WSIAT Says Prohibition Against Mental Stress Claims is Unconstitutional

In a decision that is sure to be relied upon, scrutinized and judicially reviewed, the Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (“WSIAT”) has found that the prohibition against claims by workers for mental stress to be unconstitutional.

Accordingly, in the case considered below, the WSIAT declined to apply subsections 13(4) and 13(5) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, the result of which being that an employee who made a claim to the WSIB for benefits following years of workplace harassment might actually receive WSIB benefits.

Wrongful Dismissal First Principles Affirmed by ONCA

How much weight are judges to give other wrongful dismissal decisions? According to a recent decision from the Court of Appeal for Ontario, while other decisions from the same level of court can be persuasive, they are not binding. The principle of stare decisis requires that courts render decisions that are consistent with the previous decisions of higher courts.

Time Limit to Sue for LTD Benefits

How long do you have to sue an insurance company after they deny you long-term disability (“LTD”) benefits? According to a now-reversed decision from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, if the benefits are provided as part of a group benefits plan, as most employee benefits are, it can be as little time as the insurance company says.

In a decision released in March of 2014, Kassburg v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, 2014 ONSC 1523 (CanLII), the Honourable Justice M. Gregory Ellies of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that a group policy of insurance, issued by an insurance company to an employer, was a “business agreement” under the law and accordingly the usual limitation period governing such policies of insurance did might not apply.

However, on December 29, 2014, the Court of Appeal for Ontario reversed Justice Ellies' decision, finding that such policies of insurance are not "business agreements" and that the time limit applicable to such claims is two years from the date such claims are "discovered." For a summary of the Court of Appeal's decision see: Court of Appeal says Group LTD Policies not "Business Agreements".

Wal-Mart Rolls Back Award of Punitive Damages

In a decision released earlier this week, the Court of Appeal for Ontario reduced an award of punitive damages against a Wal-Mart manager from $150,000 to $10,000, and against Wal-Mart itself from $1,000,000 to $100,000. In the same decision, however, the court upheld the award of $100,000 in damages for intentional infliction of mental suffering against the manager, and the award of $200,000 in aggravated damages against Wal-Mart.

Human Rights Legislation does Not Apply to Partners

In a decision released today, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that British Columbia’s Human Rights Code, RSBC 1996, c. 210 does not apply to equity partners in law firms.

Employers required to train staff under the new Occupational Health and Safety Awareness and Training Regulation

Being July 1st, 2014, every employer in the province of Ontario will need to comply with the Ministry of Labour’s new Occupational Health and Safety Awareness and Training Regulation (O. Reg. 297/13) under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA).

As first mentioned by fellow Kelly Santini LLP employment lawyer Shawn O’Connor on the firm’s business law blog Start Up. Build Up. Sell Up. in the post All Employers Required to Train Staff Under New Health & Safety Act, this new legislation may catch many employers off-guard. Past training requirements under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) have resulted in employers focusing on employees involved in physical work and the resulting risk of injury. The new legislation states that all employees must receive the minimum required training, including white collar and clerical staff, whom employers might not have associated with having a risk of injury in the workplace.

Federal Court of Appeal Affirms Decision that Employers Must Accommodate Employees' Childcare Obligations

On May 2, 2014, the Federal Court of Appeal confirmed that employers have a legal obligation to accommodate their employees' “childcare obligations” as a component of their duty to accommodate an employee’s “family status.”

In its decisions in the parallel cases of Canada (Attorney General) v. Johnstone, 2014 FCA 110 (CanLII) and Canadian National Railway v. Denise Seeley and Canadian Human Rights Commission the Federal Court of Appeal confirmed that the definition of “family status” in the Canadian Human Rights Act includes “parental obligations.”