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


 
 

TTC’s Random Testing Decision: A Bright Light for Employers in the Haze of Marijuana Legalization

April 11, 2017

Rick Dunlop In my December 15, 2016 article, Federal Government’s Cannabis Report: What does it mean for employers?, I noted the Report’s1 suggestion that there was a lack of research to reliably determine when individuals are impaired…

Read More

Unionization in the Construction Industry: Vacation Day + Snapshot Rule = Disenfranchisement

April 4, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Michelle Black On March 14, 2014, CanMar Contracting Limited (“CanMar”) granted a day off to two of its hard working and longer serving employees so they could spend time with their respective families. That…

Read More

Sometimes a bad deal is just a bad deal: unconscionability and insurance claim settlements in Downer v Pitcher, 2017 NLCA 13

March 16, 2017

Joe Thorne and Meaghan McCaw The doctrine of unconscionability is an equitable remedy available in exceptional circumstances where a bargain between parties, be it a settlement or a release, may be set aside on the basis that…

Read More

Privilege Prevails: Privacy Commissioner protects solicitor-client communications

March 16, 2017

Jonathan Coady After more than five years, the Prince Edward Island Information and Privacy Commissioner (the “Privacy Commissioner”) has completed her review into more than sixty records withheld by a local school board on the…

Read More

The Latest in Labour Law: A Stewart McKelvey Newsletter – Nova Scotia Teachers Union & Government – a synopsis

March 7, 2017

Peter McLellan, QC & Richard Jordan Introduction On February 21, 2017 the Nova Scotia Government passed Bill 75 – the Teachers’ Professional Agreement and Classroom Improvement (2017) Act. This Bulletin will provide some background to what is, today,…

Read More

Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Furlong: The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador weighs in on the former client rule in commercial transactions

March 1, 2017

Bruce Grant, QC and Justin Hewitt In the recent decision of Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Furlong1 the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador confirmed that where a law firm acts jointly for the borrower and lender in the placement…

Read More

The Ordinary Meaning of Insurance: Client Update on the SCC’s Decision in Sabean

February 21, 2017

The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Sabean v Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Co, 2017 SCC 7 at the end of January, finally answering an insurance policy question that had divided the lower…

Read More

Client Update: Outlook for the 2017 Proxy Season

February 8, 2017

In preparing for the 2017 proxy season, you should be aware of some regulatory changes and institutional investor guidance that may impact disclosure to, and interactions with, your shareholders. This update highlights what is new…

Read More

Client Update: The Future of Planning and Development on Prince Edward Island – Recent Amendments to the Planning Act

January 23, 2017

Perlene Morrison and Hilary Newman During the fall 2016 legislative sitting, the Province of Prince Edward Island passed legislation that results in significant changes to the Planning Act. The amendments received royal assent on December 15, 2016 and…

Read More

Plaintiffs’ medical reports – disclosure obligations in Unifund Assurance Company v. Churchill, 2016 NLCA 73

January 10, 2017

Joe Thorne1 and Justin Hewitt2 In Unifund Assurance Company v Churchill,3  the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal considered the application of our rules of court and the common law as they relate to disclosure of documents produced in…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top