Skip to content

Newfoundland and Labrador mandates masks in workplaces

Harold M. Smith, QC and G. John Samms

Effective Monday, August 24, 2020, an order directing the mandatory wearing of masks, pursuant to the Public Health and Protection Act and the Special Measures Orders made thereunder comes into effect. We hereafter refer to this order as the “Mandatory Mask Order”.

The original Mandatory Mask Order, which was signed by the Chief Medical Officer of Health (“CMOH”) on August 17, 2020, was, in our view, rife with ambiguity. Such is the nature of navigating these unprecedented times. Stewart McKelvey’s Labour and Employment Group pointed out legal (i.e. not policy) issues with the Special Measures Order as originally written and, to the credit of the Department of Health and Community Services, officials drafted a clearer order. The CMOH signed it on August 24th, 2020.

While we believe the currently in-force document is clearer, no document will ever provide perfect guidance for absolutely every factual circumstance. Our goal here is to provide our interpretation of the Mandatory Mask Order to assist our clients in their efforts to comply. Where there is any confusion on the proper interpretation of the Mandatory Mask Order, it ought to be governed by an approach that serves its objects.

The object of the order is undeniably to arrest or stop the community spread of the COVID-19 virus. In that regard, where the order seems vague, it should be interpreted in favour of the object of the order. As a consequence, a best practice is that when there is doubt, resolve that doubt in favour of wearing a mask. This, however, must be tempered with a recognition that employees will push back if there is too much interference with their natural approach to the work.

We will address below some of the common questions we are receiving:

In what circumstances are masks mandatory?

All individuals in an indoor setting, including workplaces, must wear a mask – subject to limited exceptions.

The main exception applies to seated areas. This would include those who are working alone in their personal workstation, office, or cubicle – they need not wear a mask while seated in that specific place. However, if such people move about in their office to go the photocopier, washroom, break room, or any other common area, they must wear a mask. Should workers congregate in any fashion, whether it be an office meeting or conference room, all workers must wear a mask unless physical distancing can be achieved in that particular setting.

Exemptions are also in place for situations where, for occupational health and safety reasons, a worker cannot wear a mask. In that case, they are exempt from wearing a mask unless they are in a common area, whether the area is publicly accessible or not.

The Mandatory Mask Order does not remove any obligation under occupational health and safety legislation to have masks or, conversely, be exempt for safety reasons. The order should be read as mandating masks in addition to any existing requirement.

Should a worker and a non-worker be in the same area beyond the above listed locations and they cannot socially distance, it is recommended that both wear a mask.

Guidance on specific places:

Conference room

Masks are not necessary so long as physical distancing of two metres can be achieved between individuals provided they wear a mask when moving around the indoor setting. Otherwise, masks are necessary.

Hallways

Everyone must wear a mask as this is a common area.

Breakroom / lunchroom / kitchen

Masks are not necessary so long as it is a seated area where physical distancing of two metres can be achieved between individuals provided they wear a mask when moving around the indoor setting. Otherwise, masks are necessary.

Other matters – change of numbers

We wish to point out that the Mandatory Mask Order does not allow an employer to increase the number of workers and/or non-workers in its physical structures. Moreover, the guidelines respecting social distancing remain. Any inability to maintain social distancing will, in our view, increase the requirement for the wearing of masks.

Other matters – gated access

In our view, gated access or security access, does not alter any of the noted restrictions or exemptions mentioned in this update.

Full listing of exceptions in the Mandatory Mask Order is below:

  • Children under the age of 5;
  • People with physical or mental health conditions – people whose particular physical condition or mental health prevents them from wearing a mask (please see here  for further explanation of these conditions);
  • During treatments, services, or physical activity where a mask must be removed, for the duration of the treatment, service or activity only;
  • Showing identification;
  • Seated areas – provided physical distancing of two metres can be achieved between individuals or bubbles and provided they wear a mask when moving around the indoor setting, masks are not required when individuals are seated, including in these places:
    • in the classrooms of a post-secondary educational institution,
    • in a place where activities or services of a religious, cultural, or entertainment nature are offered, and
    • in a restaurant, food court, or a lounge.

Conclusion

Without doubt, the foregoing rules will prove challenging for some. With change comes uncertainty – that uncertainty should be met with an abundance of caution with also a view to following the Special Measures Orders in a practical fashion that will lead to compliance.


This article is provided for general information only. If you have any questions about the above, please contact a member of our Labour and Employment group.

Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership articles and updates.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Client Update: “Lien”-ing Towards Efficiency: Upcoming Amendments to the Builders’ Lien Act

June 29, 2017

By Brian Tabor, QC and Colin Piercey Bill 81 and Bill 15, receiving Royal Assent in 2013 and 2014 respectively, are due to take effect this month. On June 30, 2017, amendments to the Builders’…

Read More

Weeding Through New Brunswick’s Latest Cannabis Recommendations

June 26, 2017

New Brunswick continues to be a thought leader in the field of regulation of recreational cannabis and provides us with a first look at what the provincial regulation of recreational cannabis might look like. New…

Read More

Client Update: Elk Valley Decision – SCC Finds that Enforcement of “No Free Accident” Rule in Workplace Drug and Alcohol Policy Does Not Violate Human Rights Legislation

June 23, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Richard Jordan In Stewart v. Elk Valley Coal Corporation, 2017 SCC 30, a six-judge majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) confirmed a Tribunal decision which concluded that the dismissal of an…

Read More

Client Update: The Grass is Always Greener in the Other Jurisdiction – Provincial Acts and Regulations under the Cannabis Act

June 22, 2017

By Kevin Landry New Brunswick’s Working Group on the Legalization of Cannabis released an interim report on June 20, 2017. It is a huge step forward in the legalization process and the first official look at how legalization…

Read More

Client Update: Cannabis Act regulations – now we are really getting into the weeds!

June 15, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Kevin Landry As we explained in The Cannabis Act- Getting into the Weeds, the Cannabis Act introduces a regulatory regime for recreational marijuana in Canada. The regime promises to be complex. The details of legalization will be…

Read More

Client Update: Requirement to register as a lobbyist in New Brunswick

June 15, 2017

On April 1, 2017, the New Brunswick Lobbyists’ Registration Act was proclaimed into force (the “Act”), requiring active professional consultant or in-house lobbyists to register and file returns with the Office of the Integrity Commissioner of New…

Read More

How much is too much?: Disclosure in multiple accident litigation in English v House, 2017 NLTD(G) 93

June 14, 2017

Joe Thorne and Jessica Habet How far can an insurer dig into the Plaintiff’s history to defend a claim? And how much information is an insurer entitled to have in order to do so? In English v.…

Read More

Client Update: Court of Appeal confirms accounting firms may take on multiple mandates for the same company

June 14, 2017

Neil Jacobs, QC, Joe Thorne and Meaghan McCaw The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal recently confirmed that accounting/auditing firms may take on several mandates in respect of companies that may or do become insolvent in Wabush Hotel Limited…

Read More

Negligence claims in paper-only independent medical examinations: Rubens v Sansome, 2017 NLCA 32

June 13, 2017

Joe Thorne and Brandon Gillespie An independent medical examination (“IME”) is a useful tool for insurers. An IME is an objective assessment of the claimant’s condition for the purpose of evaluating coverage and compensation. Where a…

Read More

Client Update: Mental injury? Expert diagnosis not required

June 12, 2017

On June 2, 2017 the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Saadati v. Moorhead, 2017 SCC 28, clarifying the evidence needed to establish mental injury. Neither expert evidence nor a diagnosed psychiatric illness…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top