Canada: Changes To The Canada Labour Code: Work Refusals And Narrower Definition Of Danger

Amendments to Part II of the Canada Labour Code (Code) are set to take effect as of October 31, 2014. These changes include redefining "danger"' under the Code for the purposes of work refusals and putting in place a new system for enforcing Part II. These changes will have an impact on federally regulated employers.

A new definition of danger

Part II of the Code is meant to protect the health and safety of employees and employers by preventing accidents and injuries at work. Under Part II, employees have certain rights to refuse work when they have reasonable cause to believe there is a danger in the workplace. In recent years, concerns have been raised that the vast majority of work refusals have not been justified. According to the Department of Finance, over 80% of refusals to work were determined to be situations where no danger was present.¹

The amendments provide for a new definition of "danger" that is more restrictive and will no longer include potential hazards or conditions, or any current or future activity that could reasonably be expected to cause injury or illness. As a result, work refusals will only be justified where an employee is faced with imminent or serious threat to his or her life or health. The new definition of danger is as follows:

"Any hazard, condition or activity that could reasonably be expected to be an imminent or serious threat to the life or health of a person exposed to it before the hazard or condition can be corrected or the activity altered."

Notably, the new, narrow definition of danger is similar to an earlier definition.² As a result, jurisprudence developed prior to 2000 may be of assistance in interpreting this new provision.

Earlier jurisprudence involving work refusals focused largely on whether the danger was immediate and present. In one case, imminent danger was defined as being "a situation of high probability that something out of the ordinary which will be injurious to the individual's safety and/or health is so likely to occur almost immediately and without warning that the individual should withdraw himself from the scene."³ We may see a similar focus as a result of this most recent change.

Changes to the investigation process regarding work refusals

The Code currently provides that a health and safety officer must investigate a work refusal. The amendments remove health and safety officers and provide the Minister of Labour with all the powers and authorities previously conferred on the officers.

As a result of this change and other amendments, the process for investigating a work refusal will change. In future, the employer will conduct an internal investigation of the work refusal, along with the employee, in order to resolve the complaint internally. Where the complaint is not resolved internally, it will be referred to the Minister of Labour.

According to the Order Fixing October 31, 2014 as the Day on which Division 5 of Part 3 of the Act Comes into Force,⁴ these changes will allow the Minister of Labour to have greater oversight and accountability for the enforcement of occupational health and safety, thereby leading to a more consistent approach in enforcing Part II of the Code. The Order also states that the amendments will provide the Labour Program with discretion and flexibility to conduct its work in the most efficient manner possible. This power will, for example, provide the discretion to decline to investigate refusals to work that are deemed trivial, frivolous, vexatious, or made in bad faith.

Footnotes

1. Government of Canada, Department of Finance Canada, "Bill C-4 - Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2, Part 3 – Various Measures: Division 5 – Canada Labour Code," retrieved online (http://www.fin.gc.ca/pub/c4/7-eng.asp).

2. In the previous version, "danger" was defined as "any hazard or condition that could reasonably be expected to cause injury or illness to a person exposed thereto before the hazard or condition can be corrected."

3. Bell v Labour Canada (1984), 56 di 150 (Canada Labour Relations Board).

4. Order Fixing October 31, 2014 as the Day on which Division 5 of Part 3 of the Act Comes into Force, Canada Gazette Part II, Vol. 148, No. 13, June 18, 2014, SI 2014-52 at p 1757.

Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP

Norton Rose Fulbright is a global legal practice. We provide the world's pre-eminent corporations and financial institutions with a full business law service. We have more than 3800 lawyers based in over 50 cities across Europe, the United States, Canada, Latin America, Asia, Australia, Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia.

Recognized for our industry focus, we are strong across all the key industry sectors: financial institutions; energy; infrastructure, mining and commodities; transport; technology and innovation; and life sciences and healthcare.

Wherever we are, we operate in accordance with our global business principles of quality, unity and integrity. We aim to provide the highest possible standard of legal service in each of our offices and to maintain that level of quality at every point of contact.

Norton Rose Fulbright LLP, Norton Rose Fulbright Australia, Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP, Norton Rose Fulbright South Africa (incorporated as Deneys Reitz Inc) and Fulbright & Jaworski LLP, each of which is a separate legal entity, are members ('the Norton Rose Fulbright members') of Norton Rose Fulbright Verein, a Swiss Verein. Norton Rose Fulbright Verein helps coordinate the activities of the Norton Rose Fulbright members but does not itself provide legal services to clients.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.