On December 20, 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Canada Post Corporation v. Canadian Union of Postal Workers, 2019 SCC 67. This case involved a significant issue for federal employers – namely the extent of their occupational health and safety obligations under Part II of the Canada Labour Code (“Code”). A majority of the Supreme Court agreed with an Appeals Officer with the Occupational Health and Safety Tribunal Canada that a federal employer’s obligation under the Code to annually inspect its work place only applies to work places over which the employer has physical control.
Union said employer had to inspect every route and location where mail was delivered
The Union filed a complaint in 2012 alleging that the joint health and safety committee (“Committee”) breached its obligation in s. 125(1)(z.12) of the Code to inspect every part of the work place by restricting its inspections to the Canada Post depot in Burlington, Ontario, and by failing to inspect the letter carrier routes and locations where mail was delivered (“points of call”).
Section 125(1)(z.12) of the Code says:
125 (1) Without restricting the generality of section 124, every employer shall, in respect of every work place controlled by the employer and, in respect of every work activity carried out by an employee in a work place that is not controlled by the employer, to the extent that the employer controls the activity,
. . .
(z.12) ensure that the work place committee or the health and safety representative inspects each month all or part of the work place, so that every part of the work place is inspected at least once each year.
Evidence indicated that Canada Post letter carriers travel 72 million linear kilometres delivering mail to 8.7 million points of call.
An Appeals Officer determined that the inspection obligation did “not apply to any place where a letter carrier is engaged in work outside of the physical building” in Burlington. Although the letter carrier routes and point of call constituted a work place, the Appeals Officer determined that s. 125(1)(z.12) only applied to the parts of the work place over which Canada Post had control. Since Canada Post had no control over the letter carrier routes and points of call, it had no obligation to inspect these.
Despite some disagreement in the courts below, the Supreme Court of Canada applied the new framework from Vavilov to the Tribunal’s decision and seven out of the nine judges agreed that the Appeals Officer’s interpretation of s. 125(1)(z.12) was reasonable.
Moving forward with respect to the 45 obligations
Until this decision, there had been some uncertainty about the scope of a federal employer’s 45 obligations under s. 125(1) because of confusion as to what the opening words of s. 125(1) meant. There were generally two approaches:
- Approach A was that all 45 obligations in s. 125(1) apply when the employer controls the work place and when the employer controls the work activity even if it does not control the work place.
- Approach B was that while some obligations under s. 125(1) apply in both circumstances, some obligations could only apply where the employer controls the work place.
Although the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision confirmed Approach B with respect to the inspection obligation in s. 125(1)(z.12) of the Code, what remains to be seen is what this decision means for the remaining 44 obligations on a federal employer under s. 125(1) of the Code.
The Supreme Court’s reasons (particularly paragraphs 49 and 50) appear to signal the death knell for Approach A, the position advanced by the Union (paragraph 48). The Supreme Court also suggested that Approach A is not feasible because (paragraph 59):
An interpretation which imposed on the employer a duty it could not fulfil would do nothing to further the aim of preventing accidents and injury. While the Appeals Officer’s interpretation does limit the application of the obligations under s. 125(1), those obligations — and specifically the inspection obligation — cannot be fulfilled by an employer that does not control the work place.
Although other specific obligations under s. 125(1) will undoubtedly be litigated in the future, it is a welcome result for federal employers that the Supreme Court agreed with the Appeals Officer’s conclusion that employers will not have certain health and safety obligations under s. 125 where it controls the work activity but does not control the work place.
This update is intended for general information only. If you have questions about the above, please contact a member of our Labour & Employment group.
Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.
We are pleased to present the fifth issue of Discovery, our very own legal publication targeted to educational institutions in Atlantic Canada. As the pace around campus turns up as universities and colleges begin a…Read More
Level Chan and Dante Manna On October 31, 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada issued its decision in Threlfall v Carleton University, 2019 SCC 50, dismissing an appeal from the Quebec Court of Appeal. Carleton…Read More
Andrew Burke, Colleen Keyes and David Slipp Starting January 1, 2020 “Distributing Corporations” under the Canada Business Corporations Act (“CBCA”) will be subject to new disclosure requirements relating to the diversity of directors and senior…Read More
Killian McParland With the federal election coming up next week on October 21, 2019, it is a good time for a reminder of the employer obligations under the Canada Elections Act. Employees who are eligible…Read More
John Samms The upcoming federal election is drawing near. You may be thinking about exercising your democratic and constitutional right to vote – you may not be. You may never even consider participating in the…Read More
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…Read More
Peter McLellan, QC In the January 18, 2019 article, Change is the only constant – Bill C-86 changes in federal labour and employment regulation, we outlined in detail massive changes to how federal labour and…Read More
Rick Dunlop and Madeleine Coats The proposed Workplace Harassment and Violence Prevention Regulations (“Regulations”) will replace the current workplace violence obligations in the Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations. Although the Regulations will likely not…Read More
Hilary Foster Earlier this year, the Prince Edward Island Labour Relations Board (“Board”) issued a decision¹ wherein it certified the Charlottetown Professional Firefighters Association (“Association”) as bargaining agent for: All employees of the City of…Read More