New occupational health and safety legislation regarding harassment effective in Newfoundland and Labrador January 1, 2020
Twila Reid and Kara Harrington
On January 1, 2020, changes to the Newfoundland and Labrador Occupational Health and Safety Regulations, 2012 (“Regulations”) will take effect. These changes impact employers in a variety of ways, most notably requiring employers to: develop written harassment prevention plans, conduct risk assessments, protect workers from potential family violence in the workplace and to provide training regarding harassment prevention and the harassment prevention plan.
Harassment prevention plan. Section 24.1 of the Regulations requires employers to develop, implement and maintain a written harassment prevention plan in consultation with their occupational health and safety committee, worker health and safety representative, or workplace health and safety designate. The harassment prevention plan must include specific language regarding the obligations of the employer and workers, as well as various procedures for reporting, investigating and managing complaints. Section 24.1(4) requires that the harassment prevention plan be accessible to all workers in the workplace and be reviewed at least annually.
Risk assessments. The Regulations also add the requirement that employers conduct a risk assessment. Section 22.1 provides that the risk assessment must include consideration of a variety of factors, including workplace demographics and previous experiences in the workplace and in similar workplaces, and sets out the confidentiality requirement for the information collected during the risk assessment. Once the employer has conducted the risk assessment, Section 23 mandates that employers address any identified risks of injury to workers from violence by establishing procedures, policies and work environment arrangements to eliminate or minimize those risks.
Family violence. One of the key changes of the Regulations is the addition of “family violence” to the employer’s purview. Section 23(2) requires employers to take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances to protect workers from family violence of which the employer is, or ought to be, aware could expose a worker to physical injury in the workplace.
Training. Section 24.2 requires employers to both participate in and provide training relating to both harassment prevention and the harassment prevention plan.
Failure to comply with the Regulations could have serious consequences for an employer, as well as the employer’s directors, officers and agents. Therefore, it is crucial that employers keep proper records of their compliance, or else they could face difficulty defending against a claim for breach of the Regulations, and new case law indicates directors may also be held personally liable for claims.
Records. Employers should keep records of all activities that establish compliance with the Regulations. Without such records, there is no proof of compliance, and so the employer could still be held liable for failing to comply with the Regulations.
Liability of employer, directors, officers and agents. If employers fail to comply with the Regulations, they may be charged with an offence under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. If found guilty of the offence, the corporation may be fined up to $250,000, as well as up to $25,000 per day for each day the offence continues. Importantly, where a corporation has been convicted of an offence, an officer, director, or agent of the corporation who directed, authorized, assented to, acquiesced or participated in the commission of the offence is also guilty of an offence under that section.
Personal liability. Beyond liability under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, if employers breach the Regulations and a worker is hurt, the directors of the corporation may be held personally liable in a subrogated action by Workers’ Compensation. In a recent Court of Appeal decision from Alberta, Hall v Stewart, 2019 ABCA 98, the Court explained that, while the employer was protected from liability due to the workers’ compensation regime, the employer’s immunity did not extend to its directors, and so without additional coverage purchased through the workers’ compensation system, a negligent director could be held personally liable for any personal injuries he caused to the workers as a result of a negligent act, even though his negligent act occurred as part of his work for the employer. Thus, compliance with all of the relevant occupational health and safety legislation is crucial for avoiding a potentially expanding basis for liability.
This update is intended for general information only. Should you have questions on the above, please contact a member of our Labour & Employment group.
Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.
Archive
Perlene Morrison Prince Edward Island’s municipal legislation is being modernized with the implementation of the Municipal Government Act (the “MGA”). The legislation has now received royal assent and will be proclaimed in force at a future date.…
Read MoreJonathan Coady and Chera-Lee Gomez It’s that time of year – the moment when we look back at the year that was and chart our course for the year ahead. For many councillors, administrators and planning professionals…
Read MorePeter McLellan, QC and Michelle Black In a recent decision, R v McCarthy’s Roofing Limited, Judge Anne Derrick provided some much-needed clarity around what it means to be a “constructor” on a job site. This is critical as…
Read MoreRick Dunlop On December 13, 2016, the Government of Canada released A Framework for the Legalization and Regulation of Cannabis in Canada: The Final Report of the Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation (“Report”). The Report’s…
Read MoreBrian Johnston, QC Canadian employers are already coping with approximately 75,000 Canadians authorized to use medical marijuana. Health Canada expects that this number will increase to about 450,000 by 2024. Employers know that medical marijuana…
Read MoreJonathan Coady With its decision in Canada Post Corporation v. City of Hamilton,1 the Ontario Court of Appeal has confirmed that the placement of community mailboxes by Canada Post is a matter beyond the reach of municipalities…
Read MoreJennifer Taylor Introduction Thanks to some dirty windows, insurance lawyers have a new go-to Supreme Court case on issues of policy interpretation: Ledcor Construction Ltd v Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co, 2016 SCC 37. The insurers in Ledcor Construction had…
Read MoreJennifer Taylor Introduction Appeal courts in Ontario1 and Nova Scotia2 have now issued decisions about Trinity Western University’s proposed law school (“TWU”) in British Columbia, and at first glance they couldn’t be more different. The Court of Appeal for…
Read MoreJoe Thorne1 and Giles Ayers2 Limitation periods serve a critical function in the civil justice system. They promote the timely resolution of litigation on the basis of reliable evidence, and permit litigants to assess their legal exposure…
Read MoreOn July 14, 2016 the Supreme Court of Canada issued a significant decision affecting federally regulated employers across Canada. In Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited the Court held that the purpose of the unjust dismissal…
Read More