Share | Find us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter See us on Youtube

WSIB benefits for traumatic mental stress: There’s good news and ...

You may think that the WSIB pays benefits to a worker for traumatic mental stress only in situations where the worker was involved in a situation perceived as or actually life-threatening. And you would have been right until recently, when the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board Appeals Tribunal broadened the scope of coverage significantly. 
Section 13 of the WSIA provides that an employee is entitled to benefits for traumatic mental stress if s/he has “an acute reaction to a sudden and unexpected traumatic event arising out of and in the course of employment”. The WSIB’s policy provides guidance by indicating that this generally means “a criminal act, or a horrific accident and may involve actual or threatened death or serious harm against the worker, a co-worker, a workers’ family member or others.” WSIAT decisions have historically interpreted these statements as meaning that the worker must suffer some life-threatening, or at least perceived life-threatening, experience.
[Please click the title to read more.]

Pardon Me? - Arbitrator Rules that Hearing Aids are Reasonable Accommodation.

A recent arbitration ruling, Thunder Bay Catholic District School Board v. Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association1, may result in an increase in claims for reimbursement from employees who need personal bodily assistive devices to perform the bona fide occupational requirements of their positions. 
The Thunder Bay case involved a teacher who purchased new digital hearing aids and submitted a reimbursement request which the school board denied. The Association grieved the school board’s decision not to reimburse the teacher on the basis that she needed digital hearing aids to perform her duties.
In ruling that hearing aids are reasonable accommodation in the circumstances, Arbitrator Luborsky held that communicating effectively was a workplace standard on which the teacher’s performance would be evaluated. 
While on its face, this decision appears to open the floodgates to claims for reimbursement for a variety of personal assistive devices (e.g. wheelchairs, eye glasses, etc.), it is important to note that there were a number of very specific factors which led to Arbitrator Luborsky’s ruling. Perhaps the most significant of which was that the grievor had medical evidence to show that the hearing aids were absolutely necessary for her to perform her specific job function. 
Each case of this nature will be very fact specific and this case does not change the obligation that employers have always had -- to provide reasonable accommodation, not perfect accommodation. Nevertheless, this decision should create concern for employers and we will be following developments that may arise from it closely. Stay tuned!

Independent Contractor: To Be or Not to Be – That is the Question

As an employment lawyer, I am often approached by clients on the issue of “independent contractors versus employees”. Corporate clients look to use independent contractors, rather than employees, to perform work more cheaply and with more flexibility – without costs such as CPP, EI, EHT, WSIB premiums, benefits, overtime, etc. and without the necessity of complying with employer obligations such as those found under the applicable employment standards legislation.  Individual clients want to provide “consulting” or “contractor” services to third parties with the associated tax savings afforded to true independent contractors.
In either case, I provide the following words of general advice.
[Please click the title to read more.]
 

YOU’RE FIRED...I’M QUITTING! WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

We’re all familiar with the classic scenario when the response to a termination by an employer prompts the response, “You can’t fire me. I quit!”. But after the dust settles from the initial blow-up, what happens next? A recent case from the British Columbia Court of Appeal is instructive.
 
In Giza v. Sechelt School Bus Service Ltd. http://canlii.ca/t/fpm45, the B.C. Court of Appeal dealt with the not-for-cause termination of Raymond Giza who was employed as a part-time school bus driver. There were no agreed terms and conditions of employment governing the amount of notice to which Mr. Giza might be entitled as an employee with five years’ service. The owner of the Company determined that Mr. Giza’s statutory entitlement was five weeks’ notice and a letter was left on the bus seat for Mr. Giza advising that his employment would be ending at the end of five weeks of working notice.

linkedin linkEmail Chris
Chris has been practicing labour and employment law for over 25 years. This would explain the hair colour.

linkedin linkEmail Mary Lou
Partner and avid book club member.  Truth be told, very little of her book club’s discussion is ever about the book!

linkedin linkEmail Beth
After several years of working towards a career in midwifery,  realized she had been focusing on the wrong kind of “labour”.

linkedin linkEmail Andrea
Closet comedienne and relieved Bay Street transplant.

Browse through past ARTICLE ARCHIVES