the Court would determine to be reasonable notice of termination, the employer will not have to pay the employee terminated-related compensation when the working notice period ends. If the working notice is too short, the employer may still have to pay common law reasonable notice at the end of the working notice period. Every case has to be analyzed based on the specific circumstances.

CONCLUSION – HAVE A WRITTEN EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT:

Most employers wish to avoid having to deal with “common law” reasonable notice – it is both unpredictable and very expense, especially if the employee sues the employer for wrongful termination alleging insufficient notice was given or paid to the employee.

In order to avoid the “common law” being applied to the employment relationship, there must be a written employment agreement properly entered by the parties before the relationship starts. If so, the employer can avoid the uncertain and potentially expensive outcome the common law may impose.

Therefore, from an employer’s perspective, at least, there should always be a written employment agreement entered, which clearly and simply outlines the employee’s entitlements in the event of a termination without cause, particularly if they may be less that what the “common law” may award to the employee. In addition to minimizing costs, enforceable termination provisions also offer more certainty to both parties if the relationship ends.

 

read more

ACCOMMODATING ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES IN YOUR WORKPLACE – DO YOU COMPLY WITH ONTARIO’S CURRENT LAW? YOU MUST. READ ON…….

Just a reminder to all employers about the importance of continuing to comply with Ontario’s Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (the “AODA”), which requires a graduated, compliance program for most employers.

Specifically:

[1]        all private sector and not-for-profit organizations with twenty or more employees are required to file their fifth accessibility compliance report by December 31, 2020; and

[2]        organizations with fifty or more employees are required to complete their Multi-Year Accessibility Plans review by January 1, 2020.

Please contact us if you need any assistance with your AODA compliance, including:

•    past and upcoming AODA compliance dates and reporting deadlines and what your organization will need to accomplish, or should have accomplished by the deadlines;

•    an overview of what's required under each AODA accessibility standards: Standards for customer service, employment, information and communications, transportation, and the built environment for public spaces; and

•    how to develop a strategy for compliance now and into the future.

 

read more

WORKPLACE HARASSMENT – THE BASICS – MANDATORY PROTECTION TO ONTARIO EMPLOYEES

Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act imposes important obligations on employers regarding workplace (sexual) harassment. They are designed to enforce proactive measures for all workplaces in Ontario – compliance is now being audited by Ontario’s Ministry of Labour. Non-compliance can mean significant fines, penalties and potential civil liability.

Employers in Ontario must:

•    make and prominently (conspicuously) post in the common area(s) of the workplace a new (or revised) workplace harassment policy, compliant with these new changes – it is mandatory; obtain the assistance of a qualified employment lawyer or, if that is not possible, at least refer to the Ontario Ministry of Labour’s “Code of Practice” for guidance and assistance, if necessary;

•    incorporate the definition of workplace sexual harassment in the mandatory workplace policy: “Workplace sexual harassment” is defined as:

(a) engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct against a worker in a workplace because of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression, where the course of comment or conduct is known, or ought reasonably to be known, to be unwelcome; and/or

(b) making a sexual solicitation or advance where the person making the solicitation or advance is in a position to confer, grant or deny a benefit or advancement to the worker and the person knows, or ought reasonably to know, that the solicitation or advance is unwelcome.

•    establish and implement a joint health and safety committee in your workplace (particularly for workplaces having twenty or more workers) and liaise with the committee’s health and safety representative(s) to develop (or update) a written program or plan to implement the mandatory workplace harassment policy (a “Program”);

•    take care to ensure the Program complies with the law, including:

-     measures and procedures for reporting incidents of workplace harassment: (a) to the employer or supervisor; and (b) to a person other than the employer or supervisor, if the employer or supervisor is the alleged harasser (such as an alternative procedure for employees to report directly to a human resource representative);

-     alternative reporting options to a person who is not subject to the direct control of the alleged harasser if the incident or complaint involves the employer (such as an owner, senior representative, upper manager, director, etc.), which may include third party, so-called “whistleblowing” services, if necessary, and ensure contact information is provided in the Program;

-     explain fully how incidents or complaints of workplace harassment will be investigated and addressed;

-     explain how information acquired regarding an incident or complaint of workplace harassment will be kept confidential, unless disclosure is necessary for the purposes of the investigation or required by law;

-     explain how a complainant and respondent, if a co-employee, will be informed of the results of the investigation and any corrective action or measures taken; and

-     affirm that a written report (summary) of the results of the investigation and any corrective action taken will be provided;

•    train all workers, including managerial employees, about the mandatory policy and the Program and they acknowledge the training, in writing;  

•    tickler for at least annual review of the mandatory policy and Program and keep good records for the review(s);

•    investigate all incidents and complaints of workplace harassment (fairly and completely);

•    retain a third party, professional investigator or, at least, ensure any internal investigator is properly trained for investigating complaints and workplace harassment generally;

•    only utilize an investigator who is, and who will be perceived as, competent and impartial;

•    make every effort to complete the investigation and release the summary report within ninety days of the initial incident or complaint; and

•    be prepared for the Ministry of Labour to order a third party investigator at the employer’s expense, particularly if the employer does not act properly in appointing its own investigator, internal or external.

Need an effective workplace harassment and violence policy? It's the law.

I can help. Send me an e-mail - jason@wardlegal.ca

 

read more

HOLIDAY BONUSES AND GIFTS – HEY, CLARK W. GRISWOLD, READ THIS BEFORE KIDNAPPING YOUR BOSS ON CHRISTMAS EVE

Holiday bonuses (and gifts) are commonly appreciated, morale-boosting and an opportunity for employers to express gratitude to employees collectively at the end of the work year.

However, if expectations are not met, they can also cause strife, conflict and, in some cases, litigation.

Bonuses are not legislatively governed in Ontario; rather, they are considered a contractual matter between employers and employees. There is no legal requirement for an employer to pay a holiday bonus, unless contractually required to do so. However, if a bonus paid to an employee on a year-over-year basis evolves into part of that employee’s overall compensation, the employer may by law be required to pay it the employee in future, including during a reasonable notice period following a termination without cause.  Employers may also adopt a workplace policy regarding bonuses, which typically govern availability, amount and other criteria.

Generally, if employers pay a holiday bonus, or an amount beyond employees’ regular pay, it is either:  

1.    a fixed, recurring holiday bonus annually, usually of a fixed amount, not typically based on work performance or the financial success of the employer’s business;

2.    a pre-determined bonus amount, usually based on either, or both, the employee’s and the business’ performance, often based on set criteria pursuant to a workplace policy; or   

3.    a purely discretionary bonus, decided by the employer each year.

If an employer pays a holiday bonus historically, but changes its mind this year, like Mr. Shirley, an employee’s employment contract should be considered. If the holiday bonus is an important term, the employee may legally be entitled to the bonus. If there is no employment contract, the holiday bonus may have formed a part of the employee’s annual compensation, giving the employee a potential claim to the holiday bonus.

Before employers change their holiday bonus policy or traditional practice, they should review their employment contracts and workplace policies and, if they do not require payment of the holiday bonus, notify employees in advance of the decision to pay no, or a significantly less, holiday bonus. How much notice should be given will likely vary between employees, depending on their duration of employment, nature of their position and even age.

If an employee is terminated without cause, the employee may be able to successfully claim payment of a holiday bonus as part of the wrongful termination damages. It will depend on the terms of the employee’s employment contract and, if none, whether the bonus would be considered a recurring part of the employee’s annual compensation. If the holiday bonus has been purely discretionary by the employer, it is likely the employee’s claim would not be successful.

Generally, in Ontario employment law, if an employer gives an employee a holiday gift (not a payment of money), it is considered by the Court to be discretionary, gratuitous and not binding on the employer in future.

However, a workplace governed by a collective bargaining agreement may be different. In a recent case in Quebec, an arbitrator dismissed a grievance of the employer’s unilateral decision to stop giving employees a $50 gift card at Christmas. It was considered a discretionary decision in this case, based on the specific language of the collective bargaining agreement. However, a different outcome may have been reached for different collective bargaining terms.

For example, other arbitral decisions in Quebec have held that Christmas gifts by employers were determined to be conditions of employment and, therefore, protected by the ‘vested-rights’ clauses in those collective bargaining agreements. Employers that unilaterally stopped these holiday gifts faced a costly and unfavourable grievance process.

Therefore, if you get a “Jelly-of-the-Month Club” card this year, like Clark W. Griswold, when you were expecting much more based on years past, you may have a claim against your employer, but it will depend on your employment contract, if any, past practices by the employer, and whether your historically-received holiday bonus was recurring, not governed by any workplace policy and not nominal in value.

 

read more

DISTRACTED DRIVING – WHAT IT IS AND THE STRONG PENALTIES – REMIND YOUR KIDS (AND YOURSELVES)

I have a new teenage driver at home, with more to come.

It’s a good time to review the strict penalties in Ontario for distracted driving, including to remind not only ourselves, but our kids, too.

Be safe, not sorry.     

DEFINITION OF “DISTRACTED DRIVING”

Ontario’s distracted driving laws apply to the use of all hand-held communication/entertainment devices and certain display screens.

While you are driving, including when you are stopped in traffic or at a red light, it is illegal to:

•    use a phone or other hand-held wireless communication device to text or dial – you can only touch a device to call 911 in an emergency;  
•    use a hand-held electronic entertainment device, such as a tablet or portable gaming console;
•    view display screens unrelated to driving, such as watching a video; and
•    program a GPS device, except by voice commands.

In fact, simply holding a phone or other device while driving is against the law.

You are only allowed to use hands-free wireless communications devices with an earpiece, lapel button or Bluetooth.

You can only view GPS display screens as long as they are constructed into your vehicle’s dashboard or securely mounted on the dashboard.

Other actions such as eating, drinking, grooming, smoking, reading and reaching for objects are not part of Ontario’s distracted driving law. However, you can still be charged with careless or dangerous driving.

PENALTIES FOR DISTRACTED DRIVING

If convicted, the penalty you face depends on the kind of licence you hold and how long you’ve been driving.

Drivers with A to G licences:

If you have an A, B, C, D, E, F, G and/or M licence, you’ll face bigger penalties when convicted of distracted driving:

•    First conviction:

o    a fine of $615, if settled out of court (includes a victim surcharge and the court fee)
o    a fine of up to $1,000 if a summons is received or if you fight the ticket in court and lose
o    three demerit points
o    3-day suspension

•    Second conviction

o    a fine of $615, if settled out of court (includes a victim surcharge and the court fee)
o    a fine of up to $2,000 if a summons is received or if you fight the ticket in court and lose
o    six demerit points
o    7-day suspension

•    Third and any further conviction(s)

o    a fine of $615, if settled out of court (includes a victim surcharge and the court fee)
o    a fine of up to $3,000 if a summons is received or if you fight the ticket in court and lose
o    six demerit points
o    30-day suspension

Novice drivers

If you hold a G1, G2, M1 or M2 licence, and are convicted of distracted driving, you’ll face the same fines as drivers with A to G licences. But you won’t receive any demerit points.
Instead of demerit points you’ll face longer suspensions:

•    a 30-day licence suspension for a first conviction
•    a 90-day licence suspension for a second conviction
•    cancellation of your licence and removal from the Graduated Licensing System (GLS) for a third conviction
o    to get your licence back you’d have to redo the GLS program


CARELESS DRIVING

You could face more charges – for careless driving – if you endanger other people because of any kind of distraction.

This includes distraction caused by both hand-held (e.g., phone) or hands-free (e.g., Bluetooth) devices.

If convicted of careless driving, you may receive:

•    six demerit points
•    fines up to $2,000 and/or
•    a jail term of six months
•    a licence suspension of up to two years

You could even be charged with dangerous driving – a criminal offence that carries heavier penalties, including jail terms of up to 10 years for causing bodily harm or up to 14 years for causing death.

CALLING 911

In an emergency, you can use your phone to call 911, but be sure to pull off the road to a safe area to make the call.

 

read more

DO NOT SHARE AN INTIMATE IMAGE OF YOUR CO-WORKER – YOU’LL BE FIRED WITH NO SEVERANCE

Employee A receives an intimate/personal image on her ‘phone from Employee B (of Employee B). A then forwards the image (i.e., shares it) with others, both within and outside of the workplace. B brings a harassment complaint against A, under the employer’s mandatory prevention of workplace harassment policy. The employer investigates. A is terminated summarily, with no severance or other statutory notice of termination, under Ontario’s Employment Standards Act, 2000 (the “ESA”), or otherwise.  

A makes a complaint to the Ontario Ministry of Labour, pursuant to the ESA and Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act, challenging the summary termination and seeking termination pay under the ESA.

The Ministry upholds the employer’s termination and dismisses A’s complaint.

In doing so, the Ministry relied on a provision in the ESA, whereby an employee is not entitled to notice of termination or termination pay under the ESA if “an employee who has been guilty of willful misconduct, disobedience or willful neglect of duty that is not trivial and has not been condoned by the employer.”

If this is the case, A is not entitled to the minimum, statutory standards in Ontario for termination notice and pay.

The employer must prove that A, on a balance of probabilities, that his exemption applies, including that A acted willfully, rather than in a careless, thoughtless, headless or inadvertent manner, no matter how serious.

Accordingly, privacy in our increasingly digital age and workplaces is being recognized and protected more diligently by our regulatory bodies.

 

read more

WHAT IF YOU ARE THE TARGET OF A WORKPLACE INVESTIGATION? WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW.

Below is an excellent article recently done by Marnie Baizley and Sherifa Hadi, of the law firm SpringLaw, so much so that it should be shared:

You’ve been asked to meet with HR or People Ops. You may – or may not – be aware of what the meeting is about, but you’re a little rattled. You’re told the company will be conducting an investigation, meaning a matter is being taken seriously. You wonder whether you should go it alone or talk to a lawyer – someone who can help you navigate an unfamiliar process.

In short – yes! Speaking with a lawyer is a good idea. Here’s what they can do for you:

Ensure that you understand the allegations – If you have not been told the allegations made by the complainant(s), or if you have been given only partial information, a lawyer can assist you in obtaining and thoroughly understanding the allegations. You will then be prepared for your interview, and in a better position to give a complete statement of the facts (i.e. your side of the story).

Ensure that policies are being followed – Your workplace likely has a policy addressing how and when workplace investigations will be conducted. Your lawyer will help you understand your rights under the policy and under the law. If the investigator deviates from a process articulated by the policy, a lawyer will assist you in determining whether, when and how to advocate for yourself, to ensure that the process is followed and procedurally fair to you.

Help you navigate your communications with the investigator – Not all investigators are properly trained, and they can err in a number of ways, including failing to gather all the relevant information, failing to properly document all of the steps in the investigation process, and failing to provide timely communication as the investigation progresses.

Intervening as a respondent is a delicate process because an investigator’s role is to make important determinations that will affect you. The last thing you want to do is needle the factfinder. Rather, respondents should be cautious and strategic about each communication with an investigator.

Inform you of the process and help you prepare for it – Often workplace investigators will not permit lawyers to attend your interview(s) with you (particularly if the investigation is an internal one). Since a workplace investigation is not a police investigation, you don’t have a legal right to have a lawyer present. Instead, a lawyer can help you plan and prepare in advance for your interview(s). They can discuss possible disciplinary actions the employer can take based on your history (i.e. first instance of misconduct vs. a pattern) and the gravity of the allegation(s). They will steer you to the important subject matter.

Your lawyer can also help you navigate interim measures implemented by your employer and propose how such measures might be modified to feel less punitive (e.g. if your employer places you on a leave for the duration of the investigation).

Ensure the investigator has all the relevant information – The investigator’s determination is only as good as the information they have. Once your lawyer has a clear understanding of the allegations, they can advise you on the type of information to produce to support your response and, if applicable, what witnesses to suggest that the investigator interview. The investigator may or may not choose to interview your suggested witnesses, but the names are still worth raising, along with your reasons for your suggestions.

Notably, a lawyer with experience in workplace investigations will help you decide what is relevant and when to draw the line and let the investigator do their job.

Provide general support and coaching – The process is likely to be an intimidating one, producing all sorts of emotions and you may have trouble staying focused and concise as a result. Your lawyer will be able to support and advise you on how to navigate this process, advocate for yourself in a concise and strategic manner that does not alienate the investigator and point you to resources to cope with negative feelings about the investigation.

Final Thoughts

From a cost standpoint, some lawyers offer unbundled legal services (also known as ‘limited scope’ or ‘discrete task representation’) and pre- or mid-investigation consultations about process are well-suited to that model. One or two consultations are sometimes all that is needed to put a respondent’s mind at ease and get a complete and accurate version of their side of the story on the table. Employment lawyers with expertise in conducting workplace investigations are best suited to help you when you are a party in a workplace investigation.

Credit: Marnie Baizley and Sherifa Hadi, dated November 13, 2019

Link to original: https://www.springlaw.ca/2019/11/13/so-youre-a-respondent-in-a-workplace-complaint/

 

read more

EDIBLES AND TOPICAL USE - MORE TO KNOW ABOUT CANNABIS IN YOUR WORKPLACE

Very recently new regulations to Canada’s Cannabis Act were enacted, establishing new rules for the legal production and sale of new classes of marijuana; namely, edibles, extracts and topical products.

These new products are likely to be available for purchase online and in stores in mid-December.

Employers in Ontario need to update and revise their written workplace policy regarding cannabis to address these new products, specifically, which may not be as obvious to detect in the workplace.

These new products pose new challenges to maintaining a cannabis-free workplace. For example, these new products:

  1. are more difficult to observe or detect possession of – they may be odourless and easily concealed, as opposed to smoking or vaping – they may also be incorporated into everyday products, further challenging the ability to detect and manage them in the workplace; and
  2. may cause unintended or unplanned impairment or intoxication – ingesting or topically applying cannabis often causes different reactions than vaping or smoking, such as delayed or even longer-lasting impact – often users do not know or understand the concentration of cannabis in these new products and, therefore, do not anticipate the impairment impact they may have. 

Every Ontario employer should have a robust substance use policy in their workplaces. Restricting only smoking, vaping or otherwise inhaling is no longer enough. Rather, ingestion and applying topically must also be specifically regulated in the policy. 

Employees must be expected to attend work in a suitable and appropriate mental and physical condition and remain fit for duty at all times.

Need a policy? Call us. We’ve got you covered. 

read more

ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL BACKS ME UP – HOW I REPRESENT INCAPABLE PEOPLE IN LAWSUITS (FAMILY CONFLICT)

Periodically I am appointed by the Superior Court (or the Ontario Public Guardian and Trustee) to act for the interests of an incapable person, who needs representation and support.

Often this arises in disputes among family members over the incapable person’s power of attorney for either property or personal care, or both.

This is a very special role. I am statutorily charged to only represent the views and preferences of the incapable person, which regularly do not align with family members, in whole or in part.

This role is called “section 3 counsel”.

Recently Ontario’s Court of Appeal ruled on a case in which I acted as section 3 counsel.

The trial involved a dispute about the validity of my incapable client’s powers of attorneys. The family was entirely divided. One side challenged my position and argued the Court has no authority or ability to take into consideration my submissions and position, often done orally at the hearing, regarding the incapable person’s wishes and preferences.
Fortunately, the Court of Appeal disagreed, holding [at paragraph 8]:

“In the same way, it was reasonable for the application judge to refer to the statements of Jason Ward, section 3 counsel appointed by the Public Guardian and Trustee to represent Mrs. Lewis’ interests on the guardianship application, concerning Mrs. Lewis’ expressed wishes.”

This case offers very significant new judicial guidance to the role of section 3 counsel for advocating on behalf of incapable people who are deemed to have capacity to instruct a lawyer.

The Case:

Lewis v. Lewis, 2019 ONCA 690

read more

WHAT CAN YOU DO IF SEXUALIZED/INTIMATE CONTENT OF YOU IS POSTED ONLINE, WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT? SUE, THAT’S WHAT.

The Ontario Court granted, in a case called Jane Doe 464533 (the Plaintiff’s name cannot be disclosed), damages and costs totaling $141,000, plus an order for the offending Defendant to destroy any video or images he retains of the Plaintiff and prohibiting him from sharing any intimate images of her. He was also ordered not to communicate with the Plaintiff or any of her family.

The Plaintiff was a young woman in her late teens. Due to pressure from her ex-boyfriend, she agreed to share with him a sexually explicit video of herself. He promised he would not share it with anyone else. However, he subsequently posted the intimate video of her on a pornography Web site without her knowledge or consent. The police refused to criminally pursue the matter.

The Plaintiff eventually sued him for breach of her privacy and, specifically, for his public disclosure of embarrassing private information about her, after attempting to settle the matter with lawyers involved. The Defendant boyfriend did not ultimately defend the lawsuit, so the Court decided the case and awarded damages to the Plaintiff without a challenge to the Plaintiff’s claim. However, the Court reviewed the law and provided a well-reasoned, thorough decision, even though the Defendant did not defend the claim. The case is subject to a publication ban of the name of the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff relied on fairly recent, emerging cases in Ontario recognizing an expanding ability for a person to sue another directly for breach of privacy, or for “intrusion upon seclusion”.

The Court awarded the Plaintiff $100,000 in damages (noting that she had limited her claim to this maximum amount in the lawsuit). These damages are much higher than the $20,000 “cap” that had previously been established by Ontario’s Court of Appeal in the earlier cases for intrusion upon seclusion.

Therefore, this case expands on privacy protection in Ontario and allows a person to civilly claim and be awarded significant damages when that person’s personal/private information is published online, provided this test is met.

To succeed, it must be proved that “the matter publicized or the act of the publication” is “highly offensive to a reasonable person” and is not “of legitimate concern to the public”.

Undoubtedly the law of privacy in Ontario continues to grow and expand. More cases will be needed to clarify and further develop this law, but this case clearly indicates the Court’s willingness to do so, including for “public disclosure of embarrassing private facts”.

read more

EMPLOYEE GETS IN TROUBLE AT WORK AND TELLS THE EMPLOYER HE/SHE INTENDS TO SPEAK TO A LAWYER – CAN YOU BE FIRED FOR THAT? NOPE, HERE’S YOUR REMEDY

Under Ontario’s Employment Standards Act, 2000 (the “Act”), an employer cannot terminate or otherwise punish an employee who asserts his or her rights under the Act. This is known as “reprisal” by the employer and, generally, will cause the employer to be punished itself by the Ontario Ministry of Labour and, possibly, the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The case:

Zongping (Peter) Luo v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company, 2015 CanLII 79023 (ON LRB)

Mr. Luo was terminated by his insurance company employer about one month after informing them that he “might get legal help” regarding a dispute in the workplace.

He made a complaint to the Ontario Ministry of Labour, including alleging reprisal against Economical. The case was escalated to the Ontario Labour Relations Board (the “OLRB”), which decided that Economical did not engage in reprisal in this particular case.

Reportedly Mr. Luo did not specifically mention the Act when he asserted that he “might get legal help” – a factor. The OLRB concluded this statement by Mr. Luo could conceivably encompass a fairly broad range of potential actions, not only limited to those available to him under the Act.

Mr. Luo also admitted in the hearing that he was unaware of the Act when he made his statement – that did not help his case, either. Not long after he was terminated, Mr. Luo also sent an e-mail to the employer referring to wrongful termination and discrimination, but nothing about reprisal.
Ultimately, the OLRB held:

“There are no ‘magic words’ required for an employee to invoke the protection of s. 74 of the Act [the reprisal provision of the Employment Standards Act] so it is not necessary for an employee to refer specifically to the Act . . . However, where the background facts do not appear to raise issues of the enforcement of the Act and the employee makes only a generalized threat to seek legal assistance – as in this case – the protection of s. 74 of the Act cannot be engaged.”

Therefore, according to this case, making generalized assertions or threats to your employer, including that you may speak to a lawyer, may not support a claim of retaliation against your employer, if you believe you were punished for doing so. You need to be specific, ostensibly. Specifically make a request for your employer to comply with the Act or the other health and safety legislation that applies to your workplace, such as Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act (which also addresses harassment in the workplace). Effectively, you will need to seek to exercise your rights very specifically under the Act or other legislation, or you will not likely succeed in a complaint of reprisal against your employer.

In addition to a reprisal claim, an employee may still have a claim for wrongful termination and other damages that may be available, depending on the circumstances.

 

read more

WHAT IS COLLABORATIVE FAMILY LAW?

Collaborative family law has grown in popularity over the last 25 years and has been embraced by family law practitioners to varying degrees. The collaborative family law movement began in the Western American states and was later adopted in British Columbia as one of the first provinces in Canada to embrace a shift in family law towards alternative forms of dispute resolution. Since that time, many lawyers across the country have embraced a transition to the collaborative process, perhaps in light of the fact that most family law cases settle before they reach the adjudication phase of litigation.

Collaborative family law took hold in Lindsay in 2012 when a group of local family law lawyers completed the necessary training and established the Kawartha Collaborative Practice group. Many family law lawyers are shifting towards seeking a method of resolving family matters in a more supportive way. This phenomenon, together with the growing barriers to accessing the judicial system, has led to a drastic increase in families choosing to embrace the collaborative process. The current legal system has been criticized for being ineffective and inflexible for adjudicating the many issues associated with family law matters. However, the recent Bill C-78, which introduces amendments to the Divorce Act, shows direct movement towards recognizing the collaborative process as a viable alternative dispute resolution process.

Indeed, settlement may be the most attractive option for litigants, as adjudication in the family court removes a great deal of control with respect to a family’s financial and structural future. Parties engaged in family law issues are typically dealing with a host of other emotional and financial uncertainties, which the traditional legal model is not able to address holistically. Additionally, many individuals involved in the family law system become frustrated with the expense, investment of time, and the lack of control they experience while litigating such personal matters.

In contrast, the collaborative process is focused on individual and family goals and interests and offers a method of achieving flexible yet legally binding solutions without pursuing costly and unpredictable litigation. Process goals include respectful communications, forthright exchange of documentation, confidentiality, and involvement of various collaborative professionals who strive for problem solving. The collaborative process is truly all encompassing and often includes various professionals trained in the collaborative approach, such as financial advisors, mental health professionals, social workers, and negotiation coaches/facilitators.

In the collaborative process, lawyers are specially trained to remain focused on settlement. The parties sign a Participation Agreement which governs their behavior throughout the process. The parties and their lawyers arrange “team” meetings which are structured to allow individuals to actively participate in creating solutions that are realistic for their family and which emphasize their main goals and interests. The main caveat of this approach is that it is essential that the parties are committed to resolution and are able to consider or appreciate the issues (to some extent) from each other's perspectives.

A primary critique of the collaborative process is the inevitability of an impasse between the parties resulting in either coercive bargaining or a failure of the process. However, there are several options available in the collaborative process to overcome such an impasse. The addition of neutral professionals to the collaborative process may decrease the chances of the parties reaching an impasse. Parties who are able to hear one concise position regarding their family’s financial matters directly from trained professionals may be less likely to fixate on one single financial position, and more likely to agree on a financial solution. Likewise, parties who have received the benefit of a social worker’s skillset may be less likely to escalate emotionally and dig in their heels when attempting to reach a settlement. In the case of a severe impasse that cannot be overcome by the collaborative team, one or two deadlocked issues may be referred to an outside mediator or arbitrator for recommendations or a final decision.

The rebuilding of a basic foundation of trust between parties is a central component to the collaborative process, even if this trust is limited in scope. Parties must learn how to work together, even if only with respect to limited situations, such as those relating to their children’s best interests. Once this trust building process begins – even if only in certain areas – impasses on other issues may be less likely to occur. Given the unique requirements of the collaborative process and the challenges associated with unique family dynamics, it may not be right for every family. However, unlike litigation, the collaborative process is flexible and ensures that both parties are able to be involved in the process of designing creative solutions that meet the unique needs and goals of their family. A meeting with a trained collaborative family lawyer will assist in determining whether the collaborative process is right for you and your family.

Amelia Rodin, WARDS LAWYERS PC

read more

FLEXIBLE EMPLOYERS WILL NOT BE PUNISHED

This employee returned from parental leave. When she did, the employer affirmed to her that she had to arrive at work at 8:30 a.m. Before her leave, the employee alleged, the employer had allowed her to come in later in the morning (due to childcare issues).

The issue is, if the employer had been flexible on her start time previously, particularly due to her representation that she had childcare responsibilities, is it wrong for the employer to require that she attend at the usual time thereafter, particularly when she is returning from parental leave?

Firstly, there was no written employment agreement – a strike against the employer.

Secondly, because there were no written terms, the case escalated into a ‘he-said, she-said’ dispute, which is always very costly to adjudicate in the Superior Court of Justice – win or lose.

The employee claimed in the litigation that the employer had: constructively dismissed her (by changing her fundamental terms of employ), violated her statutory employment rights and discriminated against her contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code (based on family status discrimination).

The Court dismissed her claims.

The employer’s flexibility did not amount to changing the employment relationship, even if those were the facts of the case.

If anything, the Court perceived the employee to be the one attempting to unlawfully change the employment relationship, not the other way around.

Therefore, when employers are flexible periodically, the Court will recognize this and not allow the employee to take advantage of the employer doing so.  


The Case:

Peternel v. Custom Granite & Marble Ltd., 2019 ONSC 5064 (CanLII)

 

read more

EMPLOYEES’ RIGHTS ON VOTING DAY – OCTOBER 21

The date of the federal election is October 21, on which most employees are entitled to paid time off to vote [except only for employees who transport goods or people by land, water or air, and are employed outside of their polling divisions and time off to vote cannot reasonably be provided without interfering with the transportation service).

Any employee who is a Canadian citizen and eighteen years of age is rightfully entitled to take three, consecutive hours off on election day for the purpose of voting.  

If the employee’s duties reasonably preclude that person from taking three, consecutive hours away to vote, the employer must give the employee adequate time off to meet the requirement of three, consecutive hours.

Generally, voting hours within the Eastern Time Zone are 9:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m.

Employees’ pay cannot be reduced, nor can they be otherwise penalized, for taking this time off to vote, even if the employee is commission or piecework based. Rather, qualified employees must be paid for a full day’s work as if they had not been given time off to actually vote.

Employers who do not follow this statutory protection could be fined not more than $2,000 or be imprisoned for a term of not more than three months, or both.

Employers are also prohibited from interfering with these three, consecutive hours to vote – by intimidation, undue influence or other means. Employers who breach this prohibition are liable, on summary conviction, to a fine of not more than $20,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than one year, or both. If conviction is by indictment, the maximum fine and term of imprisonment increase to $50,000 and five years.

read more

YOU CANNOT BE ARRESTED IF ACTING LAWFULLY – NO “ANTICIPATORY” ARREST – SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court has now decided that the police have no power to arrest a person who is acting lawfully, even if the justification would be to prevent a potential crime from being committed.

For example, if you were involved in a protest, but you were acting lawfully, the police have no authority to arrest you based on a perceived apprehension that you may breach the peace.  

The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed that any such power of arrest would substantially interfere with the liberty and freedom of law-abiding individuals and would not be reasonably necessary for the discharge of police duties.

The Court indicated they could not think of any basis for or circumstance in which arresting a person who is acting lawfully in order to prevent, in this case, a breach of the peace, would be reasonably justified.

In fact, according to the Supreme Court, "no such power exists”.

The Case:

Fleming v. Ontario, 2019 SCC 45

 

read more

DON’T SHOW PHOTOS OF YOUR GENITALIA (PENIS) TO YOUR CO-WORKERS – YOU WILL BE FIRED, FOR CAUSE

Sexual harassment in the workplace can justify an employee’s immediate and swift termination, for cause (i.e., no entitlement to any severance pay).

While all sexual harassment is, of course, serious, sexual harassment is judicially analyzed in a spectrum – the more serious the misconduct, the more likely it justifies termination for cause, rather than suspension, reprimand or lesser punishment.

For example, flirtatious or sexualized comments may be unwelcome and annoying, in addition to being entirely inappropriate in the workplace, but they may not escalate to point of justified abrupt termination for being grossly inappropriate, rather than another form of discipline, rehabilitation strategy or other alternative.

In this case, the texts by the male co-employee to his female counterpart initiated as fairly innocuous, or subtly sexualized, but they eventually escalated to more blatant and readily apparent sexualized behaviour, such as sending texts containing pictures of penises downloaded from the Internet. The female co-worker did not complain initially, trying her best to manage the difficult situation.  

Ultimately, the male co-worker showed the female co-worker a picture of his own penis on his ‘phone.

That was it. The female co-worker complained to the employer.  The employer fired the male employee, for cause (i.e., paid nothing for severance or pay in lieu of notice), after conducting an investigation.  

The male employee grieved his termination, alleging it was wrongful and that he was entitled to severance, etc.  

Notably, the male employee was a long-service employee with a very good disciplinary record.

The arbitrator held that the male co-worker had:

-    engaged in a patter of escalating misconduct that was serious and grossly inappropriate in the workplace;
-    had not accepted responsibility for his misconduct; and
-    demonstrated strained, if any, remorse.  

So, sexual harassment in the workplace is treated seriously and can support a termination, for cause.

Investigations by employers should be conducted for sexual harassment complaints, and conducted properly, to support the allegation of cause.

In this case, the escalating behaviour, culminating with showing his co-employee a picture of his own penis, was justifiable cause for immediate termination.

Don’t do that.

The Case:

Calgary (City) v. CUPE, Local 37 (Mossman Grievance)

 

read more

TRY NOT TO MASTURBATE AT WORK - IT'S LIKELY CAUSE FOR YOUR TERMINATION

Co-employees made complaints to their employer about a person “breathing heavily, making erratic movements and moving” in a bathroom stall in the unionized workplace.

The employer investigated and discovered the person to be a long-term employee.

The employer met with the employee to discuss these concerns, following which the employee appeared to have stopped for a period of time, but eventually resumed his bathroom sessions.

The employer invited the employer to explain if his need to satisfy himself in the workplace bathroom arose from a medical condition, but the employee did not identify any at the time.

Eventually the employee admitted to viewing pornography in the bathroom stall, while self-stimulating himself.

The union grieved his termination, for cause, claiming the employee’s workplace masturbation related to a sex addiction, protected by human rights laws.

The arbitrator concluded the employer knew what he was doing, had been warned not to do it and that he was causing an inappropriate disturbance in the workplace.  His masturbation was not caused by sex addiction, or a disability. The arbitrator did not hold that his continuing masturbation qualified as a sex addiction, or whether such an addiction, if it exists, is a medical condition warranting the protection of human rights laws. Even if that were wrong, the union failed to prove that the employee’s addiction disabled him, or affected him from performing his job and, therefore, in the absence of any proved disability, the employer had no duty to accommodate his proclivity to stimulate himself in the bathroom.

This case does not definitively close the door on whether sex addiction is a recognized medical condition. The next case may derive a different result.

Rather, the case emphasizes the importance of progressively disciplining employees before terminating for cause. In this case, had the employer not initially warned the employee not to self-stimulate himself in the company bathroom, the conclusion of the case could potentially have been different.

For now, however, assume that masturbating at work is likely cause for your termination, for cause, particularly if other employees are aware of what you are doing. 

The case:

Unifor, Local 2215 v. I.M.P. Group Limited (Aerospace Division), 2019 CanLII 42906 (NS LA). 

 

read more

WEED AT WORK? NOPE, UNLESS ITS LEGIT MEDICAL USE

Employers may be confused and uncertain how legalized cannabis use impacts their workplace, including how they can monitor and regulate it. It is important to understand the difference between using weed recreationally and for medical reasons – they are treated differently, at law.

The Ontario Human Rights Code (the “Code”) applies to both recreational and medical cannabis. However, unless an employee has an actual, or perceived, addiction to cannabis, or must use medical cannabis due to a recognized disability, the recreational use of cannabis is unprotected by Ontario’s human rights law.

Essentially, using pot recreationally, absent an addiction or to treat a recognized disability, is not protected by the Code. As a result, if these circumstances do not exist, employers are lawfully entitled to:

· impose rules for using recreational cannabis in the workplace, preferably by a written workplace policy;

· prohibit every employee from possessing any recreational weed in the workplace (or at work otherwise), despite that possessing small amounts is now legalized;

· stop employees from coming or reporting to work while influenced by recreational pot, even though use is now legal; and

· if these rules are not followed, discipline those employees who do not follow them, including up to termination for cause, if appropriate.

Cannabis use for medical reasons is different. The same rules apply as they do for other medically-necessary drugs or substances. Employees may be protected to use medical cannabis in the workplace. However, employers are entitled to require the employee to provide justification for his or her disability-related need to use medical pot. Employers can also require information from the employee about restrictions arising from the disability itself, or the medical cannabis used to treat the disability. If an employee’s use of medical cannabis creates a potentially serious safety risk in the workplace, and unlike other disability-related conditions, employers may not be obliged to accommodate the employee using medical cannabis, particularly if would cause undue hardship to the employer.

So, the Code may be triggered and apply, but only if an employee is addicted to pot, or it is used by the employee to treat a legitimate, medical condition that is recognized as a disability by the Code. In that case, employers cannot subject that employee to the same rules. Rather, the employee’s right to be in a workplace free from discrimination related to a disability must prevail, as required by the Code, including a potential duty to accommodate the employee.

If the employee’s use of medical cannabis creates no undue hardship to the employer, it may need to accommodate the employee’s use of it in the workplace, or at work. If so, and so long as no serious safety risk is created, the employer may need to permit the employee to use the medical cannabis at work, or while working, but only during break time and subject to Ontario’s smoking and vaping laws. The key is whether the use of medical cannabis will interfere with the employee’s duty to perform his or her duties in a safe manner, ensuring not to create a serious safety risk in the workplace. If so, accommodation is likely required, subject to how and when the cannabis is consumed by the specific employee and subject to anti-smoking and vaping laws in effect across Ontario.

Need an effective workplace policy for smoking, vaping and cannabis use?

read more

PROTECTING YOU FROM WORKPLACE HARASSMENT AND VIOLENCE - YOUR EMPLOYER'S DUTIES

Since September 8, 2016, Bill 132 substantially upgraded Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act and employers’ obligations for workplace (sexual) harassment. These sweeping changes impose new, proactive measures on all workplaces in Ontario – compliance is now being audited by Ontario’s Ministry of Labour. Non-compliance can mean significant fines, penalties and potential civil liability.

Employers in Ontario must:

  • make and prominently (conspicuously) post in the common area(s) of the workplace a new (or revised) workplace harassment policy, compliant with these new changes – it is mandatory; obtain the assistance of a qualified employment lawyer or, if that is not possible, at least refer to the Ontario Ministry of Labour’s “Code of Practice” for guidance and assistance, if necessary;
  • update the definition of workplace sexual harassment in the mandatory workplace policy: “Workplace sexual harassment” is defined as:

(a) engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct against a worker in a workplace because of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression, where the course of comment or conduct is known, or ought reasonably to be known, to be unwelcome; and/or

(b) making a sexual solicitation or advance where the person making the solicitation or advance is in a position to confer, grant or deny a benefit or advancement to the worker and the person knows, or ought reasonably to know, that the solicitation or advance is unwelcome.

  • establish and implement a joint health and safety committee in your workplace (particularly for workplaces having twenty or more workers) and liaise with the committee’s health and safety representative(s) to develop (or update) a written program or plan to implement the mandatory workplace harassment policy (a “Program”);
  • take care to ensure the Program complies with the new law, including:

-     measures and procedures for reporting incidents of workplace harassment: (a) to the employer or supervisor; and (b) to a person other than the employer or supervisor, if the employer or supervisor is the alleged harasser (such as an alternative procedure for employees to report directly to a human resource representative);

-     alternative reporting options to a person who is not subject to the direct control of the alleged harasser if the incident or complaint involves the employer (such as an owner, senior representative, upper manager, director, etc.), which may include third party, so-called “whistleblowing” services, if necessary, and ensure contact information is provided in the Program;

-     explain fully how incidents or complaints of workplace harassment will be investigated and addressed;

-     explain how information acquired regarding an incident or complaint of workplace harassment will be kept confidential, unless disclosure is necessary for the purposes of the investigation or required by law;

-     explain how a complainant and respondent, if a co-employee, will be informed of the results of the investigation and any corrective action or measures taken; and

-     affirm that a written report (summary) of the results of the investigation and any corrective action taken will be provided;

  • train all workers, including managerial employees, about the mandatory policy and the Program and they acknowledge the training, in writing;  
  • Tickler for at least annual review of the mandatory policy and Program and keep good records for the review(s);
  • investigate all incidents and complaints of workplace harassment (fairly and completely);
  • retain a third party, professional investigator or, at least, ensure any internal investigator is properly trained for investigating complaints and workplace harassment generally;
  • only utilize an investigator who is, and who will be perceived as, competent and impartial;
  • make every effort to complete the investigation and release the summary report within ninety days of the initial incident or complaint; and
  • be prepared for the Ministry of Labour to order a third party investigator at the employer’s expense, particularly if the employer does not act properly in appointing its own investigator, internal or external.  

Need a workplace policy? Call us.  

 

read more

CHANGING AN EMPLOYEE'S JOB - CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL AND THE IMPORTANCE OF A BROAD JOB DESCRIPTION

Your “job description” when you accept your employ may be more important than you realize. 

When an employer changes or modifies an employee’s duties or role, if the change is substantial, it may amount to a “constructive” (rather than wrongful) dismissal.

Effectively, in order to potentially qualify as a change that justifies the employee refusing to continue and suing for damages, the change must meet this two-part test:

  1. firstly, the change must be made unilaterally by the employer and be considered a breach of an express or implied term of the employment contract, which substantially alters an essential term of employment; and
  2. a reasonable person in the same situation as the employee would have believed that an essential term of employment was substantially changed.

In a recent case, a senior manager, who had been employed by a large municipality for eighteen years, resigned from his employ, alleging that the employer had substantially altered his job duties and responsibilities. He also sued for constructive dismissal.

The Court applied the test above and, in doing so, held that the new job assignment given to the employee involved no change in pay or title. There was also no loss of status or prestige. The Court also held a unilateral change in duties or a role, even if substantial, was an implicit part of the job as set out in the particular job description for the employee. The employee had not been hired to perform any one specific function and his expected duties were broad in scope. It was not an express or implied term of his employment that he would always maintain the same duties and responsibilities.

The lesson?

Employers should ensure that job descriptions are broadly worded, not narrowly defined. The key issue is the nature and scope of the duties expected of the employee. A broadly cast job description will allow the employer more flexibility to reassign work, change duties or alter an employee’s role, including if the business evolves or changes over time. In this case, the Court held, based on the broadly worded job description, the employer had the right to reassign files and projects without threatening the employment relationship.

The employee lost. No damages for “constructive dismissal” were awarded. 

The Case:

Whalley v. Cape Breton Regional Municipality, 2018 NSSC 325 (CanLII)

read more

SUSPENDED FOR A WORKPLACE INVESTIGATION - THE COURT IS NOT LIKELY GOING TO HELP YOU

If a workplace complaint is made against you, for harassment for example, and you are suspended by your employer while it conducts an internal investigation, it is very unlikely that the Court will intervene to reverse your suspension before the investigation is properly completed.

Since employer’s are required by law to investigate a workplace harassment complaint, the Court confers fairly broad latitude and flexibility to the employer to do so. Provided the employer conducts a reasonable investigation, including any necessary procedural steps to achieve confidentiality and fairness, the Court is very unlikely to interfere with an employer’s decision to suspend any employee for the purpose of conducting, and during, the investigation. The employer may have to justify the decision, if challenged, but if reasonable justification is proffered, the Court is unlikely to intervene.

If an employer is conducting a workplace investigation reasonably, the employer’s duty to do so will also outweigh any potential damage to the reputation of any person involved in the investigation, including the alleged harasser. The Court’s view is that an employee’s reputation would not be impugned if the employee is exonerated by the investigation. Rather, if the employee’s reputation is damaged, it is because of his or her misconduct in the workplace, rather than the investigation conducted by the employer. Accordingly, the Court is very likely to prefer the investigation over a party’s claim that the fact of the investigation itself may harm his or her reputation.

In an Ontario case involving a doctor at a major Toronto hospital, against whom harassment issues were raised in the workplace, the doctor was partially suspended by the hospital during its internal investigation. The doctor sought an injunction that the employer reinstate him immediately. The Court rejected the doctor’s request and, in doing so, expressed: “….the Hospital is obliged to ensure that its employees can work together in the most harmonious environment possible. Disruption and conflict amongst its employees can only adversely affect the care of patients. Any internal investigation into bullying and harassment, once those allegations are raised, is not only desirable, but in many senses, obligatory.”

Therefore, if you are the target of a harassment complaint in your workplace, the best approach is likely to try to negotiate with the employer to minimize potential harm to your reputation, such as certain steps to ensure confidentiality and fairness, rather than seek judicial intervention to try to stop the investigation. If you are suspended during the investigation, it is unlikely the Court will help you, if the employer’s decision to suspend you was reasonable in the circumstances.

The Cases:

Dr. Agostino Pierro v. The Hospital for Sick Children, 2016 ONSC 2987 (CanLII)

Barrick v. Humane Society Yukon, 2018 YKSC 51 (CanLII)

read more

EMPLOYEES' RIGHTS ON TERMINATION - THE BASICS

Ultimately, employers do not need a reason to terminate an employee governed by Ontario law. They can do so “without cause” at any time, subject to the employee’s right to receive reasonable notice of termination, or pay in lieu of such notice. However, if an employer terminates an employee for cause, the employer may have no obligation to provide the employee with notice of termination or any pay in lieu thereof. Proving “cause” for termination is a high threshold in Ontario. The Courts routinely scrutinize an employer’s allegation of cause, often finding otherwise. Usually every case is unique and determined based on its own facts.  

Generally, an employee in Ontario is entitled to reasonable notice when his or her employer decides to terminate his or her employ without cause. Reasonable notice can be given either by ‘working’ notice (during which the employee remains employed) or by pay in lieu of reasonable notice. The amount of reasonable notice to which any employee may be entitled is case specific and depends on multiple factors, including age and level of responsibility.

Ontario employees terminated without cause are entitled minimum, statutory entitlements, including termination pay, under Ontario’s Employment Standards Act, 2000 (the “ESA”). Generally, most employees are entitled under the ESA to one week’s working notice or pay in lieu of working notice for each full year of service, up to a maximum of 8 weeks working notice or pay in lieu of working notice. This entitlement may vary depending on how many employees are terminated by an employer at any given time. In addition, employees employed for five years or more continuously may also be entitled to “severance pay” under the ESA – usually one week for each year of active service, up to a maximum number of weeks. 

These are the minimum, statutory rights only for Ontario employees. If there is no employment contract limiting an employee’s entitlement on termination without cause to the minimum standards under the ESA, or otherwise determining the entitlement, the terminated employee will be entitled to reasonable notice of termination of employment pursuant to the “common law”. Many lawyers refer to the ‘one month per year of service’ rule of thumb, but this is not the law. Rather, common law entitlement to reasonable notice is determined by several of factors, including: the nature of the employment, the level of responsibility, the length of the employment, the age of the employee, the availability of alternative employment and the circumstances surrounding the employer’s decision to terminate the relationship. Usually this is a very subjective assessment.

Perversely, in order to be awarded the full amount of any entitlement to pay in lieu of notice, an employee who is terminated is obliged by law to attempt to limit and/or “mitigate” his or her damages/losses from the termination by actively seeking alternative, comparable employment. Failure to do so may adversely impact the amount of common law reasonable notice to which the employee may be entitled. Only actual damages incurred are granted by the Court. Mitigated earnings during the notice period are usually deducted from the Court’s overall award. 

The situation for federally-regulated employees is different. Under the Canada Labour Code, most employees are entitled to two weeks’ notice of termination and, after twelve consecutive months of continuous employment, employees may also be entitled to severance pay equal to two days’ pay for each year of completed service, with a minimum benefit of five days wages.

read more

TIPS - EMPLOYEES ON A LEAVE OF ABSENCE - HOW LONG? WHEN CAN THEY BE REPLACED? WHEN DOES IT END?

HIRING A REPLACEMENT FOR AN EMPLOYEE ON A LEAVE OF ABSENCE:  

If an accommodated employee is on a leave of absence stipulated by Ontario’s Employment Standards Act, 2000 (the “ESA”), the employee has a presumed right to return to work in the same position (if the position still exists or similar duties are still performed), or be given the opportunity to return to a comparable position. Employers cannot ‘punish’ employees who take a leave of absence authorized by the ESA, or a leave that is otherwise permitted by the employer or by applicable law, particularly if the leave of absence is attributable to a disability experienced by the employee, which is also protected by Ontario’s Human Rights Code (the “Code”).

If a replacement employee is hired, the employer may even be forced to terminate the replacement to accommodate the returning employee and, if so, liability for pay in lieu of notice (and other statutory rights) may ensue, particularly if the replacement cannot be placed in another, satisfactory position. If a replacement employee is hired, the employment offer should specifically address this, including by defining the temporary nature of the hire and the limited entitlement to pay in lieu of notice. 

FRUSTRATION OF THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP:

If an employee is absent from work due to a disability for an extended period of time, it may constitute a “frustration” of the employment contract, in which case the employer may only be lawfully required to pay the employee his or her entitlements under the ESA, which may include severance pay, being the statutory minimum at law.  However, there is no judicially set time period to apply to determine the event of frustration, particularly if the employee has long-term disability benefits available during the leave of absence. Typically, such benefits make it more difficult to determine if a frustration has taken place. In addition, employers must continually consider accommodating the employee, to the point of undue hardship, with the objective of the employee returning to work when capable of doing so. Employers should carefully consider this duty before determining that a frustration of the relationship has occurred. The employer may need to consider different return-to-work accommodation plans during the leave of absence and before taking the position that a frustration has occurred, such as, for example, periodic or temporary return-to-work options and possibly requesting and reviewing medical information for the employee regarding the employee’s ongoing and future treatment plan and potential ability to return to work in the same position, which may require modification. Usually every case is unique and has its own, distinct considerations, particularly depending on the length of the ongoing leave of absence, efforts to accommodate the employee and facilitate a return to work, either temporarily or longer and usually the step of affirming with the employee’s treatment provider(s) whether the employer is unable to return to work for the foreseeable future, even with accommodation.

ACCOMMODATING AN EMPLOYEE WITH A DISABILITY:

Under the Code, employers must accommodate employees with any disability to the point of “undue hardship”. This is historically a very high threshold for employers to justify, legally. Employers must permit any accommodation request, unless denying the request is justified based on objective evidence reasonably satisfactory in the circumstances. Generally, if an employee has a documented restriction regarding his or her inability to perform regular duties, the employer may be required to review and consider the employee’s current duties, including to decide if the employee is able to continue performing the bona fide duties for the position, which may require some modification to accommodate the employee’s specific disability. If, for example, modified duties could be achieved, the employee is likely entitled to continue in the same position, as modified. Only is such modification is virtually impossible, to the point of “undue hardship” to the employer, should the employer review and consider other positions and duties that would accommodate the employee’s documented restrictions. In that case, the employer is only obliged to pay the accommodated employee based on the duties and hours of work actually performed by the employee, including in the modified position, if any. Accommodation of any employee should always be reviewed fairly regularly, including to facilitate the employee returning to his or her regular duties as soon as reasonably capable of doing so.

read more

JASON'S TOP 10 TIPS - HIRING AN EMPLOYEE

Our Top 10 tips for hiring a new employee: 

[1]      SIGNED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT/OFFER:

Before the employee starts any work:

  • ensure you have the employee’s properly signed employment agreement or accepted offer of employment;

  • ensure the employment agreement/offer addresses everything necessary, including for termination (with and without cause), leaves of absence, police record check (if desired or mandatory), health and safety training, accessibility, job description (defining the position adequately), confidentiality, right to lay-off, rules for suspension, etc.;

  • consider if the employment agreement/offer should contain any non-competition and/or non-solicitation provisions to protect your business and assets in future; and     

  • provide a copy to the employee, before the employee starts in the position.

[2]    POLICE RECORD CHECK AND PROFESSIONAL REFERENCES:

  • obtain any required police record check (judicial record check, vulnerable sector check) and professional reference(s) prior to the employee starting any work for the position; and  

  • ensure the employment agreement/offer is conditional on those requirements and being satisfied with the results.  

[3]    HIRING AND RECRUITMENT:

  • ensure avoidance of discriminatory practices prohibited by the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”). 

[4]    BE CLEAR ABOUT WORK, ESPECIALLY REMOTELY (FROM HOME):

  • before the employee is permitted to work remotely, such as from home, ensure you have a workplace policy specifying eligibility, rules, requirements to do so (responsiveness, productivity, conduct, etc.), digital security and access, confidentiality and approval for overtime work, among other things; and

  • consider your own confidentiality requirements and ensure the employee is required to meet those obligations, including via online communications, using digital devices, etc.

[5]    BE SENSITIVE TO POTENTIAL DISABILITY ISSUES:

  • offer accessibility and accommodation during the recruitment and hiring process, if necessary; and 

  • request the employee to identify any potential accessibility or accommodation needs, if any, being very mindful of avoiding questions, or requesting information, prohibited by the Code. 

[6]    PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY:

  • ensure you have the employee’s properly signed confidentiality acknowledgement, depending on the nature of your business and the importance of confidentiality to you and your clients, customers, employees, service providers, etc.   

[7]    PROTECT YOUR PROPRIETARY INTERESTS:

  • if you have proprietary intellectual property and/or information technology assets, ensure you have a proper acknowledgement signed by the employee to protect both your IT and IP assets in future, including digital assets.  

[8]    DISCLOSURE OF PERSONAL INFORMATION:

  • ensure the employee has properly signed a consent to the disclosure of the employee’s personal information (i.e., photographs, videos, etc.) for the purpose of marketing and/or promotion of your business, if desired, which also protects your third party marketing/promotion partners and agents.   

[9]    SET EXPECTATIONS:

  • provide the employee access to review your workplace policies before the employee signs the employment agreement/offer;

  • offer to review those with the employee and answer any questions; and

  • ensure the employee signs an acknowledgement verifying the employee’s review of your workplace policies (and any other key expectation for the employee in future) and agreement to adhere to those in future.

[10]  COMPLY WITH STATUTORY AND CRA RULES:

  • add the new employee to your CRA account for payroll source deductions, etc.

  • ensure the employee completes a TD-1 and a TD1ON Form;

  • complete the year-end T4A and other CRA requirements for the employee;

  • add the employee to your Workplace Safety and Insurance Board account, if applicable;

  • inform the employee where a copy of (Ontario’s) Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1993, c. O.1, as amended (the “OHSA”), is posted prominently in your workplace;

  • inform the employee where copies of both your heath and safety policy and your violence, harassment and sexual harassment prevention policy are posted prominently in your workplace, as required by the OHSA;  

  • give the employee a copy of the “Health & Safety at Work: Prevention Starts Here” poster, required by the OHSA, which must also be displayed prominently in your workplace at all times;

  • inform the employee of the names and locations of your workplace Joint Health and Safety Committee members, if applicable;

  • give the employee a copy of the “Employment Standards in Ontario” poster, published by the Ontario Ministry of Labour; and

  • arrange for the employee, including if he or she is a supervisor, to complete the mandatory health and safety awareness training required by the OHSA.

read more

"FORCED RETIREMENT" OF ADVANCED-AGE EMPLOYEES - GET READY TO PAY A PREMIUM, SAYS THE COURT

The emerging judicial trend in Ontario is to give more to long-service, advanced-age employees if they are wrongfully terminated.  The Courts are determining that “forced retirements” are unacceptable and punishing employers who are perceived to do so by granting more pay in lieu of notice (i.e., longer notice periods).

Severance settlements will be impacted by this trend in the Courts and, certainly, much more careful scrutiny should be given by employers forced to consider whether to litigate the notice period for advanced age employees (typically those over the age of sixty-five years), particularly if they have mid-to-long-term service records with the employer.

Case One: Dawe v. Equitable Life Insurance Company2018 ONSC 3130 (CanLII):

The employee had worked for thirty-seven years for the employer. He was a senior VP. He was sixty-two years of age when he was terminated, without cause. He earned a salary of about $250,000 annually, plus a bonus of nearly $400,000 in the year his employment was terminated.

He sued. He claimed he had planned to work for another three years.

The Court acknowledged the general rule that twenty-four months is the maximum notice period awarded. Despite this, the Court noted “a change in society’s attitude regarding retirement”, particularly with the abolition of mandatory retirement in 2006. The Court rules that “presumptive standards no longer apply”, mainly because many employees work past the age sixty-five.

After considering all of the usual factors in a case for wrongful termination, such as the employee’s age, length of service, character of employment and availability of alternate employment), the Court emphasized the employee’s advanced age, especially on the basis that it made the availability of comparable employment more difficult for the employee.

In fact, the Court held that termination without cause of this employee was “tantamount to a forced retirement”, stressing that the employee should have been given the opportunity to retire on his own and on his own terms.

In the end, Court would have awarded the employee a “minimum 36-month notice period”. However, only thirty months’ pay in lieu of notice was granted, given that the employee claimed no more in the case.

The case has been appealed; stay tuned.

Case Two: Saikaly v. Akman Construction Ltd., 2019 ONSC 799 (CanLII):

In this recent case, a sixty-year old office manager employee, who had worked for approximately twelve years only, was given twenty-four months’ pay in lieu of notice. Following its decision above, the Court’s decision took account that the employee did not hold as high a level of position or have a lengthy service record. However, despite this, the Court concluded a two-year notice period was appropriate, particularly given the employee’s  advanced age, dedication to his former employer and lack of formal training, making it more challenging for the employee to secure alternate employment.

read more

DON'T USE THE SO-CALLED "RULE OF THUMB" TO PAY SEVERANCE TO SHORT-TERM EMPLOYEES

Some employers use the so-called “rule of thumb” to make severance offers to employees terminated without notice. 

Basically, one month severance pay for each completed year of service.

By implication, short-term employees, even managerial ones, would only be entitled to minimal pay in lieu of notice if terminated without cause.

This is not the law.

Indeed, length of service is only one factor a Court will assess in awarding severance pay (pay in lieu of notice). 

Furthermore, Ontario’s highest Court has also clearly rejected placing weight disproportionately on length of tenure, especially if it would potentially discredit or undervalue other factors, such as the employee’s level of responsibility, age and the nature of the position generally [Example: Minott v. O’Shanter Development Company Ltd., 42 OR (3d) 321 (ONCA); Love v. Acuity Investment Management Inc., 2011 ONCA 130 (CanLII)].

Particularly with a managerial employee, Courts now fairly consistently award significantly more for pay in lieu of notice. Higher management have been awarded six months’ pay in lieu of notice, for example, even though the length of employment was less than two years.

So, for short-term employees, particularly managerial positions, the “rule of thumb” should be carefully applied, if at all, these days. If the managerial employee is senior in age, the risk becomes even greater, as Courts are becoming increasingly intolerant of ‘forced retirement’ terminations. A severance offer should rarely, if ever, be weighted disproportionately on length of service. Rather, all of the factors typically evaluated by the Courts should be examined, such as the employee’s age, level of responsibility and possibly the employee’s reasonable ability to secure alternative and comparable employment.

Other cases in Ontario where the so-called “rule of thumb” has been rejected or, least, not applied:

  • product manager employed for nineteen months awarded nine months’ severance after termination without cause, in which the Court noted that the employer did not provide the employee with a reference letter and the manager had taken more than nine months to find alternate employment, even at a lower salary [Nemirovski v. Socast Inc., 2017 CarswellOnt 14948];

  • senior technical architect employed for less than three years awarded a five-month reasonable notice period [Raposo v. CA Canada Company, 2018 CarswellOnt 12044];

  • sales manager awarded a notice period of four months following the termination of her employment after less than one year [Nogueira v. Second Cup, 2017 CarswellOnt 16262]; and

  • general manager employed for less than two years awarded a three-month reasonable notice period, noting the employer was less than forty years of age and had found alternative, comparable employment within thirty days of the termination date [Bergeron v. Movati Athletic (Group) Inc., 2018 ONSC 885 (CanLII)].

Decisions on severance offers must be carefully considered, ideally with proper, qualified legal advice. 

read more

THE TEST FOR PROVING A TOXIC (POISONED) WORKPLACE

Constructive dismissal” is different from wrongful termination. If an employee leaves, usually it is by resignation. However, if the departure is due to an alleged toxic, abusive or intolerable workplace, to the extent that the employer has substantially changed fundamental or essential terms of the employment contract, it may be considered a forced departure, or constructive dismissal.

A recent B.C. case demonstrates the importance of maintaining a workplace free of harassment, toxicity and abusive behaviour.

In this case, an employee alleged a co-employee engaged in, among other things, intimidation and both verbal abuse and harassment.  The employer conducted an internal investigation, concluding many of the allegations were unfounded or unsubstantiated, although the co-employee was disciplined for using profanity in the workplace. The employer concluded the workplace conflict was attributable to both employees, effectively. The employee remains dissatisfied with the employer’s reaction to her complaints and, ultimately, resigned from her employ and sued the employer for constructive dismissal.

The Court noted the legal test to successfully establish a toxic, or intolerable, workplace, being a relatively high barrier: whether a reasonable person in the circumstances should not be expected to persevere in the employment. An individual's subjective perception of the work environment will not be enough to establish constructive dismissal. Unfriendliness, confrontations between co-workers or even some hostility and conflict will not amount to constructive dismissal where the employee is still able to perform his or her work. In this case, the Court found no ongoing, repeated abusive behaviour, nor did the employer tolerate or condone any sufficiently objectionable behaviour in the workplace. Rather, the employer was found to have treated the complaints seriously, discipline the co-employee, in part (for using profanity) and arranged for a professional coach to try to intervene and distill the conflict between the co-employees. 

The test for toxic, poisoned or intolerable, workplace had not been met by the complaining employee.

However, regardless of the legal outcome, the employer incurred significant expense in the process, which caused uncertainty and additional conflict within the workplace, all of which may be more avoidable by taking the following steps:

  • Implement and maintain a respectful workplace policy;
  • Establish and implement a workplace policy for harassment, sexual harassment and conduct within the workplace;
  • Treat and handle complaints seriously, including pursuant to any written workplace harassment policy, which is mandatory by law;
  • Take action, where appropriate; and  
  • Reaffirm the commitment to having and maintaining a respectful workplace.

The Case:   

Baraty v. Wellons Canada Corp., 2019 BCSC 33.

read more

LONG-TERM DISABILITY BENEFITS EXPLAINED

Long term disability benefit coverage (“LTD”) is a type of insurance that may be available to employees, often as part of a group benefit package or program. It is a contract between the insurance provider (benefit carrier) and the employer, which benefits the employee. Often the employee must contribute to the monthly premium for the LTD coverage, at least partly, which is usually deducted from the employee’s pay and remitted by the employer directly to the benefit carrier (usually as part of the total monthly expense for the group benefit package being made available to the employee).  LTD terms and conditions are not usually the same for every insurance company or benefit carrier, but often features of this coverage are the same, or similar.

For example, most LTD policies require an “elimination period”, being the period required for the employee to be absent from work due to a disability before the coverage will be triggered. Often an employee will be required by the terms of the coverage to apply for and exhaust any available short-term disability benefits (including through employment insurance sick benefits) and accumulated sick days. An  employee may also be required to apply for Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, too. 

LTD benefits are typically a percentage of the employee’s regular wages or pay (based on the pre-disability employment). The percentage may depend on the amount of the premium paid for the coverage, or other factors, and largely depends on the contract negotiated by the employer and the benefits carrier. If, while LTD is being received, an employee receives income from another sources, such as workplace insurance benefits, or Canada Pension Plan benefits (including disability-related payments), those amounts will usually be deductible, or set-off, against the LTD payment.  The LTD benefit received may be taxable or non-taxable to the employee, depending on whether tax was paid on the payment of the monthly premiums by the employee. If so, it is likely the LTD benefit may be paid on a tax-free basis to the employee. 

Generally, LTD will be available for a period of two years in terms of the employee’s ability to perform his or her own job. However, after this period, the coverage terms will shift to whether the employee could perform “any occupation”, not only his or her own vocation. This is a higher test in order to qualify for ongoing, continuous LTD in future. This assessment may require medical examination and/or information to review the “any occupation” condition.

If LTD is available beyond the two-year “any occupation” threshold, it likely will continue until the employee turns age 65, returns to work, passes away or the benefits carrier conducts a further assessment and changes, or suspends, the ongoing benefit payment. If an employee returns to work after receiving six months or more of LTD benefits, but suffers a further disability, generally the employee will have to exhaust any short-term benefits available, including through employment insurance sick benefits, possibly with the requirement to apply for CPP disability benefits.

The employer’s contract with the benefits carrier is the critical document for LTD rights and entitlements. The coverage is usually summarized by a benefits booklet, which should be requested from an employer prior to accepting a position, or during employ, to review and understand the terms and conditions of that specific LTD plan.

read more

FIRING SOMEONE FOR POOR PERFORMANCE (WITHOUT SEVERANCE) - DO-ABLE, BUT RISKY. THE NUTS AND BOLTS

Generally, an employer cannot abruptly terminate an employee without notice (i.e., any severance) unless there is “just cause” to do so. If such cause is absent, reasonable notice, or pay in lieu of notice, is usually required by law. It is exceedingly difficult for Ontario employers to prove “just cause” in Ontario Courtrooms. Some critics may argue that Ontario Courts remain disproportionately sympathetic to terminated employees, perhaps justifiably so. In any event, to use and prove “just cause” successfully in Ontario law is usually very challenging and reserved to fairly limited circumstances, effectively those where the contract of employment is fundamentally breached by the terminated employee.

Performance issues, in particular, can be quite problematic, at least if they are raised and relied on as “just cause” for termination. Where the misconduct is very clear and identifiable, it becomes mildly less onerous, such as serious or wilful misconduct (e.g., fraud, theft, harassment, breach of fiduciary duty) – these may more readily create the opportunity to abruptly terminate for cause and justify it afterwards, if necessary. However, short of these clear, compelling reasons, the lines becomes far more blurry and uncertain, such as for incompetence, failure to perform satisfactorily, disobedience, or other less stark missteps by an employee.

To justify termination for cause in those cases, usually employers must prove proactive steps were taken to effectively manage the poorly performing employee before a finding a dismissal was justified for cause. What must be proved? Typically employers must prove that the employee consistently failed to meet and achieve objective, reasonable performance standards that are known to the employee. Subjective dissatisfaction by an employer is usually insufficient. The Court may also consider mitigating factors relating to the employee’s circumstances or workplace. Essentially, the employer must demonstrate that the employee’s shortcomings were entirely the reason for the termination, after progressive discipline was afforded to the employee, unsuccessfully. It cannot be other factors, or be perceived to potentially be other factors, such as economic downturn or the employer’s unwillingness to offer reasonable accommodation, that is the reason for the employee’s sub-standard performance.

Generally, the Court will require a fairly onerous progressive discipline process before it will allow the employer to terminate successfully for cause for performance-related issues. This usually involves prior warnings and an opportunity for improvement or rehabilitation. Unless the employee’s conduct reaches the high threshold of “gross” incompetence, particularly by endangering the lives of others, generally the employer is judicially expected to, at the very least: warn the employee that his or her job is at risk if performance does not improve within a specified period; and provide reasonable time and support for improvement; and demonstrate that, despite this, the employee’s sub-standard performance persisted.

Employers must also be cognizant of whether an employee’s incompetence may potentially relate to (or arguably relate to) any prohibited grounds of discrimination under Ontario's Human Rights Code. In that case, the duty to accommodate may arise, to the point of undue hardship, making it even more difficult to justify a termination for cause based on poor performance – and more risky to do so.

Employers in Ontario should:

  • Establish a clear policy and/or job description outlining performance standards;  
  • Regularly and consistently apply enterprise-wide performance standards;  
  • Consistently provide feedback to employees and avoid potentially “mixed messaging”;
  • Clearly define the expectations on an ongoing basis (ideally in writing);
  • Document carefully all steps taken to progressively discipline an employee, including by identifying the expectations the employee cannot, or will not, achieve or meet;
  • Warn the employee of the risks associated with poor performance;
  • Provide a reasonable amount of time to rectify the poor performance and comply with the reasonable expectations; and 
  • Be patient and methodical in the process, including by contemplating what must be proved, ultimately, if the employee sues for wrongful termination.
read more

CAN I BE FIRED FOR CAUSE FOR BEING CHARGED WITH ANY CRIMINAL OFFENCE, OR OTHER OFF-DUTY MISCONDUCT? SHORT ANSWER: NOT LIKELY

There is no dispute in Ontario that employers are permitted to apply reasonable rules and standards on employees in the workplace. They may discipline and fire employees, if appropriate steps by them are taken and there are proper grounds to do so, at law. Employees who break the rules or engage in serious misconduct in the workplace are subject to termination, for cause and without severance pay.

However, employees’ misconduct that takes place off-duty, on personal time or outside of the workplace, is a different issue entirely in Ontario law.

This includes, for example, conduct by an employee on social media, when the employer may feel the employee is acting inappropriately, or when an employee is charged with a criminal offence, such as impaired driving, domestic assault or even a less serious offence, such as theft or mischief.

Ontario Courts have addressed these questions and generally held that criminal charges for off-duty (alleged) misconduct, without more, are insufficient grounds to dismiss the employee for cause and without either notice or pay in lieu of notice.

For example, in a 2016 Ontario case, when the employee sued for wrongful termination as a result, the employer was ordered to pay damages equivalent to ten months’ wages ($42,000), plus costs.

Brief Facts:

The employee, 67, was employed as a general labourer. He worked mostly in southern Ontario.

Early in 2015, he was arrested at work and charged with two counts of sexual assault allegedly against minors. The employer met with the employee the following day and questioned him about this, but the employee refused to discuss the criminal charges and would only say that the alleged events did not occur in the workplace and did not involve any other employees.

The employer asked him to resign, but he would not. However, he agreed to take a two-week leave of absence.

When he came back to work, he was asked to work at a different facility of the employer. A female employee at that other facility then expressed concerns about working closely with the employee. She told the employer that the employee in question was a distant relative and that she in the past had visited with him with her own family. The female employee also alleged that she stopped visiting him because he made inappropriate sexual comments and advances towards her.

As a result, the employer met again with the employee. They brought these concerns by the female employee to his attention directly, including the employer’s concern that this female employee may be involved in the criminal allegations. The employee would only confirm that no other employees were involved in the criminal charges.

The employer, without undertaking any further investigation, internally or otherwise, terminated the employee, for cause, and paid no severance to him. The employee sued for wrongful termination.

The Law:

According to this case, for off-duty conduct to constitute proper cause for termination, there must be a justifiable nexus or connection between the off-duty conduct and the employer or the nature of employment.

The Court also confirmed that the onus is on the employer to demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that, for example:

  • the misconduct of the employee injures or harms the employer’s reputation or product;
  • the employee’s behaviour renders the employee unable to perform his or her duties satisfactorily;
  • the employee’s behaviour leads to refusal, reluctance or inability of the other employees to work with him or her;
  • the employee has been guilty of a serious breach of the Criminal Code, which renders his or her conduct injurious to the general reputation of the employer and its employees; and
  • continuing to employ the employee will cause difficulty in the way the employer properly carries out the function of efficiently managing its work and efficiently directing its work force.

Applying these factors based on the evidence, the employer lost on the cause issue and had to pay, including because:

  • it did not, or would not, suffer reputational harm, because the employee was considered a general labourer, not an executive, supervisor, or manager
  • the employee remained capable of performing his duties, as indicated by the fact that the employer re-assigned him to perform his duties at another of its facilities initially
  • No other employees were involved in the criminal charges and, if the female employee was, in fact, hesitant to work closely to the employee at issue, that was for reasons unrelated to the criminal charges and, therefore, the employer had a duty to accommodate both, to the point of undue hardship
  • the employee remained innocent until proved guilty, at law, and should benefit from Ontario’s presumption of innocence before the criminal trial was held
  • the employer’s re-assignment of him, after his initial two-week leave of absence, indicated that the employer’s continued employment of him did not prejudice the employer’s ability to manage its work and workforce

Summary and Lessons:  

This case emphasizes that employers should always, before terminating for cause, conduct fulsome and proper workplace investigations, including when off-duty misconduct is the issue. A proper investigation involves seeking and obtaining any relevant statements and evidence, properly documenting the evidence and the investigatory steps taken and giving the employee in question a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations, or so-called ‘due process’. If this is not done prior to termination, the employer clearly faces the risk of cause not being upheld by the Court.

If a proper investigation is done, employers should assess if the off-duty conduct justifies termination for cause, based on the factors set out above, or what other disciplinary step(s) may be more appropriate at the time, as part of progressive discipline.

Employers should always ensure progressive discipline steps are taken, unless the circumstances are severe enough to justify otherwise, and they should always make sure any disciplinary steps taken are reasonable, principled and consistent with the employer’s policies, including any workplace codes of conduct and off-duty workplace policies.

Other options? If there is serious concern, but possibly risk in establishing a cause, the employer could consider terminating the employee due to off-duty misconduct, but not on a ‘for cause’ basis, by providing adequate notice or pay in lieu of notice, subject to ensuring that the discipline taken, including the termination, does not offend the protected grounds enumerated in the Ontario Human Rights Code (or the federal Code, if applicable).

Helpful Case:

Merritt v. Tigercat Industries, 2016 ONSC 1214 (CanLII) 

 

read more

DOES YOUR CHILD'S VOICE MATTER IN YOUR FAMILY LAW DISPUTE?

Decisions regarding custody and access have an immense impact on the best interests of the child. In order to ensure that the best interests of the child are met, there are three commonly employed methods of incorporating a child’s views and preferences into the judicial process. Representation of the child by a lawyer is perhaps the most prevalent method, followed by expert reports, and meetings between a judge and child. Judicial interviewing has historically been a controversial method for determining a child’s views, and the effectiveness of this approach has been criticized. There are two common views - one proposing that children must be protected from familial conflict and choosing sides, the other suggesting that the views of children should be encouraged as often as possible.

In Ontario, the Childrens Law Reform Act (CLRA) governs judicial interviewing of children and states that the court shall take the views and preferences of the child into consideration wherever possible.  Section 64(2) of the CLRA further provides that “The Court may interview the child to determine the views and preferences of the child”. Unfortunately, this provides very little guidance in regards to how and when judicial interviewing should be conducted. Across Canada, most jurisdictions have left the option of a judicial meeting to the judge’s discretion.

While the current legislation permits any judge the opportunity to interview a child, judges in Ontario rarely meet with children. The most commonly cited reason for this is that meeting and interviewing children requires a unique skill set, which includes both specific training as well as an understanding of the way in which children speak.  Additionally, the court has consistently upheld that judges must not collect evidence, and accordingly, judges must not base their decision solely based on the views expressed by a child. Judges are ultimately bound by legislation, and must be careful to consider what is in the best interests of the child, not simply what the child expresses. These competing interests were discussed in the 1965 case Hodge v Hodge (1965 7 FLR 94):

One of the reasons given in that case for not seeing the child was that the court has to consider the welfare rather than the mere desires of the child. That is true, but with the greatest respect to what their Lordships said, one of the factors that has to be considered, although in many cases it may not be a dominant or even an important factor, is what the child wants. That is something that has to be considered in deciding what is best for the child. Secondly, the Court of Appeal referred to the fact that a child which has been in the custody of one present may very naturally express wishes that strongly favour that parent. That may be so, but that, I should have thought, is something that any judge might be expected to discount and take into consideration, and of course if the contrary were the case, that is, if the child expressed a view that was not expected, that might be something that the court might regard as significant. I feel that perhaps I will not gain a great deal from seeing the child in this case, but nevertheless I think it is a proper exercise of my discretion to see her.

Several judges have utilized judicial interviews in more recent years (refer to Coda v Coda 1997 CarswellOnt 3953; PLM v LJ, 2008 CanLII 35923; McAlister v Jenkins, 2008 CarswellOnt 4266). However, Ontario judges frequently defer to utilizing the appointment of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer or the use of an expert report to bring a child’s views into the court process, perhaps due to the view that this creates a more balanced picture of what is in the child’s best interests.

read more

BEING RECORDED IN A PUBLIC PLACE - WHAT ARE MY PRIVACY RIGHTS?

Increasingly businesses (and employers) and public organizations deploy and use ever-improving surveillance technology, including workplace audio and video recording.  Ontario law has remained vigilant and watchful, attempting to balance legitimately-held privacy expectations for everyone against unreasonably invasive privacy intrusion, particularly to foster security, safety and legitimate business or public interests.  

In an important, recent case, a teacher was accused of using a concealed camera to surreptitiously videotape female high school students engaging in “ordinary school-related activities in common areas” of the school. However, the evidence revealed the teacher was recording sexually-based images, without audio recording. The school had posted signs notifying of the use of security cameras throughout the school. The school also had a policy prohibiting its teachers from making videos of students, or otherwise tampering with the school’s surveillance cameras. The teacher was charged with voyeurism under Canada’s Criminal Code, a sexually-related offence.

The Supreme Court declared that privacy, particularly in a public or semi-private place, is not an all-or-nothing proposition in Canada. There can be no absolute expectation of privacy for anyone, at least not in a public, or semi-private, place. The specific circumstances must be considered, which determine what reasonable expectation of privacy should be legally protected in a contextualized approach. 

A person can reasonably expect privacy in a public, or semi-public, place, particularly protection from sexually-driven surveillance, but the specific expectation that will be legally protected must be determined by many factors, such as:

  • the nature of the place and its location;
  • the scope and nature of the conduct by the other party, such as observation or recording;
  • whether the person subject to the conduct had consented to being so observed or recorded, at was even was aware of it;
  • the manner in which the observation or recording was undertaken;
  • the subject matter or content of the observation or recording;
  • any applicable rules, policies or regulations that may prohibit or restrict that conduct;
  • the nature of the relationship, if any, between the person being observed or recorded and the person engaging in the observation or recording;
  • the reason for the observation or recording; and
  • the characteristics of the person being observed or recorded, particularly if the person is a child, youth or a vulnerable person.

The teacher's conviction was upheld by Canada's highest Court. The Court concluded that the young, female students at the school had not consented to being recorded in such manner, or even been aware of him doing so. The teacher held a trust relationship with the students, which he violated, when he knew he was not allowed to make these video recordings of the students, particularly when it was sexually-driven. The female students’ privacy had been violated in the circumstances.

However, the female students, in the circumstances, could not reasonably have expected to be protected absolutely from such misconduct by their teacher. Rather, the Court engaged in a contextual, multi-factored analysis. Accordingly, no one can expect absolute protection, at least not by the criminal law, from being observed or recorded in public, even if it may be sexual in nature. Ultimately, the Supreme Court enshrined a case-by-case analysis, which may, or may not, offer the protection of, at least, Canada's criminal law.

Businesses, particularly employers, and other organizations need to have a clear policy prohibiting surreptitious observation and recording in their places of business, absent consent.  They can also be held vicariously liable for improper, unwanted surveillance being conducted in their place of business, including public areas. 

In addition to potential criminal charges for those who unlawfully observe or record others, including in public spaces, the offender could potentially be held liable civilly in Ontario, particularly for damages for breaching the tort of “intrusion upon seclusion”, or for violating other privacy law.

However, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case has clarified and shaped the law on a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy, particularly if that person is observed or recording in a public, or semi-private, place. 

Ontario Courts and privacy regulators will also continue to review surveillance technology to ensure it is legitimately, justifiably and properly deployed and utilized, minimizing unreasonably invasive infringement on privacy expectation. Surveillance cannot, of course, be prohibited - it benefits the public, if utilized appropriately and legally. However, whether surveillance exceeds the legal boundary by offending an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy will depend on the specific circumstances and various factors, which will themselves continue to develop as ever-evolving surveillance technology continues to proliferate.

As technology becomes more subtle, sophisticated, accessible and ubiquitous, everyone must remain mindful that their privacy is not absolute and may be subject to observation, or even recording, particularly in public places. Privacy is not an “all-or-nothing” right. Intrusion upon your seclusion should not be viewed as an inevitably necessary part of your rapidly-changing modern life; rather, the law imposes limits which, if offended, may expose the offender to both criminal and civil liability. Privacy is not a lost expectation in our contemporary world, as skeptics contend, but only an evolving one, judiciously straining to keep pace with constantly changing and increasingly innovative technology.   

The Case:

R. v. Jarvis, 2019 SCC 10 (CanLII)

read more

23ANDME? GENETIC DISCRIMINATION - NEW PROTECTION FOR ONTARIO'S EMPLOYEES

Protection to employees in Ontario from “genetic discrimination” by employers has officially arrived.   

An increasing number of businesses offer individual genetic testing, which may, among other things, disclose a medical diagnosis or condition, that a person may have, or carry, a genetic mutation or irregularity or that a person may be at higher-than-normal risk for contracting a disease or other potentially disabling condition.

Of course, the concern is that information of this nature, if accessible by an employer, may cause, or contribute to, potential discrimination against a job candidate, or existing employee.  For example, could a person be passed over for an employment opportunity based on the employer knowing any of this information? Could an existing employee not be considered for promotion or advancement when, but for the employer knowing information of this nature, that might not have been the case?

The Ontario government is now taking steps to legislatively prohibit Ontario employers from discriminating against employees based on their genetic traits and characteristics. At the federal level, both the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canada Labour Code have already been amended to prohibit, or minimize, this form of discrimination. Under the Canada Labour Code, for example, an employer cannot force an employee to take a genetic test, or disclose the result of any genetic-related testing. In Ontario, the prohibition is being developed to the Ontario Human Rights Code, which aims to be revised to add genetic characteristics as a further, prohibited ground of discrimination. With very limited exception, the proposed amendments will also expand every person’s right to equal treatment without discrimination in, for example, employment, including regarding that person’s genetic characteristics, being defined as the "genetic traits of an individual, including traits that may cause or increase the risk to develop a disorder or disease".

In the near future, it appears very likely that employees will be expressly and statutorily protected from discrimination by employers on the basis of “genetic characteristics”, including from being forced to undertake any form of genetic testing, or disclose the results of any such testing. 

Reference:

Bill 40, Human Rights Code Amendment Act (Genetic Characteristics), 2018

read more

WORKPLACE POLICIES - DON'T OPERATE WITHOUT THEM. WE'VE GOT YOU COVERED - AT A FIXED COST.

Employers:

Effective workplace policies are essential for both small and large businesses and organizations.  

WARDS LAWYERSPC offers employers a turn-key, comprehensive employment and HR management package, including a comprehensive suite of workplace policies (your “HR Package”), simplifying and minimizing your obligations while maximizing your time to focus on growing and developing your business or organization.

Really, it’s that simple. We give you everything you need, in a customized, organized package. You only need to follow the simple instructions. Compliance with Ontario’s employment law and a better workplace is only a meeting away. 

THE BENEFIT:

Among others, the benefits of having your comprehensive, properly-structured and customized HR Package include:

  • minimizing workplace-related disputes with your employees – your HR Package will bring certainty and govern;
  • fewer employment management tasks and more time to focus on the growth and development of your business or organization; 
  • more effective, efficient and optimized management of your employees;
  • enhancing employee morale and perceptions of your business or organization in your community;
  • compliance with the complicated, hard-to-follow myriad of law applicable to your employees and your workplace, including in the event of an inspection by a Ministry of Labour Enforcement Standards Officer;  
  • setting and establishing your employees’ expectations, including to minimize wasted managerial time dealing with matters that are addressed directly by your HR Package;  
  • better protecting your organization or business from manipulation by employees;
  • better protecting your organization or business from litigation claims and complaints to regulatory agencies, including because the Court now expects workplace policies to be established in the workplace and, if they are not, it often effects the outcome of a litigation dispute (often negatively for the employer);
  • ensuring that you avoid regulatory sanction for not having proper workplace policies in effect (i.e., spot audits by, or investigations by, the Ontario Ministry of Labour, for example); and 
  • giving you piece of mind that you are not only legally compliant with your employment obligations, but pro-actively organized and maximizing your effective management for the benefit of everyone in your workplace.

STEPS REQUIRED:

Simple:

  1. meet with us, so we can audit and evaluate your current practices and needs and obtain the information we may need to design, build and deliver your customized HR Package (which is included in your fixed cost for your HR Package);
  2. agree on a fixed cost for your HR Package, depending on your needs; and
  3. give us a brief period to deliver your HR Package to you, both digitally and in paper format.

WORKPLACE POLICIES IN YOUR HR PACKAGE:

Your HR Package will include a comprehensive suite of workplace policies, designed to optimize your workplace and employment management, including:

  1. a violence, harassment and sexual harassment prevention policy (required by law), including an annual compliance checklist, complaints procedure process and employee feedback system;
  2. a health and safety policy (required by law)
  3. a discrimination and diversity policy
  4. a personal information protection policy
  5. an accommodation on the basis of disability policy (required by law)
  6. an Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, (the “AODA”) – Customer Service and Standards policy (required by law)
  7. an AODA – Employment Standards policy (required by law)
  8. an AODA – Integrated Accessibility and Information and Communications Standards policy (required by law)
  9. a personal communications in the workplace policy
  10. a social medial policy
  11. a smoking and vaping policy
  12. a cannabis in the workplace policy (including for the use of medical cannabis)
  13. a computer, email and Internet use policy
  14. an absenteeism policy
  15. a conflict of interest policy
  16. a mental health first aid officer policy and workplace wellness program
  17. a conduct and behaviour policy
  18. a holiday policy
  19. an overtime policy
  20. a vacation and vacation pay policy
  21. an employment expense reimbursement policy
  22. a joint health and safety committee policy (for employers with twenty or more employees)
  23. a privacy breach protocol and policy (required by law)
  24. an administrative leaves and suspensions policy  
  25. an employer references policy
  26. a deemed legal compliance policy
  27. a police records check policy (per the new legislation, effective November 1, 2018)  

Your HR Package will assist you to establish effective policies to not only comply with, but exceed your obligations under, the AODA, and to improve your protection against claims by employees under human rights legislation, like the (Ontario) Human Rights Code (the “Code”), such as the right to a harassment-free workplace, gender and other discrimination-based complaints and workplace equality.

ADDITIONAL TOOLS IN YOUR HR PACKAGE:

Beyond your suite of workplace policies, your HR Package will include additional tools to help you successfully implement and enforce your policies, such as:

  • a corporate resolution by your organization or business to adopt and implement your HR Package, to ensure you lawfully and effectively do so
  • acknowledgements to be signed by your employees for their acceptance of your workplace policies and agreement to comply with them
  • workplace harassment complaint and investigation forms, so if a complaint is made, you have everything you need on hand ensuring a timely and proper response by you to any complaint
  • risk assessment forms and checklists for your workplace, to audit, assess and address your risk factors

CONFIDENTIALITY, PROPERTY AND TECHNOLOGY PROTECTION:

Your HR Package will also include a comprehensive confidentiality and proprietary property agreement for all your existing and new employees to sign, including to protect your business’s or organization’s information, property, technology and operating methods.

USING EMPLOYEES’ INFORMATION TO PROMOTE AND MARKET:

Your HR Package will also include a special form to be signed by your employees enabling you to use their image and likeness to successfully promote and market your business or organization, including protection for your third-party marketing partners and contractors.

MANDATORY WORKPLACE POSTINGS AND NOTICES:

Your HR package will also contain a table, entitled: “Important (Mandatory) Postings and Notices in Your Workplace”, which identifies important and legally required posters, postings and other notices you should promptly post in your workplace.

Often, if you experience a spot audit or investigation by a regulatory authority, such as an Employment Standards Officer from the Ministry of Labour or, if an incident or accident occurs, the regulatory authority will initially investigate if you have your mandatory postings. It is, therefore, very important you have at least the mandatory postings in your workplace.

These required postings primarily relate to Ontario’s law regarding occupational health and safety, employment standards, workplace safety and insurance, accessibility for those with disabilities, smoke-and-vape-free workplaces and pay equity, if necessary. Specifically, these postings are required by, and will ensure you comply with, Ontario’s posting requirements under the:

-       Employment Standards Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 41;

-       Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.1; 

-       Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 16, Sched A; 

-       Smoke-Free Ontario Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 26, Sched. 3;

-       Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (Canada);

  • Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O 1995, c.1, Shed. A, as amended; and

-       other legislation and regulations that may apply to your workplace.  

In addition, we provide you a link at which you can access these posters, postings and other notices directly online, free of charge to you.

Finally, we identify how you should assess your compliance with both the:

-       Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, S.O. 2005, c. 11; and

-       the Pay Equity Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 7,  

including providing you links to the online references you will need to do so. 

HIRING AND RECRUITING GUIDANCE:

Your HR package will also contain “The Hiring Process – Do’s and Don’ts”, which will offer you assistance, direction and guidance with respect to your hiring and recruiting practices in future, particularly when you conduct interviews with potential new employees.

PRE-TERMINATION CHECKLIST:

Your HR package will also contain a “Pre-Termination Checklist”, which will offer you assistance, direction and guidance with respect to your decision-making about terminating any employee in future, including identifying for you the issues you may need to address and your potential obligations arising from the termination.

CHECKLIST – THE TERMINATION MEETING:

We will also provide to you a “Checklist – The Termination Meeting”, which will assist you for planning and preparing for a meeting to terminate an employee and help you identify issues you may need to address and your potential obligations arising from the termination.

STEP-BY-STEP PLAN:

We will provide to you a detailed, step-by-step plan and procedure for your implementation of your HR Package, particularly your new suite of comprehensive workplace policies, including specific language for your written communications with your employees for this process, ensuring that they must comply with your new policies.

AODA AND HUMAN RIGHTS CODE TRAINING AND EDUCATION:

We will also provide you, as part of your HR Package, information, guidance and tips to arrange for training and educating your employees under both the AODA and the Code, particularly regarding accommodation and discrimination.

There are excellent, efficient and free-of-charge services available to you to do so, including computer modules to minimize disruption to work time. This should be undertaken to improve your workplace, perception of your business or organization and to minimize potential exposure if any claims were made in future.

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY TRAINING:

In addition to the AODA and Code education and training, your HR Package will also include information and tips to assist you to train and educate your employees about workplace health and safety. There are excellent module-based, desktop training and education programs available, which are very accessible, free-of-charge.

NO SMOKING AND VAPING SIGNS:

As required by Ontario law and to accompany your new smoking, vaping and cannabis policies, your HR Package will guide and assist you to access and obtain the mandatory signs you must post in the workplace, free of charge.  

DELIVERY OF YOUR HR PACKAGE:

We will deliver to you both:

  • a compact, highly organized digital version of your HR Package, including your suite of workplace policies, which you would retain digitally and be able to share with your employees; and
  • a hard copy of your HR Package, some of which, including your suite of workplace policies, you would make available in your workplace, including for employees to view and reference in future.

FIXED COST:

Your HR Package is available for a pre-arranged, fixed cost. No hourly rate, no surprises. We would discuss the fixed cost with you after we initially audit and evaluate your workplace’s existing compliance and employment-related needs. The expense for your HR Package is very reasonable, when you consider the potential alternative – very high legal expenses and exposure to liability arising from employee-related claims arising due to a failure to comply with the law.

TIMING:

Following our initial meeting with you, usually we need between three-to-five weeks to prepare and deliver your HR Package to you.

ONGOING SUPPORT:

WARDS LAWYERSPC focusses on employment law – we are a leader in this area of law in Central Ontario.

We are available to assist you not only with using your HR Package in future, but any employment-based needs or services you may need. We will discuss and work with you to design and deliver to you an ongoing employment support service, based on our hourly rates and the appropriate lawyers available to assist you, depending on your needs.  

NEXT STEP:

Smart, progressive employers in Ontario are establishing and implementing proper workplace policies. You should, too.

Let’s get started. 

read more

TERMINATING OLDER, LONG-SERVICE EMPLOYEES - EMPLOYERS ARE NOW BEING PUNISHED BY THE COURTS FOR "FORCED RETIREMENT" TERMINATIONS

There is an emerging trend in Ontario employment law – Courts are giving increasingly more reasonable notice, or pay in lieu, to advanced age, longer-service employees.

If an employment contract does not contain an enforceable termination provision limiting the terminated employee’s notice to the statutory minimums set out by the Employment Standards Act, 2000, the employee dismissed without cause will be entitled to “reasonable notice” of termination at common law. Historically, the limit for reasonable notice given by Ontario Courts has been twenty-four months – that is now changing, particularly for older, longer-service employees.

In a recent case, a 62-year-old senior VP, who had worked for the employer for 37 years, was granted 30 months’ reasonable notice, but the Court noted it would have awarded even more, if that had been requested by the employee. The Court noted “a change in society’s attitude regarding retirement” and that “presumptive standards no longer apply”, including because many people now work beyond the age of 65.

In another recent case, the Court granted 24 months’ notice to a 60-year-old office manager, who had been employed for 12 years before being summarily terminated. In doing so, the Court noted the employee’s age (close to retirement), loyalty and dedication during his employ, and his lack of formal education and training to utilize to find alternative, comparable employment.

As a result, “forced retirement” terminations by employers are both on the rise and increasingly challenged by the Court, so much so that very significant damage awards are trending upwards.

The Cases:

Dawe v. Equitable Life Insurance Company, 2018 ONSC 3130 (CanLII)

Saikaly v. Akman Construction Ltd., 2019 ONSC 799 (CanLII)

 

read more

TERMINATING AN EMPLOYEE? BE CAREFUL. HERE'S A PRE-TERMINATION CHECKLIST

Terminating an employment relationship should not be decided without planning and consideration of potential obligations (and liability).

Liability for reasonable notice, or pay in lieu of notice, must be considered. 

Before you decide to terminate an employee, below is a checklist that will be helpful to review before a decision to terminate is made.

This checklist will also help identify what potential obligations may be owing by you to the terminated employee.   

1.  Review the employee's letter of employment or employment agreement. Is there an enforceable clause for minimum notice under the Employment Standards Act, 2000? Is there a valid “for cause” termination clause?

2.   Review the circumstances of the employee's hire. Was the employee recruited?

3.   Review significant changes in relation to the employee's position, role, salary, location, or other material terms of employment to determine if the substratum of the employment relationship has been amended or varied materially and, therefore, whether the employment agreement potentially no longer reflects current terms.

4.   Determine the termination date and calculate, if possible, what is owing to the employee for all accrued remuneration to that date, including salary, vacation pay, commission, incentives and bonus, if any.

5.   Is the termination for “just cause” due to misconduct? If so, is there adequate documentary records of past issues and warnings? Have the relevant individuals been interviewed, and is there a record of those interviews? Has the individual been given an opportunity to respond and answer to any issues and allegations? Is the higher standard of “wilful misconduct” under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 triggered?

6.   Compile all relevant codes of conduct or policies applicable to the termination and ensure that you have complied with your own policies. In addition, where applicable, ensure that you have evidence that the employee was aware of the policies.

7.   If the termination is for performance reasons, is there enough documentation to establish: (a) lack of performance; (b) progressive warnings related to failure or refusal to maintain performance at reasonable and objective standards; and (c) the consequences of failing to do so?

8.   Are there related medical or disability issues that need to be considered and accommodated?

9.   Are there other human rights or statutorily-protected employment rights that need to be addressed (for example, return to work following maternity, parental, WSIB or emergency leaves)?

10. If the termination is not for just cause, what is the period of notice of termination required by agreement, by statute or implied by common law?

11. Will the notice period be worked by the employee in whole or part? If payment is to be made in lieu of notice of termination, will remuneration be continued or paid out? Calculate the statutory termination and severance pay, if applicable. Calculate the offered common law notice pay in lieu (or salary continuance), if any. Verify if the employee has any accrued, but unpaid, vacation pay up to the proposed date of termination, including pro-rated. 

12. Consider any statutory and contractual obligation(s) to continue benefits during notice periods and any conditions or exceptions to such obligations.

13. Will the termination offer be made subject to mitigation or not subject to mitigation by the departing employee?

14. Review the target employee’s specific compensation terms and entitlements in the twelve weeks prior to the proposed termination date, at least. Are there any specific requirements related to pensions, RRSPs, LTIPs, stock options, etc.?

15. Are there any outstanding loans or advances to the employee?

16. Are there company supplies, documents, confidential information, computers, keys, FOBs, credit cards, automobiles, equipment or other property to be returned by employee?

17. Are there employee obligations post-termination, including solicitation of customers or non-competition?

18. Are there client or competitor lists that need to be identified with reference to non-competition provisions?

19. Determine appropriate timing for the meeting to provide notice of termination. Consider who should attend at that meeting. Is any security necessary?

20. Consider issues relating to employment references and/or providing a confirmation of employment letter. Who will be responsible for post-termination employment references?

21. Did the employee sign a confidentiality agreement and, if so, should that be confirmed, including any specific duty or reference to any specific confidential information?

Careful review and planning must be undertaken before any employee is terminated. Alternatively, a costly mistake may be made. 

_________________________________

This is summary only, intended to be for your general information only.

We strongly recommend that you contact us, or other qualified, employment law counsel, for specific advice that may apply to, or be helpful for, any:

  • termination of any employee, with or without cause;
  • suspension of any employee, with or without pay; 
  • workplace harassment/sexual harassment complaint; and 
  • workplace investigation of any kind,

before you initiate or take any steps, including to avoid a potentially costly misstep. 

read more

DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THE "THREE-HOUR RULE" AT WORK? YOU SHOULD.

Ontario’s Employment Standards Act, 2000, SO 2000, c. 41, governs most employees’ basic, statutory rights and entitlements for employment.

Part VII.1 (section 21.2) contains the so-called “three-hour rule”.

Pursuant to the three-hour rule, subject to a few exceptions, if you regularly work more than three hours in your work day, but on any given day you are required to attend work, but not given the opportunity to work at least three hours, despite that you are available to do so, you are entitled to be paid your wages for three hours of work, even though you were not permitted to work that minimum time.

Usually you will be entitled to your regular wages for this top-up under the rule. 

However, the rule may not be triggered if your employer cannot offer you work on that day for this minimum period due to circumstances beyond your employer’s reasonable control, such as lightning, power failure, fire, storms and other types of circumstances legitimately preventing your employer from employing you that day for this minimum period of time. 

Similarly, you may not be protected by the three-hour rule if you ordinarily work a regular shift of three hours or less, or if you are employed as a student in certain positions, like a children’s camp, a program focused on children or in a charity-based position. 

So, if you show up for work, but are told you can only work one or two hours, when you ordinarily work more in your usual work day, you might consider invoking the three-hour rule for a top-up.  

read more

BACKGROUND CHECKS ON EMPLOYEES - IT AIN'T SO EASY ANYMORE - THE NEW DEAL

Background checks of potential employees and volunteers has always been an important recruiting and screening tool for potential employers.

Ontario has overhauled its legislation, effective November 1, 2018. Now, the Ontario government has applied uniform, standardized checks available and the information that can be obtained. No more discretionary decisions by the local police service. Everybody now follows the same rules.

Firstly, now an employer can only request a potential employee to provide a “police record check” if the employee consents. If that consent is given, the information may only be disclosed initially by the police service to the potential employee whose background is searched. Only if the employee consents, after receiving and reviewing the results, may the police service give the information to a third party, such as a potential employer.

Accordingly, hiring employers can no longer obtain the background search results directly from the police service, even if the potential employee consents.

If, for example, an employer offer contains a condition for a background check, the employee candidate must: (a) consent; and (b) obtain and review the check results directly and, after doing so, deliver those directly to the employer. 

Secondly, there are now three, specific kinds of checks available:

[1]        Criminal Record Check:

The basic one, giving the least amount of information; namely: 

  • criminal convictions that have not been pardoned; and

  • findings of guilt under the federal Youth Criminal Justice Act, but these records may only disclosed entirely separately and cannot be disclosed to a potential employer, unless expressly permitted by the Youth Criminal Justice Act (which is very restrictive and does not help most employers in Ontario).

 

[2]        Criminal Record and Judicial Matters Check:

This check gives the information available from a criminal record check, but also access to:

  • criminal convictions, where an absolute discharge was granted, if the request is made less than one year after the absolute discharge;

  • criminal convictions, where a conditional discharge was granted on conditions in a probation order (if the request is made less than three years after the conditional discharge);

  • every outstanding charge or arrest warrant for a criminal offence; and

  • every court order made against the individual, with certain exceptions.

This check is the most common for employers to request when hiring a new employee. 

[3]        Vulnerable Sector Check:

The most robust yield of information, but the most restricted check. It can only be requested, effectively, for people with access to vulnerable persons, being anyone whose age, disability or other circumstances makes them dependent on others, or at a greater risk of being harmed by a person in a position of trust or authority.

The additional information from this check includes:

  • every criminal conviction, where a finding of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder was made (if the request is made less than five years after the date of the finding or absolute discharge); and

  • any non-conviction information authorised for exceptional disclosure in accordance with the act – a very high test.

For exception disclosure, it only applies to offences:

  • are defined by the specified offences regulation;

  • for which the alleged victim was a child or vulnerable person; and

  • when the police record check provider has reasonable grounds to believe that the person subject to the check has been engaged in a pattern of predation indicating that the person presents a risk of harm to a child or a vulnerable person, based on:

  • whether the person appears to have targeted a child or a vulnerable person;

  • whether the person’s behaviour was repeated and was directed to more than one child or vulnerable person;

  • when the incident or behaviour occurred;

  • the number of incidents; and

  • the reason the incident or behaviour did not lead to a conviction.

Legislation:

Police Record Checks Reform Act, 2015, SO 2015, c. 30 (effective Nov. 1, 2018).

Need an effective workplace policy for background checks and procedures?

Call me. Let’s get started.

 

read more

DON'T USE AN ONLINE APP TO CALCULATE YOUR SEVERANCE PAY - YOU MAY BE LEAVING MONEY ON THE TABLE

In Ontario, a wrongfully dismissed employee with no employment contract specifying severance entitlement is entitled to damages at common law. These damages are commonly calculated based on a reasonable notice period and pay in lieu of not being provided that reasonable notice of termination. Dismissed employees also have a duty to make reasonable efforts to seek and obtain similar employment to offset these damages (i.e., a duty to mitigate).

The seminal case in Ontario, Bardal v. The Globe & Mail Ltd., establishes the basic test to determine an appropriate notice period for an employee who has been terminated without cause.  The Bardal test effectively requires the Court to undertake a very contextual analysis of the case, with special attention to certain factors, including the character of employment, length of service, age and availability of similar positions. These factors are generally examined on a case-by-case basis and they are weighted in each, specific case by the Court to calculate a reasonable notice period. Employers may also be forced to pay more damages if the manner of dismissal was unfair or in bad faith.

Many employers, employees and even some lawyers are confused by, or do not fully understand, the factors that are to be applied to determine a reasonable notice period and, therefore, how to calculate a dismissed employee’s potential severance pay. 

Some lawyers may refer to the ‘one month per year of service’ approach – this is incorrect and not the law in Ontario. In fact, there is no cookie-cutter, mathematical formula to calculate severance pay; rather, these several factors must be examined contextually in each case and weighted based on their importance in the specific case.

DURATION OF EMPLOYMENT:

Length of service is only one factor to consider. While generally, the longer the length of service, the longer the reasonable notice period will be, this is not true in every case. Employees terminated after a relatively short period of employment may be entitled to a comparably longer notice period and, therefore, disproportionately more severance pay, depending on the other factors in the case. 

Duration of employment, on its own, should not determine severance pay entitlement – it is a factor only, albeit a potentially important one in the case.

AGE:

Generally speaking, older employees are entitled to more reasonable notice and, as a result, more severance pay. This is so to reflect the increased challenges older employees are likely to face in re-entering the workforce verses their younger counterparts.

However, again, age is not determinative of reasonable notice and younger employees should not assume they have no entitlement to severance pay – that is very likely not the case.

NATURE AND TYPE OF POSITION HELD:

Historically senior, managerial, supervisory or employees with specialized skills, training or responsibilities are likely entitled to more reasonable notice. However, a trend is emerging in Ontario to focus less on the position held on termination in favour of paying more attention to the availability of comparable opportunity to the employee and any challenges the employee may face in securing that alternative employment.

In any event, it is still the case in Ontario that an employee with more responsibility is generally entitled to more severance pay – it remains an important factor to consider. 

OTHER FACTORS:

In addition to the Bardal factors for calculating severance pay, other factors may also arise to amplify reasonable notice entitlement depending on the specific case, such as:

  • if the employee was effectively lured away from an existing position, recruited or induced to accept employment with the terminating employer;

  • if the employee is faced with non-competition, non-solicitation or other limitations or restrictions on his or her ability to find suitable, alternative employment (which typically arise in an employment contract);

  • if the employee suffers from a physical, emotional or mental health-related disability or condition, or has special family status obligations, for example, creating special challenges for the employee to mitigate his or her termination and resulting severance pay; and/or

  • if the employer alleges cause for the termination, refuses to provide a reference, or otherwise alleges justification for terminating the employee, making it more difficult for the employee to find alternative employment.

THERE’S NO APP FOR THAT:

Severance pay tools, apps and calculators are increasingly appearing online, sometimes by providers located outside of Ontario.  

However, there is no specific formula available to calculate severance pay entitlement – every case will be different, based on the specific circumstances of that case. Generally, lawyers and the Court will consider awards in other, possibly similar cases, but no two cases are ever the very same.

Terminated employees should, therefore, be wary of relying on online tools to calculate entitlement to reasonable notice damages and severance pay. Truly, the best and most reliable way to determine your potential entitlements if you are wrongfully terminated is to speak to a qualified, experienced employment law lawyer.

read more

COLLABORATIVE FAMILY LAW - THE BETTER WAY

Collaborative family law is a way for you to resolve your relationship breakdown issues more respectfully -- without going to Family Court. It is a better alternative to an acrimonious, traditional battle in Court, with high stakes and high legal expenses. It is, basically, a much better way, which many lawyers and other family law professionals now support and encourage.

This alternative offers you and your former spouse or partner the support, protection, and guidance of your own lawyers, but also the benefit of child and financial specialists, family professionals, and other experts, if they would be helpful in your circumstances, working together on your team.

For the collaborative alternative, you commit to:

  1. Negotiate a mutually acceptable settlement without having the Family Court decide issues for you.

  2. Maintain open communication and information sharing.

  3. Create shared solutions acknowledging your priorities and objectives, including to live independently in future.

  4. Manage your legal expenses in an informed, constructive way.

  5. Achieve an outcome that is decided upon by you, with the support of your own lawyer, not by a third party, like a Judge.

You can find more information about collaborative family law here:

Ontario Collaborative Law Federation

read more

OVERTIME PAY - SHOULD I MAKE A CLAIM? WHAT WILL I GET? EMPLOYERS - PROTECT YOURSELVES!

Overtime pay in Ontario is governed by Part VIII of the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (the “ESA”).

In a nutshell………

Many employees in Ontario are entitled to overtime pay. For most employees, whether they work full-time, part-time, are students, temporary help agency assignment employees, or casual workers, overtime begins after they have worked 44 hours in a work week. Their hours after 44 must be paid at the overtime pay rate. Overtime pay is 1½ times the employee's regular rate of pay (often called "time and a half”). Unless An employment agreement or collective bargaining agreement provides otherwise, an employee does not earn overtime pay on a daily basis by working more than a set number of hours per day. Overtime is calculated only: on a weekly basis; or over a longer period under an “averaging agreement”.

However, there are some exceptions. Some employees have jobs that are exempt from overtime pay under the ESA. Others may work in jobs where the overtime threshold is more than 44 hours in a work week. For example: EMS, healthcare and health professionals; manufacturing, construction and mining; hospitality services and sales; transportation; agriculture, growing, breeding, keeping and fishing; household, landscaping and residential building services; government employees and professionals. More information about exemption from overtime pay can be found at: www.ontario.ca/document/your-guide-employment-standards-act/overtime-pay.

In addition, managers and supervisors do not qualify for overtime if the work they do is managerial or supervisory. Even if they perform other types of tasks that are not managerial or supervisory, they are not entitled to get overtime pay if these tasks are performed only on an irregular, or exceptional, basis.

Furthermore, employers may be permitted to have written overtime averaging agreements with their employees. If so, they agree to average the employees’ hours of work over a period of two or more weeks to calculate overtime pay – effectively, employees would only qualify for overtime pay if their average hours worked per week during the averaging period exceed 44 hours. For non-union shops, averaging agreements must terminate two years after made. Any averaging agreement must be approved by the Ministry of Labour and, if so, the agreement cannot be revoked before the termination date, unless otherwise agreed. This Ministry approval requirement may change in the near future, however.

In Ontario, there have been several class action lawsuits dealing with alleged non-payment of overtime pay by (large scale) employers, leading to very significant out-of-Court settlements or damage awards against employers. For example:

Fulawka v Bank of Nova Scotia, 2016 ONSC 1576 (CanLII)

Rosen v BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc., 2016 ONSC 4752 (CanLII)

Eklund v. Goodlife Fitness Centres Inc., 2018 ONSC 4146 (CanLII)

Aps v. Flight Centre Travel Group (Canada) Inc., Court File No.: CV-19-00614755-00CP (recently initiated; unresolved)

EMPLOYERS – PROTECT YOURSELVES:

Therefore, employers who do not take adequate precautions may be exposed to claims by non-exempt employees for unpaid overtime pay. To minimize this risk, employers should:

  • ensure they have an adequate system to track, monitor and compensate employees for actual hours worked;

  • classify properly all employees (i.e., exempt, non-exempt, managerial, supervisory), including to avoid potential retroactive exposure;  

  • effectively monitor, track and record the hours worked by non-exempt employees, particularly overtime hours;

  • develop tracking systems, or use a third party service provider experienced in this area;

  • require that overtime be approved before it is worked;

  • ensure they have a clear procedure for approving overtime before it is worked and that this is properly recorded at the time

  • implement a clearly-written workplace policy for overtime pay, specifying clearly, for example, that: overtime must be pre-approved; when and for what purpose overtime may be worked; and who is authorized to approve overtime; and

  • negotiate with employees to enter averaging agreements, rather than attempt to unilaterally impose those on the employees, particularly at the time of hiring.

It unclear how far back a non-exempt employee could claim for unpaid overtime pay. The prevailing wisdom appears to be the standard two-year limitation period in Ontario, but that has yet to be tested fully by the Courts for every case.

Need an effective workplace overtime policy?

Call me. Let’s get started.  

read more

SOCIAL MEDIA ATTACKS - PROCEED WITH CAUTION - THE COURT IS WATCHING

Increasingly maligned victims on social media resort to the Court for redress. The Court is becoming more intolerant of defamatory conduct online, to the extent that significant damages may be ordered against the traducing party. No longer does the Internet shield against vilifying another online.    

There have been several notable cases.

For example, fairly recently a B.C. Judge awarded over $65,000 in damages against a woman for publishing untrue and unsubstantiated statements and accusations on Facebook about her neighbor, suggesting him to be a pedophile, including that he placed mirrors and cameras in his backyard to spy on her children.

It appears the case initially erupted as a neighbor dispute regarding a fish pond and backyard waterfall. The municipality was eventually involved, too, but could not effectively assist the neighbor. 

The Court held that her “viral” social media posts were “venting” and “completely false and unjustified” and negatively impacted her neighbor and his career as a teacher. The woman removed her Facebook comments, after the neighbor demanded she do so, within about twenty-four hours, but the damage had already been done. For example, someone in the community had contacted the Principal of the neighbour’s school expressing concerns about him, after reading the Facebook statements. 

Amongst other criticism of her, the Court said: “The seriousness of Ms. Van Nes’s defamatory Facebook post, her replies, and the comments of her ‘friends’ cannot be overstated,” and “An accusation of pedophilic behaviour must be the single most effective means of destroying a teacher’s reputation and career, not to mention the devastating effect on their life and individual dignity.”

He now faces the challenge of repairing the damage Ms. Van Nes has caused, if that is even possible at this point”, the Court concluded.

The vilifying party was ordered to pay to her neighbor $50,000 in general damages, $15,000 in punitive damages and $2,500 for nuisance. She was also ordered to pay a hefty part of his legal expenses. Lastly, and for good measure, presumably, she was ordered to turn off the waterfall in her backyard pond every night between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.

More recently, Ontario’s Court of Appeal awarded $700,000 in an online defamation case involving a targeted and malicious online campaign involving business partners. The Court, noting the immediacy, permanency and “pernicious effects” of Internet defamation, held the business partner’s online posts were “unrelenting, insidious and reprehensible” over a “lengthy period”. Despite that the targeted business partner testified that he was unaware of any specific injury to his reputation in the community, significant damages were ordered. The Court’s decision highlights that a dollar amount cannot readily be ascribed to a person’s reputation.

Furthermore, the damages were awarded against another person, who was held to have participated in the business partner’s general plan and facilitated this behavior, even though he was not directly involved. Accordingly, a person need not directly participate in the online defamation, but be exposed to joint and several liability for that tortious conduct.

Misguided users of social media should certainly not assume they are protected from liability if they defame another, just as if they had done so by any other means. 

The cases:

Pritchard v. Van Nes, 2016 BCSC 686 (CanLII)

Rutman v. Rabinowitz, 2018 ONCA 80 (CanLII)

read more

I RESIGNED - CAN I TAKE IT BACK? TIPS TO EMPLOYERS FOR RESIGNATIONS

An employee who resigns, verbally or in writing, may ask to ‘take back’ his or her resignation. This creates an issue for the employer, of course, particularly if the resignation is a welcomed outcome to the relationship. Ontario law says that an employer may be obliged to allow an employee to withdraw or retract a resignation depending on the circumstances.

Below are the key considerations for when an employee resigns and whether that employee will be held to be bound by his or her own act: 

Is the Resignation Valid (At Law)?

Firstly, the Court will consider if the resignation is properly given and valid.

Generally, when considering whether a resignation is validly made by an employee, the Court will consider whether, in all of the circumstances and the context in which it is given, would a reasonable person have objectively concluded at the time that the employee both intended and meant to resign? In other words, the legal test is, effectively, whether the employee really meant to resign in all of the circumstances.

To be valid, a resignation must be clear, unambiguous and not shrouded in complaints, concerns or conditions by the employee. Preferably resignations will be in writing, but they can also be established by conduct of the employee clearly demonstrating intent to quit or resign at the time. For example, the employee may verbally quit, then immediately leave the workplace taking his or her personal belongings, or otherwise demonstrating intent to leave and not return. 

So, is it a clear and unambiguous resignation? If given verbally, this may be problematic, of course. If it is in writing, does it clearly verify the employee is resigning, without also suggesting he or she is doing so because of mistreatment, pressure, stress or related in any way to alleged discrimination or breach of a protected ground under the Ontario Human Rights Code, for example?

If the resignation could potentially be considered by a third party, objectively, as merely expressing dissatisfaction, or as merely a threat to resign or an offer to resign if asked to do so, it may not qualify or be enough to be held as a valid resignation. If it is truly an offer to resign only, it could be revoked by the employee at law, even if it is accepted by the employer. Therefore, the resignation must be straightforward, clear, not subject to any conditions and not ostensibly embroiled with or attached to complaints or concerns by the employee at the time. 

What’s more, if there is evidence of a ‘heat-of-the-moment’, reactionary decision, or of duress or other emotionally charged decision-making at the time, the Court may not hold the employee to the resignation.

Timing can also be a key factor. If the employee resigns, particularly in emotional or ‘heat-of-the-moment’ circumstances, but reasonably soon afterwards attempts to withdraw that decision, the Court is more likely to find the resignation invalid. Generally, the longer the time period between the resignation and the withdrawal, the more likely it will be that the Court upholds the initial resignation.

Should the Employer Respond to the Resignation?

Employers’ responses to resignations can be important. 

If the employer believes the resignation is valid, or potentially valid, employers should provide the resigning employee with a written acceptance of the resignation. If an employer takes other steps, such as suggesting a meeting be arranged, or contacting the employee afterwards about the resignation or work-related discussions, they may be found by the Court to have engaged in conduct inconsistent with an acceptance of the resignation (i.e., potentially to encourage the employee to return to work, for example), which may invalidate an otherwise valid resignation on its face, particularly if the employee attempts to withdraw or retract the initial resignation.

Employers should also consider, before accepting the resignation in writing, if there are any circumstances or factors known to the employer that potentially could have influenced or caused the employee to resign, particularly related to the employee’s mental health, family circumstances, other sources of pressure in his or her life, or other circumstances that may have created unusual or undue stress or turmoil in the employee’s life. If so, the employer may have a duty to enquire about these with the employee before accepting the resignation, or before the resignation could be considered valid and final by the employer. If any of these factors may exist, the employer may need to consider offering assistance to the employee, such as a temporary absence from work, EAP benefits, if available, or other support services available in the workplace. 

Cooling-Off’ Period:

In 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada established the duty of good faith in contractual dealings and created a new general duty of honesty in contractual performance. That decision has found its way into employment law, too. As a result, the Court in Ontario will likely require employers to provide an employee with a “cooling-off period” to reconsider the employee’s resignation decision. Therefore, it is likely advisable for employers to offer this ‘cooling-off’ period and, if they do not, they may find themselves facing an additional claim for failure to abide by this new duty of honesty and good faith in performing employment arrangements.

However, cooling-off periods can be advantageous to employers, too. 

For example, if an employee gives an ultimatum that the employee will resign if his or her conditions are not accepted by the employer, the employer should consider establishing a ‘cooling-off’ period, in writing, in response. If, after that period, the employee does not withdraw the ultimatum, it is more likely that the employer, if a written acceptance of the resignation is given to the employee at that expiry of the cooling-off period, will be able to establish that the employee validly resigned. If the ultimatum was clear and unambiguous and a sufficiently reasonable cooling-off period was given the employee, the employer is more likely to be successful in defending off a wrongful termination claim by the employee by establishing that a valid resignation was given and accepted. 

Requirement to Accept a Withdrawal:

Generally, if the employee merely offers to resign, or if a resignation is not valid, employers should allow the employee to withdraw the offer (or invalid resignation), if the employee requests to do so reasonably soon afterwards, even if it was accepted by the employer when initially given.

If, however, the employer could demonstrate that they relied on the invalid resignation to their detriment, they may be able to successfully establish that they had no obligation to allow the employee to retract or rescind. For example, if the employer already hired a replacement, incurring time and expense to do so, the employer may be able to establish detrimental reliance sufficient to refuse the employee to rescind the resignation.

Five Best Practice Tips for Employers:

Employers should consider:

1. giving a ‘cooling-off’ period to an employee who resigns, or purports to resign, especially if there may be special circumstances, such as potential mental health-related issues, family issues or other potential sources of undue stress or pressure affecting the employee at the time;

2. requesting that resignations be given only in writing, if possible; 

3. respond to resignations (in writing, ideally) with written acceptances, but only after considering if any special factors exist or may be known by the employer that potentially may have unduly influenced the employee’s decision to resign (including potential mental health-related issues);

4. avoiding any steps after receiving the resignation that may be viewed as non-acceptance of the resignation, like calling a meeting or telephoning the employee afterwards (or engaging in any verbal discussions with the employee); and 

5. allowing an employee, if requested, to withdraw or retract a resignation, subject to further considering: a) the time that passed between the resignation and request to retract; b) any special circumstances regarding the employee; c) whether ‘detrimental reliance’ steps were already undertaken by the employer; and d) whether the resignation was accepted in writing previously.

read more

POT AT WORK - MAY BE LEGAL, BUT STILL NOT ALLOWED - EMPLOYERS' RIGHTS

Employers may be confused and uncertain how legalized cannabis use impacts their workplace, including how they can monitor and regulate it. It is important to understand the difference between using weed recreationally and for medical reasons – they are treated differently, at law.

The Ontario Human Rights Code (the “Code”) applies to both recreational and medical cannabis. However, unless an employee has an actual, or perceived, addiction to cannabis, or must use medical cannabis due to a recognized disability, the recreational use of cannabis is unprotected by Ontario’s human rights law.

Essentially, using pot recreationally, absent an addiction or to treat a recognized disability, is not protected by the Code. As a result, if these circumstances do not exist, employers are lawfully entitled to:

· impose rules for using recreational cannabis in the workplace, preferably by a written workplace policy;

· prohibit every employee from possessing any recreational weed in the workplace (or at work otherwise), despite that possessing small amounts is now legalized;

· stop employees from coming or reporting to work while influenced by recreational pot, even though use is now legal; and

· if these rules are not followed, discipline those employees who do not follow them, including up to termination for cause, if appropriate.

Cannabis use for medical reasons is different. The same rules apply as they do for other medically-necessary drugs or substances. Employees may be protected to use medical cannabis in the workplace. However, employers are entitled to require the employee to provide justification for his or her disability-related need to use medical pot. Employers can also require information from the employee about restrictions arising from the disability itself, or the medical cannabis used to treat the disability. If an employee’s use of medical cannabis creates a potentially serious safety risk in the workplace, and unlike other disability-related conditions, employers may not be obliged to accommodate the employee using medical cannabis, particularly if would cause undue hardship to the employer.

So, the Code may be triggered and apply, but only if an employee is addicted to pot, or it is used by the employee to treat a legitimate, medical condition that is recognized as a disability by the Code. In that case, employers cannot subject that employee to the same rules. Rather, the employee’s right to be in a workplace free from discrimination related to a disability must prevail, as required by the Code, including a potential duty to accommodate the employee.

If the employee’s use of medical cannabis creates no undue hardship to the employer, it may need to accommodate the employee’s use of it in the workplace, or at work. If so, and so long as no serious safety risk is created, the employer may need to permit the employee to use the medical cannabis at work, or while working, but only during break time and subject to Ontario’s smoking and vaping laws. The key is whether the use of medical cannabis will interfere with the employee’s duty to perform his or her duties in a safe manner, ensuring not to create a serious safety risk in the workplace. If so, accommodation is likely required, subject to how and when the cannabis is consumed by the specific employee and subject to anti-smoking and vaping laws in effect across Ontario.

Need an effective workplace policy for smoking, vaping and cannabis use?

Send me an e-mail.   

read more

WORKPLACE HARASSMENT - WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act imposes important obligations on employers regarding workplace (sexual) harassment. They are designed to enforce proactive measures for all workplaces in Ontario – compliance is now being audited by Ontario’s Ministry of Labour. Non-compliance can mean significant fines, penalties and potential civil liability.

Employers in Ontario must:

  • make and prominently (conspicuously) post in the common area(s) of the workplace a new (or revised) workplace harassment policy, compliant with these new changes – it is mandatory; obtain the assistance of a qualified employment lawyer or, if that is not possible, at least refer to the Ontario Ministry of Labour’s “Code of Practice” for guidance and assistance, if necessary;
  • incorporate the definition of workplace sexual harassment in the mandatory workplace policy: “Workplace sexual harassment” is defined as:

(a) engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct against a worker in a workplace because of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression, where the course of comment or conduct is known, or ought reasonably to be known, to be unwelcome; and/or

(b) making a sexual solicitation or advance where the person making the solicitation or advance is in a position to confer, grant or deny a benefit or advancement to the worker and the person knows, or ought reasonably to know, that the solicitation or advance is unwelcome.

  • establish and implement a joint health and safety committee in your workplace (particularly for workplaces having twenty or more workers) and liaise with the committee’s health and safety representative(s) to develop (or update) a written program or plan to implement the mandatory workplace harassment policy (a “Program”);
  • take care to ensure the Program complies with the law, including:

-     measures and procedures for reporting incidents of workplace harassment: (a) to the employer or supervisor; and (b) to a person other than the employer or supervisor, if the employer or supervisor is the alleged harasser (such as an alternative procedure for employees to report directly to a human resource representative);

-     alternative reporting options to a person who is not subject to the direct control of the alleged harasser if the incident or complaint involves the employer (such as an owner, senior representative, upper manager, director, etc.), which may include third party, so-called “whistleblowing” services, if necessary, and ensure contact information is provided in the Program;

-     explain fully how incidents or complaints of workplace harassment will be investigated and addressed;

-     explain how information acquired regarding an incident or complaint of workplace harassment will be kept confidential, unless disclosure is necessary for the purposes of the investigation or required by law;

-     explain how a complainant and respondent, if a co-employee, will be informed of the results of the investigation and any corrective action or measures taken; and

-     affirm that a written report (summary) of the results of the investigation and any corrective action taken will be provided;

  • train all workers, including managerial employees, about the mandatory policy and the Program and they acknowledge the training, in writing;  
  • tickler for at least annual review of the mandatory policy and Program and keep good records for the review(s);
  • investigate all incidents and complaints of workplace harassment (fairly and completely);
  • retain a third party, professional investigator or, at least, ensure any internal investigator is properly trained for investigating complaints and workplace harassment generally;
  • only utilize an investigator who is, and who will be perceived as, competent and impartial;
  • make every effort to complete the investigation and release the summary report within ninety days of the initial incident or complaint; and
  • be prepared for the Ministry of Labour to order a third party investigator at the employer’s expense, particularly if the employer does not act properly in appointing its own investigator, internal or external. 

Need an effective workplace harassment and violence policy? It's the law. 

I can help. Send me an e-mail - jason@wardlegal.ca 

 

read more

HARD LABOUR - REFERENCES BY FORMER EMPLOYERS - THEY CAN BE HONEST

HARD LABOUR – BY JASON WARD AND WARDS LAWYERSPC

REFERENCES BY FORMER EMPLOYERS – THEY CAN BE HONEST:

Employers may be wary of giving references for current or former employees, particularly if they were dismissed by the employer. There is no legal obligation for an employer to give an employment reference, unless there is an agreement to do so.

However, there are cases in Ontario whereby disgruntled, former employees have sued former employers for defamation, alleging the employers’ negative reference was defamatory and caused, or contributed to, their inability to secure alternative employer.

However, it is now clear that employers’ references, even if negative, are protected from liability for defamation, provided they are made “without malice”. This applies to both current and former employees.   

As a result, employers can now feel more assured if, in the circumstances, a less-than-positive reference is given. Many employers desire to be honest, but have been nervous about informing a potentially successor employer about a candidate’s character, work performance, lack of motivation or other sub-standard characteristics.

In defamation law, the truth shall set you free – this has always been the law in Ontario. Now, in addition to the truth defence, employer references are protected by the defence of “qualified privilege”, provided the employer does not act maliciously, but rather honestly, even if the reference may not be proved as the truth.

Generally, malice need not be proven directly, but can be inferred based on the specific words of the referee employer. It may also be established by evidence about the employer’s alternative, or even ulterior, motivation, if any. In addition, comments that are made without care or proper regard to their truth may also disqualify the “qualified privileged” defence.

So, while employers need to be smart and cautious, they can express honestly-held opinions about an employee and be protected by law, conditional on not acting maliciously.

To be vigilant against the risk of claims of malice when employment references are given, a few tips to employers:

  1. make your comments in a professional, respectful manner;
  2. use balanced, moderate language and tone;
  3. attempt to justify any negative comments by reference to a document, or based on the referee’s first-hand experience with the employee;
  4. take a balanced approach – mention any positive aspects of the employee, too, if possible; 
  5. take notes after the exercise to record, as precisely as possible, what specifically was communicated to the potential employer; and
  6. be mindful of any contextual issues or historical circumstances regarding the employee that could potentially be construed to suggest that the referee employer, or another person associated with the referee employer, may be motivated by revenge, a desire to punish the employer or otherwise act in a manner intended to cause harm to the employee.

Given this new development, employers should feel more comfortable with offering employment references, rather than avoiding them simply to avoid potential liability. If everyone did that, it may entirely make unavailable an important, useful part of the hiring and recruitment process, which serves no one’s interests.

Case:

Kanak v. Riggin, 2017 ONSC 2837 (CanLII), 2018 ONCA 345 (CanLII) and Tracey Kanack v. Darryl Riggin, 2019 CanLII 1628 (SCC) (leave to appeal denied).

Need an effective workplace policy for giving references for current or former employees?

Send me an e-mail.   

____________________________

Date of Blog: February 26, 2019

Thank you for reading this - Jason Ward of WARDS LAWYERSPC.

If you would like to read more, please visit www.wardlegal.ca/blogs.  

This WARDS LAWYERSPC publication is for general information only. It is not legal advice, or intended to be. Specific or more information may be necessary before advice could be provided for your circumstances.

More information? We’re here to help - jason@wardlegal.ca and www.wardlegal.ca

©       WARDS LAWYERSPC (2019)

read more

POT IN THE WORKPLACE - MAY BE LEGAL, BUT STILL NOT ALLOWED

Employers may be confused and uncertain how legalized cannabis use impacts their workplace, including how they can monitor and regulate it. It is important to understand the difference between using weed recreationally and for medical reasons – they are treated differently, at law.

The Ontario Human Rights Code (the “Code”) applies to both recreational and medical cannabis. However, unless an employee has an actual, or perceived, addiction to cannabis, or must use medical cannabis due to a recognized disability, the recreational use of cannabis is unprotected by Ontario’s human rights law.

Essentially, using post recreationally, absent an addiction or to treat a recognized disability, is not protected by the Code. As a result, if these circumstances do not exist, employers are lawfully entitled to:

· impose rules for using recreational cannabis in the workplace, preferably by a written workplace policy;

· prohibit every employee from possessing any recreational weed in the workplace (or at work otherwise), despite that possessing small amounts is now legalized;

· stop employees from coming or reporting to work while influenced by recreational pot, even though use is now legal; and

· if these rules are not followed, discipline those employees who do not follow them, including up to termination for cause, if appropriate.

Cannabis use for medical reasons is different. The same rules apply as they do for other medically-necessary drugs or substances. Employees may be protected to use medical cannabis in the workplace. However, employers are entitled to require the employee to provide justification for his or her disability-related need to use medical pot. Employers can also require information from the employee about restrictions arising from the disability itself, or the medical cannabis used to treat the disability. If an employee’s use of medical weed creates a potentially serious safety risk in the workplace, and unlike other disability-related conditions, employers may not be obliged to accommodate the employee using medical weed, particularly if would cause undue hardship to the employer.

So, the Code may be triggered and apply, but only if an employee is addicted to pot, or it is used by the employee to treat a legitimate, medical condition that is recognized as a disability by the Code. In that case, employers cannot subject that employee to the same rules. Rather, the employee’s right to be in a workplace free from discrimination related to a disability must prevail, as required by the Code, including a potential duty to accommodate the employee.

If the employee’s use of medical cannabis creates no undue hardship to the employer, it may need to accommodate the employee’s use of it in the workplace, or at work. If so, and so long as no serious safety risk is created, the employer may need to permit the employee to use the medical cannabis at work, or while working, but only during breaktime and subject to Ontario’s smoking and vaping laws. The key is whether the use of medical cannabis will interfere with the employee’s duty to perform his or her duties in a safe manner, ensuring not to create a serious safety risk in the workplace. If so, accommodation is likely required, subject to how and when the cannabis is consumed by the specific employee and subject to anti-smoking and vaping laws in effect across Ontario.

Need an effective workplace policy for smoking, vaping and cannabis use?

Send me an e-mail.   

read more