Canadian Workplace Legal Post -

WorkSafeBC has now published its three new Occupational Health & Safety Workplace Bullying & Harassment Policies.  These policies create new obligations for employers, workers and supervisors related to preventing workplace bullying & harassment.  They will be effective November 1, 2013.   I will discuss these further in a subsequent post.

In a much anticipated decision, the Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled that employers need only report workplace accidents when there is a nexus between the hazard giving rise to the death or critical injury and a realistic risk to worker safety at that workplace.  The original decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board, which was upheld on judicial review, had very broad implications for the operators of recreational businesses.

The decision is Blue Mountain Resorts Limited v. Ontario (Labour), 2013 ONCA 75 (CanLII) (“Blue Mountain”).   My colleague, Matthew Larsen, has provided a thorough summary which you will find by clicking “continue reading”. Continue reading

My colleague Matthew Larsen reports:

A recent arbitration decision out of Ontario involving Telus Communications and the Telecommunications Workers Union reinforces the importance of carefully applying the principles of progressive discipline.  The Arbitrator’s unfortunate decision to reinstate a grievor, despite noting his “atrocious” and “unbelievably bad” record, serves as a valuable lesson for employers.  This is particularly true for employers who are dealing with employees that repeatedly fail to adhere to company policies. Continue reading

I have been discussing Bill 14 a lot this year.  The British Columbia Court of Appeal has just issued a very significant decision related to the mental disorder provisions under the Workers Compensation Act (“WCA”).   The case deals with the pre-Bill 14 language but is applicable to the new expanded language.  The Court decided that it had no jurisdiction over an action by a worker against her employer alleging mental stress that arose out of and in the course of her employment.

Downs Construction Ltd. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal, 2012 BCCA 392:  On appeal was a decision by the WCAT that was upheld on judicial review.  A female worker suffered stress-related injuries as a result of conduct of a male co-worker.  When the injured worker sued her co-worker and their employer, Downs Construction, it was asserted that the court action was barred by section 10 of the WCA which places exclusive jurisdiction over injuries to workers arising out of and in the course of their employment with adjudicators in the no-fault workers’ compensation scheme.   Continue reading

In a prior post I discussed the changes to the “mental stress” provisions of British Columbia’s Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2011 that came into effect July 1, 2012.  WorkSafeBC subsequently published its amended compensation policy C3-13.00 that will govern the determination of claims under the new “mental disorder” provisions. The Policy should be carefully reviewed by those dealing with OHS matters in the workplace and those responsible for human resource implications that arise from the broadened scope of compensable mental disorder claims.

Complex claims:  The Policy recognizes that mental disorder claims pose much greater challenges with adjudication because of the potential host of factors that may cause a mental disorder such as personal stressors, non-workplace injuries, non-workplace health conditions and work-related stressors.  Unwinding this matrix of potential causes commences with a proper psychiatric (DSM) diagnosis by a registered psychiatrist or psychologist – previously a family physician could make the diagnosis.  It will be important for the Board and employers which are monitoring claims to understand that a DSM diagnosis requires the medical assessor to undertake a thorough review of all potential past and present medical and non-medical causes of the mental disorder as part of a proper multi-axial diagnostic approach. Continue reading