ALBERTA COURT QUASHES OHSA CONVICTION – DUE DILIGENCE DOES NOT REQUIRE EMPLOYER TO FORESEE WORKER'S FAILURE TO OBEY INSTRUCTIONS
A judge of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench has held that the trial judge erred in concluding that an employer did not take reasonable care to avoid the suffocation death of a 21-year-old worker who died while performing work in a well-testing trailer. According to the Court, there was no requirement for the employer, in order to establish a due diligence defence, to foresee the worker's inexplicable failure to follow clear instructions given to him, in circumstances where his actions were directly contrary to the specific instructions of his supervisor, and where there was no reason for the employer to anticipate that the particular worker would deviate from the task assigned to him.
FRANCHISOR RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKPLACE SAFETY, B.C. COURT RULES
Violent incidents at two Petro-Canada gas stations in British Columbia led to orders being made by the Workers Compensation Board that Petro-Canada, as an employer, violated its obligation to ensure worker safety under s.115 of the B.C. Workers Compensation Act. Although the company argued that it was not the employer in these cases because the stations at issue were franchised, a Review Officer held that Petro-Canada retained sufficient power and authority in relation to the day-to-day operations of the stations that it fell within the meaning of "employer" for the purposes of Part 3 of the Act dealing with occupational health and safety. The Court of Appeal affirmed the orders, pointing out that "employer" had a settled meaning within the Act, that Petro-Canada clearly fell within that definition, and that its responsibility in relation to the franchised stations arose from the statutory language that "every employer must ensure the health and safety of any ... workers present at a workplace at which that employer's work is being carried out...."
NURSES PERMANENTLY UNABLE TO WORK AT HOSPITAL DUE TO DISABILITY ARE ENTITLED TO SEVERANCE PAY, ARBITRATOR FINDS
Finding that the contract of employment between a hospital and two nurses who were permanently unable to work was frustrated and therefore automatically terminated by operation of the provincial Employment Standards Act and its regulations, an Ontario arbitrator has held that the nurses were entitled to severance pay pursuant to the Act. While the hospital had argued that it was not its policy to terminate the employment of nurses in this situation and therefore no severance pay was warranted, the arbitrator found that the law makes clear that active conduct by the employer is not necessary to terminate an employment contract where an employer is unable to continue employing an employee as a result of disabling illness or injury, and therefore the severance provisions are automatically triggered.
LABOUR BOARD'S DECISION ON APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNITS IN HEALTH CARE FIELD DESERVED JUDICIAL DEFERENCE, APPEAL COURT RULES