Skip to content

Supreme Court of Canada’s Canada Post decision delivers good news for federal employers

G. Grant Machum & Richard Jordan

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.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

“Sale” away: The SCC’s more flexible approach to exclusion clauses in contracts for the sale of goods

July 9, 2024

By Jennifer Taylor & Marina Luro A recent Supreme Court of Canada decision has clarified how to interpret exclusion clauses in sale of goods contracts. The Court in Earthco Soil Mixtures Inc. v Pine Valley…

Read More

Recent case re-confirms temporary ailment is not a disability

June 24, 2024

By Mark Tector and Tiegan A. Scott Decision On April 3, 2024, the Alberta Court of King’s Bench (“ABKB”) upheld a decision of the Chief of the Commissions and Tribunals (the “CCT Decision”), which held…

Read More

Compensation for expropriation: Fair, but not more than fair

June 17, 2024

By Erin Best, Stephen Penney, Robert Bradley, Megan Kieley1 and Elizabeth Fleet1 Expropriation is a live issue in Canadian courts. The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision to broaden the test for constructive expropriation in Annapolis…

Read More

Changes affecting federally regulated employers

June 10, 2024

By Killian McParland and Sophie Poulos There have been many changes in recent months affecting employers governed by federal labour and employment laws. In September 2024, Stewart McKelvey will be hosting a webinar to review…

Read More

Impending changes to Nova Scotia’s Workers’ Compensation Act – Gradual onset stress

June 4, 2024

By Mark Tector and Annie Gray What’s changing? Currently, workers’ compensation coverage in Nova Scotia applies to only a narrow subset of psychological injuries. Specifically, in Nova Scotia – as in all Atlantic Provinces –…

Read More

Appeal Courts uphold substantial costs awards for regulators

May 22, 2024

By Sean Kelly & Michiko Gartshore Professional regulators can incur substantial costs through discipline processes. These costs are often associated with investigations, hearings as well as committee member expenses and are an unfortunate by-product of…

Read More

Less than two weeks to go … Canada Supply Chain Transparency Reports are due May 31st

May 21, 2024

By Christine Pound, ICD.D., Twila Reid, ICD.D., Sarah Dever Letson, CIPP/C, Sheila Mecking, Hilary Newman, and Daniel Roth Introduction The first reports under the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act (the…

Read More

Court upheld municipality’s refusal to disclose investigation report

May 1, 2024

By Sheila Mecking and Sarah Dever Letson A recent decision out of the Court of King’s Bench of New Brunswick,[1] upheld the Municipality of Tantramar’s decision to withhold a Workplace Assessment Report under section 20(1)…

Read More

Occupational Health and Safety sentencing decision – Nova Scotia

April 29, 2024

By Sean Kelly & Tiegan Scott Earlier this month, the Provincial Court of Nova Scotia issued its sentencing decision in R v The Brick Warehouse LP, 2024 NSPC 26, imposing a monetary penalty of $143,750 (i.e.,…

Read More

Canada 2024 Federal Budget paves the way for Open Banking

April 22, 2024

By Kevin Landry On April 15, 2024, the Canadian federal budget was released. Connected to the budget was an explanation of the framework for Canada’s proposed implementation of Open Banking (sometimes called consumer-driven banking). This follows…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top