June 8, 2018
This publication has been updated as of September 28, 2020.
In the last few years, many employers have been focused on preparing for and managing the workplace implications of the 2018 legalization of cannabis for non-medical (recreational) use in Canada. However, the use of medically-authorized cannabis remains a burning issue for employers despite the fact it was legalized in Canada almost 20 years ago. A key challenge they face is the accommodation of medically-authorized marijuana use by employees in safety-sensitive positions. On April 30, 2018, a N.L. Arbitrator decided that since employers can’t measure residual impairment caused by cannabis use, they can’t manage the safety risk – and in a safety-sensitive position, that amounts to undue hardship on the employer. While on February 22, 2019, the Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court dismissed the union’s application for a judicial review of the arbitration decision, on June 4, 2020, the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal overturned the Supreme Court and remitted the matter back to arbitration. Despite this, the original Arbitration decision continues to offer useful insights to employers dealing with the accommodation of medically-authorized marijuana in the workplace.
Here’s a look at the original Arbitration decision in Re Lower Churchill Transmission Construction Employers’ Assn. Inc. and IBEW, Local 1620 (Tizzard), and five key insights on the issue of employers’ accommodation of medically-authorized marijuana in the workplace.
The Arbitration Decision
Mr. Tizzard (the Grievor) was diagnosed with Crohn’s disease and osteoarthritis. After several unsuccessful attempts to alleviate the resulting pain with conventional medications, his physician issued him a Medical Authorization for up to 1.5 grams of cannabis with THC levels up to 22%, to be ingested by vaporization. The Grievor said he ingested the marijuana every evening but didn’t feel impairment of function during daytime working hours. He subsequently applied for two labourer positions with the employer, a major contractor working on one of the Lower Churchill Projects (the construction of transmission lines), and the employer hired him – subject to the pre-employment drug and alcohol screening tests. The Grievor disclosed his medical marijuana use to the Union before the testing, and to the sample collection technician at the time of testing, which he failed. After obtaining and reviewing a significant amount of medical information, the employer ultimately refused to hire the Grievor for either position.
The Union grieved, alleging the employer failed to accommodate the Grievor’s disability. The employer argued that given the inability to test for cannabis impairment and the safety sensitive nature of the positions, accommodation of the Grievor would amount to undue hardship. Newfoundland and Labrador Arbitrator John Roil, QC, after thorough review and analysis, succinctly agreed (at page 65):
“The [e]mployer did not place the Grievor in employment at the [p]roject because of the Grievor’s authorized use of medical cannabis as directed by his physician [evening use of up to 1.5 grams of medical marijuana with THC levels up to 22% ingested by vaporization]. This use created a risk of the Grievor’s impairment on the jobsite. The [e]mployer was unable to readily measure impairment from cannabis, based on currently available technology and resources. Consequently, the inability to measure and manage that risk of harm constitutes undue hardship for the [e]mployer.”
McInnes Cooper Labour & Employment Lawyer Darren Stratton represented the successful employer in the Arbitration.
5 Key High-lights
Although no court nor any other arbitrator is required to follow this Arbitration decision, and it’s been remitted for a re-hearing, it’s likely to be of interest and potentially persuasive value in other cases. There are relatively few reported decisions in Canada on the issues of either the accommodation of medically-authorized marijuana use by someone in a safety-sensitive position, or just what qualifies as a safety-sensitive position. And it’s likely to be an issue with which employers will continue to grapple. And despite the fact its use has been legal in Canada for almost two decades, as the Arbitrator’s decision acknowledges throughout, employers are still trying to understand how to manage the impact of medically-authorized marijuana use in the workplace.
Here are five key highlights of the original Arbitration decision on the issue of employers’ accommodation of medically-authorized marijuana in the workplace:
1. The duty to accommodate disability to the point of undue hardship extends to accommodation of medically-authorized cannabis use.
Under human rights laws, employers have a duty not to discriminate in employment (including hiring decisions) on the basis of the “protected” personal characteristics enumerated in the applicable human rights law. These characteristics differ somewhat depending on the human rights law that applies (for example family status, sexual orientation, religion, and mental disability), but all Canadian human rights laws prohibit discrimination based on physical disability. Embedded in this discrimination prohibition is the employer’s duty to accommodate an employee’s (or applicant’s) protected personal characteristic to the point of undue hardship: to take steps to offset the discriminatory impact of a workplace rule, policy, requirement or practice by adjusting, revising, or eliminating it.
It might go without saying, but it’s worth repeating: this duty to accommodate disability includes the duty to accommodate medically-authorized marijuana used as a treatment for a disability. In this decision, the Arbitrator accepted with little discussion that the Grievor’s disability was both his medical condition and its treatment by use of medical cannabis and the entirety of the dispute was about the employer’s ability to accommodate not the symptoms the Grievor suffered from his diagnosed medical condition, but the effects of the chosen treatment (medically-authorized marijuana) for those symptoms.
2. The duty to accommodate also applies to safety-sensitive positions – but not every position in a safety-sensitive enterprise is safety-sensitive.
Designation of a position or, as in this case, a category of positions, as safety-sensitive does not relieve the employer from the duty to accommodate – but it’s still important because it informs the undue hardship analysis and helps define the medical information the employer reasonably needs for the accommodation process.
Just because an enterprise is in an industry designated as inherently safety sensitive does not mean that every position in that enterprise is a safety sensitive one. As the Arbitrator in this case noted, the designation of workplaces or positions as safety-sensitive serve different purposes. There aren’t many reported decisions available to help employers ascertain whether a position is safety-sensitive. However, those that are available indicate that a safety-sensitive position is one in which the employee has a key and direct role in an operation where performance affected by substance use: could result in a significant incident, near miss, or failure to adequately respond to a significant incident; and detrimentally affect any of the health, safety or security of the employee, other people, property, the environment or the employer’s reputation.
In this case, the Arbitrator didn’t discuss the legal test for a safety-sensitive position in detail but he did conclude that both labourer positions for which the Grievor had applied, and “every labour job function” at the employer’s project sites, is safety-sensitive. The Arbitrator’s conclusion illustrates how an employer can prove a position is safety-sensitive:
Choose the right witness. Evidence from a person in the enterprise who is intimately familiar with the conditions in the work environment and with the daily activities of the position in question is critical. In this case, the Arbitrator seemed to place significant weight on the evidence of the employer’s project safety advisor and supervisor, who was responsible for occupational health and safety law compliance, in deciding all labour functions on the project sites are safety-sensitive.
Present details of the activities of the position and their associated risks to the employee – and to other workers. The chosen witness should be able to detail the tasks the person in the position must carry out and the demands it makes on employees, including the mental, physical and, where relevant, geographic conditions under which the employee in the position must work and the safety risks to which the position exposes the employee – and others. In this case, the evidence of the proximity of not just the Grievor, but also other workers, to the workplace hazards was important: the safety issues associated with the Grievor’s cannabis use weren’t limited to the Grievor; they extended to other workers too.
Use aids to help illustrate the risks. Consider and utilize aids to help the Arbitrator understand the demands and risks of the position. In this case, the Arbitrator expressly referred to photographs showing the range of typical conditions under which the person in the position must work (in this case, the “harsh terrain and the wide variety of weather conditions”). The safety advisor had also calculated and presented to the Arbitrator statistics of site injuries and their causes.
3. Residual cannabis impairment might last for more than 24 hours – and right now, employers can’t measure it.
The Arbitrator accepted without hesitation that THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, which has therapeutic effects but is primarily responsible for cannabis’s psychoactive effects), causes impairment. The big question was just how long this impairment might last and how to accurately measure it – and on these points there is still uncertainty in the medical and scientific communities. The Arbitrator’s conclusions on this point are significant and clear; and while the Arbitrator appears to limit the conclusions to “medically authorized cannabis products”, it would seem they are equally applicable to recreational cannabis use:
Residual impairment from cannabis use can last more than 24 hours. The Arbitrator concluded that regular use of medically authorized marijuana can cause impairment that can last up to 24 hours after consumption. While acknowledging research is ongoing, the Arbitrator based this conclusion on what he characterized as the three “Guidance documents” offering currently available advice to physicians:
There is no impairment testing method readily available for employers. The Arbitrator expressly concluded there are no readily available testing resources in N.L. allowing an employer to “adequately and accurately measure impairment arising from cannabis use on a daily or other regular basis”. Although the Arbitrator did limit this conclusion to resources available in N.L., since two of the three “Guidance documents” he relied upon are national in scope (and the third provincial document referenced back to one of the national ones), arguably the same conclusion should apply elsewhere in Canada – absent evidence to the contrary.
Users’ self-reports of impairment from cannabis are not reliable. The Arbitrator effectively concluded that even if a worker who uses cannabis says they don’t feel high and believes they aren’t impaired, they might in fact still be impaired: a consequence of the cannabis use itself can be lack of awareness about their own functional impairment. Although the Arbitrator didn’t expressly say so, this also implies that “medical reports” or doctor’s notes based on the worker’s self-reports about whether or not they “feel” or “believe” they are impaired are also of questionable reliability.
4. Complete – and specialized – medical information is a must to accommodate medically-authorized marijuana use.
Generally speaking, the employer’s duty to accommodate obligates it to individually assess the work options that might be available to the particular employee in the circumstances. To do so in the case of accommodation of a disability, the employer is entitled to sufficient medical information to determine whether and how the employee can safely work. Generally, to fulfill its duty to accommodate the employer is entitled to know:
If there are reasonable grounds to do so, however, the employer could be entitled to require the employee to produce additional medical information or obtain a second medical opinion to support an accommodation request. And in this case, the employer did just that – more than once.
Safety-sensitive designation helps define the medical information to which the employer is entitled. Employers need not – and should not – accept a brief Medical Authorization for medical marijuana written on a prescription pad: it is entitled to more, especially when dealing with a treatment the effects of which are surrounded by such great uncertainty. In this case, the Arbitrator agreed with the employer that the Grievor’s initial medical report didn’t contain enough information for it to determine whether the Grievor could perform the jobs for which he applied in a safe manner (the BFOR in this case). The initial report confirmed the Grievor was taking medical marijuana, it was evening use only, included the physician’s recommendation of a four-hour driving restriction, and advised of the physician’s lack of concern about his daytime function – but provided no dosage details. The employer was persistent in seeking more medical information about the extent to which medical marijuana use would impact workplace safety.
Specialized training is required to understand work restrictions due to cannabis impairment. The Arbitrator expressly concluded that a full understanding of the interaction between marijuana impairment and appropriate work restrictions in a particular case requires specialized training – and a general practitioner can’t determine the safety issues in a hazardous workplace based only on examining the patient and a basic understanding of their work. The Arbitrator effectively rejected the Grievor’s physician’s evidence that she didn’t “feel” the Grievor’s level of impairment the day after his marijuana use would affect his job performance, and he could work safely on a daily basis in a safety sensitive-position – despite acknowledging the possibility of “some residual impairment” after use – given her limited understanding of the Grievor’s worksite demands and relatively lower understanding of the long-term impacts of inhalation of relatively higher THC-content cannabis.
Expert advice & evidence. The law doesn’t expect employers to be medical experts – particularly where, as here, the employer is dealing with an “emerging” area of concern. In this case, the employer retained an independent medical consultant to advise it on the impact of cannabis use on workplace safety and the medical information it required in the accommodation process. And if the issue goes to a hearing, employers should be prepared to present extensive expert evidence. In this case, it was critical in persuading the Arbitrator of both the impairing effects of cannabis and the inability to measure those effects – and ultimately of undue hardship on the employer.
5. Employers’ inability to measure impairment makes them unable to manage safety risks – and that is undue hardship.
The employer’s duty is to accommodate an employee’s disability to the point of “undue hardship”. To fulfill it, the employer must undertake an individual assessment of the employee, and identify and evaluate the options to accommodate them. Ultimately, the employer must either select and implement an option, or demonstrate the discrimination is justified because it’s based on a “bona fide occupational requirement” (a.k.a. “BFOR”, “bona fide occupational qualification” or “genuine occupational requirement”) and the employer either:
The law thus requires employers to suffer some hardship – just not an “undue” amount. And the bar is high. Several factors are relevant to quantifying the hardship level, including: financial cost relative to the employer’s size; disruption of a collective agreement; problems of morale of other employees; the interchangeability of the workforce; the adaptability of facilities; and the magnitude of any safety risks and the identity of those who bear them.
This case was all about safety risks: if the employer can’t measure cannabis impairment, then it can’t manage the risk of harm arising from it. The Arbitrator accepted that with current technology and resources, an employer can’t accurately measure impairment from cannabis. This inability to measure impairment created a risk of harm the employer couldn’t readily mitigate – and this unacceptable increased safety risk amounted to undue hardship on the employer. It was on this penultimate point that the majority of the N.L. Court of Appeal decided the Arbitrator was in error. The Court decided the Arbitrator didn’t complete the accommodation analysis because he failed to conduct an “individual assessment” of the Grievor: he didn’t determine whether there is “another means of individual assessment of the Grievor’s ability to perform the job safely which would provide an option for accommodation without undue hardship.” On this basis, the Court remitted the case back for a new Arbitration. One Court of Appeal judge dissented, deciding the Arbitrator’s decision was reasonable. Notwithstanding the Court of Appeal’s decision, the original Arbitration decision still offers useful insights for employers managing the accommodation of medical marijuana in the workplace:
Designation of a position(s) as safety-sensitive informs the undue hardship analysis. The designation of a positon as safety-sensitive does not relieve the employer from accommodating the employee – but it does inform the undue hardship analysis. In this case, the Arbitrator decided that since both positions for which the employee applied are safety-sensitive, the BFOR for the purposes of the undue hardship analysis was that a labourer must be able to “perform work in a safe manner”. The Arbitrator confirmed that in the accommodation process, the assumption of “some” safety risk (i.e., hardship) is acceptable – but not an “undue” safety risk. He accepted the evidence of an occupational health and disability management expert that due to lack of available monitoring, the inability to accurately measure the extent of daily impairment is a legitimate concern when employing a person using medically-authorized cannabis in a safety-sensitive position. And since neither the union nor the employer presented any evidence of any available, non-safety-sensitive positions as an accommodation option, it came down to an “all or nothing” scenario: accommodation in the safety-sensitive positions for which the Grievor applied, or no position at all.
Safety first – now. Key to the Arbitrator’s undue hardship analysis were the uncertainty in the medical and scientific communities around cannabis impairment and the Arbitrator’s acceptance that, based on current technology and resources, an employer cannot accurately measure impairment from cannabis. The Arbitrator expressly confirmed “[a]n employer cannot make hiring decisions simply based on information from clinical studies.” Acknowledging the employer’s legal duty under occupational health and safety laws to provide a “safe” workplace, and specifically to prohibit impaired workers, the Arbitrator concluded the employer should not be required to employ them. The decision implicitly accepts that an employer’s obligation under occupational health and safety laws to reduce its risk and create a safe work environment can’t await scientific certainty: employers should take a precautionary approach to maintaining a safe work environment – and must do so based on the best information available at the time.
Alcohol is different than cannabis. As the Arbitrator implicitly acknowledged in this decision, the relationship between alcohol consumption and impairment are better understood, and employers do have reliable methods to measure current impairment due to alcohol. However, it is this inability to test for impairment (including residual impairment) from marijuana that distinguishes the accommodation of marijuana from the accommodation of alcohol. Therefore, an employer could still be required to accommodate an employee with an alcohol-related disability in a safety-sensitive position depending, of course, on the particular situation.
Please contact your McInnes Cooper lawyer or any member of the Labour & Employment Team @ McInnes Cooper to discuss this topic or any other legal issue.
McInnes Cooper has prepared this document for information only; it is not intended to be legal advice. You should consult McInnes Cooper about your unique circumstances before acting on this information. McInnes Cooper excludes all liability for anything contained in this document and any use you make of it.
© McInnes Cooper, 2018. All rights reserved. McInnes Cooper owns the copyright in this document. You may reproduce and distribute this document in its entirety as long as you do not alter the form or the content and you give McInnes Cooper credit for it. You must obtain McInnes Cooper’s consent for any other form of reproduction or distribution. Email us at [email protected] to request our consent.
Oct 13, 2023
On September 12, 2023, the New Brunswick Court of Kings Bench sentenced a front-line supervisor who “did nothing he was required to do” to…
Sep 20, 2023
You’ve experienced a workplace accident that’s resulted in serious injury to, or worse the death of, an employee. Do you need legal counsel…
Jun 23, 2023
Effective June 23, 2023, Section 45(1.1) of the Competition Act makes it a criminal offence for all unaffiliated employers to enter into…
Jun 22, 2023
Employers understand the risk that departing employees will take sensitive information, compete for customers and solicit other employees.…
May 18, 2023
Employees used to gather around the water cooler to share views on controversial issues, discuss co-workers and complain about their employer.…
May 1, 2023
While the December 2021 Bill C-223, An Act to Develop a National Framework for a Guaranteed Livable Basic Income seems to have died in both…
Apr 27, 2023
The benefits to employees, and often to employers, of remote work has made it a staple of today’s workplace. But the move to remote work…
Apr 3, 2023
On February 15, 2023, an adjudicator ordered an employer to pay what could be the “largest employment compensation” ever awarded in New…
Mar 29, 2023
Immigration continues to play a key role in addressing Canada’s labour and skills shortage. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada…
Mar 27, 2023
On March 21, 2023, the Nova Scotia Minister of Health and Wellness introduced Bill 256, Patient Access to Care Act. If passed, Bill 256 will…
Mar 23, 2023
On February 15, 2023, a New Brunswick adjudicator awarded Dr. John Dornan, the suddenly dismissed CEO of N.B. Health Authority, what might be…
Feb 27, 2023
2022 left important lasting implications for employers. With 2023 here, it’s time to look ahead to key issues that will affect employers in…
Feb 23, 2023
Many Canadian employers continue to be challenged not only with hiring the right number of people, but with finding candidates with the right…
Jan 16, 2023
2022 is in the rearview mirror, but the past year left lasting implications for employers. Here’s a retrospective on five of the key 2022…
Dec 1, 2022
The COVID-19 pandemic drove remote work to unprecedented heights. Employee calls for greater flexibility, and cost savings for employers, have…
Sep 15, 2022
When Prime Minister Trudeau announced that September 19, 2022 would be a National Day of Mourning for Queen Elizabeth II, the Atlantic provinces…
Jun 23, 2022
The current labour crunch is only strengthening the business case for building a workplace that’s welcoming to diverse employee pools –…
Jun 8, 2022
We updated this publication on July 28, 2023. Effective June 1, 2022, Bill 119 amended the P.E.I. Employment Standards Act to add new pay…
May 27, 2022
The COVID-19 pandemic is (arguably) gone but the pre-pandemic labour crunch - for both white and blue collar workers - is back. And there’s no…
Apr 28, 2022
The COVID-19 pandemic changed many aspects of the workplace for good – but pre-pandemic labour shortages isn’t one of them. While the…
Apr 1, 2022
While the Canada emergency response benefit (CERB) has ended, the focus on the concept of a universal or guaranteed basic income the COVID-19…
Mar 24, 2022
COVID-19 public health restrictions are coming to an end, even though the COVID-19 virus is not. Employers face reconstructing their workplace…
Mar 16, 2022
In February 2022, thousands of people led by a convoy of trucks (many displaying company logos) from across Canada congregated in Ottawa and…
Feb 24, 2022
As the Omicron wave wanes, and COVID-19 moves from pandemic to endemic, provincial governments have quickly pivoted to loosening – some even…
Feb 8, 2022
We updated this publication on December 15, 2022. On May 17, 2022, the P.E.I. Non-disclosure Agreements Act took effect, significantly…
Jan 27, 2022
Since COVID-19 vaccinations rolled out, employers have grappled with workplace COVID-19 vaccination policies, with little guidance from courts…
Dec 14, 2021
This publication has been updated as at January 26, 2022. Since COVID-19 vaccinations rolled out, employers have been grappling with how to…
Nov 25, 2021
As COVID-19 continues, many workplaces have morphed from remote work arrangements into hybrid arrangements for many employees. By necessity,…
Oct 28, 2021
COVID-19 forced many employers to make temporary, and even permanent, changes to the terms of employees’ employment, from scheduling and…
Oct 27, 2021
On October 22, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada, in Northern Regional Health Authority v. Horrocks, clarified that labour arbitrators have…
Sep 21, 2021
We updated this publication on December 14, 2022. COVID-19 has been changing Canadian workplaces for 18 months. For some employees, the…
Jul 21, 2021
Many now agree: it’s imperative that workplaces be both diverse and inclusive. Perhaps the most often-quoted (and definitely most succinct)…
Jun 15, 2021
As of January 1, 2021, federally regulated employers (such as banks, telephone and cable systems, most federal Crown corporations,…
Jun 10, 2021
This publication has been updated as at August 27, 2021. With the COVID-19 vaccine widely available, and the COVID pandemic continuing,…
Mar 31, 2021
Close to five million Canadians who didn’t usually work from home, did so in 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Even as public health…
Mar 15, 2021
The COVID-19 Pandemic has focused more attention on the concept of a universal or guaranteed basic income that at any other time in modern…
Feb 16, 2021
This publication has been updated as at September 17, 2021. Employers across the country – including the federal government, some…
Jan 21, 2021
Well-drafted, properly implemented written employment contracts are a key tool to avoiding or resolving disputes during and at the end of…
Jan 20, 2021
Termination clauses, particularly “without cause” ones, are among the most important clauses to include in any employment agreement. But the…
Nov 3, 2020
This publication has been updated as at July 9, 2021. For some time, every Prince Edward Island employer has been required to comply with…
Oct 19, 2020
On October 9, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada delivered its decision in Matthews v. Ocean Nutrition Canada Ltd. on whether a former employee…
Aug 12, 2020
This publication has been updated as of May 5, 2021. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has led many employees to continue working from home, by…
Jul 6, 2020
On June 26, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada released Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller, a much-awaited decision regarding the enforceability of…
May 14, 2020
This publication has been updated as of April 23, 2021. Employers that hire and employ temporary foreign workers must comply with many and…
Apr 30, 2020
While the world is still reeling from ongoing COVID-19 concerns, many provinces have announced plans to relax public health restrictions put in…
Apr 15, 2020
The COVID-19 pandemic is disrupting more than Canada’s domestic workforce. It’s also disrupting Canadian employers’ access to temporary…
Mar 27, 2020
The COVID-19 novel coronavirus has evolved rapidly, and so have the workplace issues employers are facing – and the questions employers were…
Mar 12, 2020
The havoc that COVID-19 (a.k.a. “novel coronavirus” or SARS-CoV-2) is wreaking around the globe – and around workplaces – is about to…
Jan 22, 2020
All issuers must comply with both periodic and ongoing securities law corporate governance (and other) disclosure requirements. This can,…
Oct 10, 2019
“Do the unexpected. Take 20 minutes out of your day, do what young people all over the world are dying to do: vote.” Rick Mercer (hailing…
Sep 6, 2019
This publication has been updated as at July 9, 2021. Violence and harassment is an unfortunate reality of society – and of the workplace.…
Jun 26, 2019
Information disclosure is a key theme that emerges from Canada’s new cannabis regulatory regime: the government wants lots of information from…
Jun 5, 2019
Like it or not, Canadians live life online. More people - and more employees - are sharing more information, images and opinions with more…
Apr 8, 2019
Growing a business takes people. In early days, many startups have just one “employee”: the founder. At some point, the founder might retain…
Feb 27, 2019
We updated this publication on July 9, 2021. As of April 1, 2019, employers of New Brunswick employees must comply with new occupational…
Feb 22, 2019
As of April 1, 2019, employers of New Brunswick employees must comply with new occupational health and safety law requirements specific to…
Dec 19, 2018
On December 13, 2018, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that a third party can’t waive a person’s right to privacy or their rights under…
Dec 18, 2018
On December 18, 2018, the maximum sentence possible for impaired driving (among other things) will increase as the result of amendments to…
Dec 13, 2018
This publication has been updated as of October 15, 2020. Canada became only the second country in the world to legalize cannabis (or…
Nov 16, 2018
Companies engaged in the cannabis supply chain are highly regulated by federal and provincial cannabis-specific laws as well as a myriad of…
Sep 28, 2018
Immigration is one of the key solutions to looming (and current) worker shortages in Canada. But an employer that hires a foreign worker must…
Sep 4, 2018
Immigration is one of the key solutions to the looming (or in some cases, current) worker shortage in Canada. In her article, The Top 5…
Jul 16, 2018
Every parent knows that a lot can happen in 18 months. Many employers agree. The federal government’s extension of employment insurance…
Jun 27, 2018
The legalization of recreational cannabis in Canada is imminent. Employers are feeling the heat to prepare – even as they continue efforts to…
May 11, 2018
This article has been updated as of January 19, 2022. It can be challenging for employers to fulfill their legal duty to accommodate an…
Apr 26, 2018
The N.S. Court of Appeal has reached two decisions ending one employee’s quest for coverage of the costs of his medical marijuana – at least…
Apr 2, 2018
Workplace sexual harassment isn’t a new issue, nor is it limited to any one industry or country – but it's one that far more women than men…
Apr 2, 2018
Equity compensation plans are a valuable and versatile tool for many corporations, from early-stage startups to established blue-chips.…
Mar 29, 2018
We updated this publication on March 11, 2020. The #metoo and #timesup movements drove workplace sexual harassment to the front and center of…
Feb 2, 2018
Many employers use written workplace policies as a day-to-day workplace management tool; common examples include attendance management policies,…
Jan 25, 2018
Insurers have generally been leery of coverage for medical cannabis in both the health benefit claims and in cost of care claims in the personal…
Dec 18, 2017
The answer to the question, “What’s employers’ rationale for implementing workplace drug and alcohol testing?” is pretty…
Dec 8, 2017
We updated this publication on November 23, 2023. For many people, the holiday season now upon us is a fun-filled time of the year. But for…
Oct 31, 2017
Intellectual Property (IP) can be a valuable asset – even the most valuable asset – of a business. So it’s worth making sure the business…
Sep 22, 2017
Canada’s most important trading relationship is – in all likelihood – about to change: the current U.S. administration has put the future…
Sep 21, 2017
This publication has been updated as at January 13, 2022. An increasing number of employees are struggling to meet the challenge of the…
Aug 11, 2017
After years of low interest rates, and correspondingly high solvency liabilities, there’s growing recognition that the solvency funding model…
Jul 28, 2017
This publication has been updated as of October 14, 2020. On June 19, 2017, Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the…
Jul 28, 2017
We udpated this publication on June 10, 2022. The rapid rise in ESG (Environment, Social and Governance) principles has increased focus on…
Jul 13, 2017
More employees are seeking flexible work arrangements as a new way of working to better juggle their family and personal responsibilities. In…
Jul 10, 2017
The legal landscape of cannabis (a.k.a. marihuana, weed, pot …) is changing, both reflecting - and contributing to - more relaxed attitudes…
May 19, 2017
Investigations are a vital - but difficult - part of workplace management. The value of a proper investigation can’t be overstated: it plays a…
May 16, 2017
Recreational cannabis isn’t legal yet: Canada’s federal government has proposed legislation to legalize and regulate access to recreational…
Apr 20, 2017
On April 13, 2017, Canada’s federal government introduced legislation that, if passed into law, will legalize recreational cannabis in Canada.…
Apr 17, 2017
Recreational cannabis isn’t legal yet - but much of the associated stigma is already gone, usage is up and employers are feeling the workplace…
Feb 22, 2017
On January 1, 2022, the Atlantic Immigration Pilot Program became the permanent Atlantic Immigration Program (AIP). Learn more at From Pilot to…
Jan 31, 2017
We updated this publication on April 5, 2023. The hiring process and the termination process are equally important stages of the employment…
Dec 13, 2016
Employers’ legal duty to accommodate employees seems to most frequently come up in the context of employees with disabilities. But that duty…
Nov 22, 2016
Canada’s most important trading relationship might undergo some change with the results of the 2016 U.S. election. Facilitating cross-border…
Nov 15, 2016
The employment contract is an exchange of labour for wages and other benefits, so employers are entitled to expect regular ongoing attendance…
Oct 19, 2016
Business owners wear many hats – including employer. Your employees may be your business’s greatest asset, but they could also be your…
Sep 29, 2016
Whether someone is an employee or an independent contractor has long caused employers a degree of angst. And the recent emergence of a new…
Jul 15, 2016
On July 14, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that the “Unjust Dismissal” sections of the Canada Labour Code ensure that…
Jun 30, 2016
As of June 25, 2016, provincially regulated workers and employers in Nova Scotia, Quebec, BC and Saskatchewan can participate in Pooled…
Jun 29, 2016
Employers are entitled to mandate dress codes in the workplace, and even to discipline employees who refuse to comply. But a workplace dress…
May 2, 2016
We updated this publication on October 4, 2023. Workplace accidents regularly lead to charges under occupational health and safety (OHS) law.…
Mar 9, 2016
On January 11, 2016, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice sentenced a front-line supervisor to imprisonment for 3½ years for four counts of…
Feb 23, 2016
Employee tardiness is a significant problem for employers - and bad weather is one of the top three reasons that employees give for it according…
Feb 1, 2016
We updated this publication on April 13, 2023. A well drafted and properly implemented written employment contract can be instrumental to…
Dec 7, 2015
Violence has become an unfortunate reality in current society, and the workplace is not immune. With more people spending more time at work,…
Aug 13, 2015
The employment contract, at its core, is an exchange of work for compensation. So at a very basic level, employers are entitled to expect…
Jun 25, 2015
We updated this publication on October 4, 2023. Most people know a company itself has occupational health and safety (OHS) obligations and…
Mar 31, 2015
This publication has been updated as at June 24, 2021. Women make up close to half of the employed workforce: in 2019, Canadian women 15…
Feb 13, 2015
This publication has been updated as at January 26, 2022. With people spending so many of their waking hours at or connected to work these…
Feb 2, 2015
On January 30, 2015 the Supreme Court of Canada decided that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom’s protection for freedom of…
Jan 30, 2015
In December 2014, the NL Supreme Court ordered an employer to pay its former employee $30,000 in moral damages to compensate him for the mental…
Dec 11, 2014
On December 11, 2014 the Supreme Court of Canada continued its trend to recognize privacy rights – and develop the law to protect them –…
Dec 5, 2014
We udpated this publication on December 11, 2020. Employers host numerous events throughout the year – summer and holiday office parties,…
Nov 27, 2014
Recently, the NS Court of Appeal confirmed that a union can be certified as the bargaining agent of employees based merely on their dependence…
Sep 30, 2014
Effective September 1, 2014 the NB government implemented five important changes to the NB Employment Standards Act – the minimum standards…
Jul 9, 2014
On June 20, 2014 the Federal Government announced a major overhaul of Canada’s Temporary Foreign Worker Program. With stringent enforcement…
Apr 3, 2014
On March 28, 2014 the Federal Government tabled Bill C-31 to implement the 2014 Federal Budget – including broad authority to impose cash…
Jan 21, 2014
On December 31, 2013, amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations and new Ministerial Instructions changing the Federal…
Nov 8, 2013
On November 7, 2013, the SCC decided police require specific authorization in a search warrant to search the data in a computer because of the…
Jul 2, 2013
On June 14, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 30 v. Irving Pulp…
Apr 30, 2013
Note: Effective December 31, 2013, the Federal Government made additional changes to the Federal Temporary Foreign Worker Program. Click here to…
Jan 8, 2013
On November 19, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) unanimously ruled a B.C. public school system’s failure to provide adequate and…
Nov 28, 2012
On October 19, 2012 the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) decided that a teacher criminally charged with possession of child pornography and…
Oct 22, 2012
Mr. Cole was a high school teacher with an employer owned and issued laptop computer. He also used it for incidental personal purposes, which…
Jul 10, 2012
On March 16, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) confirmed the decision of the N.S. Court of Appeal, reinstating the N.S. Human Rights…
Jun 14, 2012
As any Canadian knows, July 1st – Canada Day – is the first long weekend of the summer; or is it? This year, July 1st falls on a Sunday. …
Mar 1, 2012
Social media represents a profound cultural shift and employers must adapt if they want to avoid unnecessarily – and potentially costly –…
Jan 5, 2012
Effective January 1, 2012, NS’s Human Rights Commission will receive, investigate and handle complaints under NS’s Human Rights Act under a…
Dec 19, 2011
In a decision with application to Atlantic Canada, the Ontario Court of Appeal found that an employer’s multiple extensions of a terminated…
Aug 6, 2011
Note: On June 14, 2013 the Supreme Court of Canada issued its decision in Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 30 v.…
May 6, 2011
In March 2011, the Ontario Court of Appeal found that an employee had a limited expectation of privacy in the contents of a work computer. The…
Mar 6, 2011
In the midst of a sea of change, the Federal Government has enacted Regulatory changes significantly impacting employers who hire foreign…
Subscribe to McInnes Cooper to stay current with our leading insights on legal updates, trends, news, events, and services.