FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 6, 2023

Surrey, BC, January 6, 2023 – KSW Lawyers, a leading law firm in the Fraser Valley and lower mainland, is pleased to announce Andrew Zacharias has joined the Partnership of KSW Lawyers.

“With the continuous growth of the firm in its people and practice areas, I’m proud to solidify my connection to the firm,” says Andrew Zacharias.

Andrew has been with the firm since 2014 and has practiced law since 2009. As one of our senior lawyers in the Abbotsford office, Andrew is a strong litigator with a broad range of experience and successful outcomes both in trial and outside of court. As part of the litigation group at KSW Lawyers, he not only works diligently fighting alongside his clients but also mentors many of the summer and articling students that article at our firm. Having grown up in Chilliwack, Andrew enjoys not only practicing law in his community but also being a part of its societies and associations. Andrew was previously president of the Chilliwack Bar Association, was a member of the Chilliwack Fraser Rotary Club, was on the Board of Directors of the Chilliwack Hospice Society and is currently a member of the Fraser Valley Estate Planning Council.

As someone who enjoys mentoring students, it is no surprise that Andrew also enjoys coaching local high school football and community hockey teams in his spare time.

“We are excited for this new chapter and look forward to the new opportunities this addition to the partnership brings,” said Chris Drinovz, partner at KSW Lawyers. “We have enjoyed working with Andy over the years and are excited to bring his knowledge and skill to the partnership table. On behalf of the firm, congratulations, Andrew.”

KSW Lawyers was founded in 1973 and primarily serves clients in Surrey and the surrounding areas in matters of business law and real estate transactions. Since that time, however, our firm has grown in size and scope to be in a position to represent individual and corporate clients across a wide variety of practice areas. Today, we maintain office locations in Surrey, South Surrey/White Rock, Abbotsford, Langley and Vancouver, and our lawyers serve clients throughout the Fraser Valley and the Lower Mainland.

For more information contact:
‍

KSW Lawyers
Email:       [email protected]
Phone:     (604) 591-7321
Website:  kswlawyers.ca

‍

The recent decision of LaFleche v. NLFD Auto dba Prince George Ford (No. 2),  2022 BCHRT 88, highlights the careful approach that employers should take when employees are returning to work after a leave of absence.

‍

In this case, the BC Human Rights Tribunal found that Ford (the employer) removed Ms. LaFleche (the employee) from her marketing manager position and constructively dismissed her from her employment. In so doing, the Employer (Ford) discriminated against Ms. LaFleche based on sex and family status contrary to s. 13 of the Human Rights Code.

‍

As a result of the discrimination, the Tribunal awarded the employee $12,000 for injury to her dignity, feelings and self-respect as well as $66,625 for lost wages she would have received had she returned to work in July 2019 as planned, and for lost benefits.

‍

The first paragraph of the decision sets the tone for this case:

[1]               For over 30 years the law in Canada is clear: a pregnancy should not lead to work-related disadvantages: Brooks v. Canada Safeway Ltd., 1989 CanLII 96 (SCC), [1989] 1 SCR 1219. Discrimination based on pregnancy undermines substantive equality along gendered lines. In this case, Mellissa LaFleche suffered a work-related disadvantage because she was pregnant. (…)

‍

Facts

The employee began her employment with the respondent in 2015. She occupied the position of “marketing manager” by December 2016. In May 2018, she went on maternity leave. The respondent hired a replacement employee to cover for the complainant during her leave.

On February 8, 2019, the employee met with the respondent’s new general manager regarding her return to work following her maternity leave. During the meeting, the parties agreed that the employee would return to work on July 2, 2019.

‍

The general manager gave evidence that he understood the meeting would be a "meet and greet" with perhaps some initial discussion about the employee’s return to work. Accordingly, he did not prepare for the meeting or have a finalized plan for her return. During the meeting, the general manager advised that the employee’s replacement would take on at least some of the marketing manager duties after the positive changes to the employer's marketing strategy since the complainant went on leave. The employee’s role on her return to work was undefined.

‍

The general manager told the employee that they would get back to her by the end of the next month to discuss her return to work position and duties, but no one reached out to her. The employee also did not reach out to her employer – in fact, she filed a human rights complaint just a few days after the meeting, although the employer did not learn of this until some months later.

‍

The employee took the employer's lack of follow-up as confirmation that her employment was being terminated, and she did not return to work as scheduled. Approximately six weeks after her return-to-work date, the employer wrote to the employee advising that it considered her to have abandoned her employment.

‍

Decision and Analysis

The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal found that the employer removed the employee from her marketing manager position at the February 8, 2019 meeting, when the employer told the her that it was happy with the replacement’s performance.

‍

The Tribunal noted the employer’s failure to communicate with the employee about the changes it was making and what would happen upon her return to the workplace.  It emphasized that while an employee is on leave, the employer is obliged to consult with the employee about significant changes that will be made to their position, as the employee would participate in such a discussion if they were not on leave.

‍

Did the employer’s conduct adversely affect the employee, including whether it constructively dismissed her?

The Tribunal found that the employer’s acts and omissions adversely affected the employee in her employment, and that the employer constructively dismissed her.

Adverse Impact

The Tribunal found the adverse impact was the employer’s removal of the complainant from her managerial position to an unknown position.  The Tribunal accepted that the employee felt humiliated; grieved the position’s loss; felt distressed and nervous about money; and lost sleep, her appetite, a sense of security, and the ability to enjoy her maternity leave.

‍

The Tribunal rejected the employer’s argument that the employee “abandoned” her job, noting that the employer said it would get back to the employee by the end of March with possible return to work “scenarios” but did not do so.

Constructive Dismissal

Noting that “a constructive dismissal occurs where an employer has not formally terminated an employee’s employment, but the employer’s conduct is treated as a dismissal or termination at law,” the Tribunal concluded that its findings that the employer unilaterally determined the employee would not return to her role as marketing manager, and that the employee reasonably understood the employer was significantly altering her job duties, amounted to a dismissal from employment.

Were the employee’s sex and/or family status factors in any adverse impact?

The Tribunal found that the employee’s maternity leave was a factor in her removal from her role and in the constructive dismissal; had she not taken it, she would have continued in her role as marketing manager.  The Tribunal concluded, therefore, that the employer discriminated against the employee on the basis of sex and family status.

‍

Award Against Employer

The Tribunal awarded the employee $12,000 for injury to dignity and $66,625 in lost wages and benefits, rejecting the employer's arguments that she only lost wages because she chose not to follow up regarding her return to work, did not return to work as scheduled after her maternity leave, and did not apply for many, or appropriate, jobs (mitigation).

‍

The Tribunal also awarded loss of EI benefits for the employee’s subsequent post-termination pregnancy, reasoning that, through the loss of her job, she did not attain the number of insurable hours that she needed to qualify for maternity and parental leave benefits for her second child.

‍

The Tribunal did not, however, award continuing wage loss for the period when the employee decided to change careers to become a doula, and returned to school. (The Tribunal found the decision to become a doula was a complete career change, the financial consequences of which should not be the responsibility of the employer.)

‍

Finally, the Tribunal ordered the employer to pay a tax gross up for the increased tax liability Ms. LaFleche was expected to experience from the additional income she would have to report for the 2022 tax year due to the lost wages she was awarded.

‍

Takeaways

• Employers should carefully navigate discussions with employees who are on leave. Managers/HR professionals should prepare for these meetings and ensure they have notes and a record of the meetings and discussion. In this case, a meeting which the manager had understood as a "meet and greet", and which he did not prepare for, nonetheless included a discussion of the employee's role upon her return to work which left her with the impression that she would not be returning her to her previous position.

‍

• In general, absent bona fide business reasons that are completely unrelated to the employee going on leave, employers must return the employee to the same position they held before going on leave, or the employer must reach agreement with the employee regarding any material changes to their job or their compensation.

‍

• Employers should communicate clearly and consistently with employees, and to prepare for questions that may arise in the return to work context. We recommend these discussions happen before the end of a leave.

‍

• The mere fact a replacement employee is preferred does not override the absentee employee’s human rights.

‍

• If an employer is considering making any change to the role or employment terms of an employee who is on leave, we encourage them to seek the advice of experienced employment lawyers.

‍

• Employers should consider their current policies and ensure they have maternity (and other leaves) policies in place with appropriate management training.

‍

If you have any questions or need assistance revising your employment contracts or policies, please submit a Contact form.

With the many recent significant changes to the workers compensation system, understanding an employer’s obligations under the BC Workers Compensation Act (“WCA”) has never been more important. Bill 41- 2022: Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No. 2), 2022 (“Bill 41”) received Royal Assent on November 24, 2022, and contains further amendments to the WCA that increase employers' obligations to injured workers and have significant impact on both employers and employees. Some of these amendments are coming into effect in the spring of 2023 (see Schedule at the end of this article).

‍

In our previous article Bill 41 (2022): Significant Changes to the BC Workers Compensation Act, we cover the changes in detail, offer some background on these amendments, as well as their schedule. In this article, we will answer the top questions we received from employers regarding the amendments and BC Workers Compensation Act, and share with you our webinar recording and presentation slides.

‍

Webinar Materials: Amendments to the Workers Compensation Act Presentation

‍

On December 13, 2022, Chris Drinovz and Alejandra (Ale) Henao presented a webinar for the Manufacturing Safety Alliance of BC on these changes.

‍

Access the Presentation PowerPoint Slides here.

‍

Our full presentation recording is available below.

‍

EMPLOYER Q&A

Question: When will the indexing benefits go into effect?

This has already come into effect. The WorkSafeBC Cost of Living allowance will be indexed based on the full Consumer Price Index is effective November 24, 2022.

‍

Question: Is this significantly different from the model created (and now discontinued) for COR Return to Work (less the auditing part)?

I think the COR Return to Work model was more extensive and comprehensive than the two new statutory duties (duty to cooperate and duty to maintain employment) as it concerned the development and maintenance of a complete return to work program. However, the COR model did not contain the duty to accommodate nor was there any risk of being fined for noncompliance.

‍

Question: Regarding duty to maintain employment, what if the employee is terminated, for cause, while on WSBC claim? Does this prevent the employer from taking a labour relations action?

This is a great question. The six month timeline where you cannot terminate only begins to run after the employee returns to work, so if the employee is terminated for cause while still on claim and prior to returning, there is an argument that the section is not triggered. However, it may be interpreted that you must maintain employment during the period of time the worker is off as well. Also, there may be other exposures including a prohibited action claim or human rights claim.  If you are planning to terminate for cause, you need to be sure that the decision is not tainted in any way by prohibited grounds or the fact that the worker raised health and safety issues.

‍

Question: Do these administrative fines re duty to accommodate apply to Federally regulated employers?

At this time, it appears so. The penalty section falls within the compensation section (rather than the OHS section) and so it likely applies to federally regulated employers. The legislation allows for certain industries to be exempted by regulation, but we do not have any details yet.

‍

Question: What if an employee doesn’t complete rehab, leaves the country (without letting employer or Worksafe know) and was expected back at work on December 1st but doesn’t have a return flight scheduled? Can that be considered quitting?

WorkSafeBC has the discretion to discontinue paying a worker when they disengage in return-to-work efforts/Vocational Rehabilitation for non-compensable reasons.  Accordingly, WorkSafeBC can discontinue paying a worker when they leave the country.  Work abandonment is engaged when there is clear and unequivocal intention from an employee to not return to work.  Employers are recommended to inquire about the worker’s personal or medical leave status before claim job abandonment.

‍

Section 154.2 Duty to Cooperate imposes a reciprocal duty to cooperate between the worker and the employer.  Employers can contact the Board to advise that an employee is failing to cooperate by not engaging in suitable work.  The Board has 60 days to decide whether the worker failed to cooperate from the date the complaint is made (Section 154 (5)).  If the Board agrees with the employer, the Board has jurisdiction to reduce or suspend the worker’s payment until the worker cooperates (Section 154 (6)).

‍

Question: The 6-month rule, is that a combination of time, or a 6-month run? And are these 6 months after the injury or after the worker returns to work?

Great question. The language of s. 154.3(8) says “within 6 months after the worker begins to carry out suitable work or begins to carry out the essential duties…” so I would say it begins to run after the worker returns to work and the period of time runs for 6 months consecutively rather than a combination.

‍

Question: Are there special implications for young workers? It's my understanding that those now coming into a manufacturing setting must be 18 years old.

Bill 41 does not deal with young workers. The Occupational Health and Safety Regulation defines a young worker as any worker under age 25. Section 3.23 Young or New Worker Orientation and Training outlines the young worker’s rights and employer’s responsibilities, including health and safety specific orientation and training for all fields: OHS Part 03 Rights and Responsibilities s 3.23.

‍

Question: Would it be considered suppression of claims if it takes a significant amount of time for a worker to see a doctor, and the employer pays normal wages for that time?

As long as there is no intent to dissuade the worker from making a compensation claim, I don’t see that as claim suppression. If the injury was work related there is of course the obligation for the employer to report the injury to WorkSafeBC.

‍

Question: Will the provisions of "reasonable expectation" as found in RSCM Vol 2, Policy Item 74.00  Reduction or Suspension of Compensation remain in effect?

Which basically requires WSBC to ask the worker why they are not co-operating prior to rendering a decision – so usually leads to delay in decision making?

Policy Item 74.00 Reduction or Suspension of Compensation remain in effect.  If a worker fails to attend an examination or obstructs the medical examiner the worker’s right to compensation can be suspended until the examination takes place.  The Board can also reduce or suspend compensation if the worker engages in unsanitary or injurious practices that delay recovery.  Or when a worker refuses to engage in treatment reasonably essential to promote recovery.

‍

Question: Is there any way to clarify the reporting process of a suspected injury to employers? Right now, there is no real suitable time period. (No report from employee for months after a possible injury)

Section 149(2) of the Workers Compensation Act obligates the worker to report a workplace injury to the employer “as soon as practicable after the occurrence”. While there is no actual timeline given, this would generally mean immediately, within a few days or weeks. The employer in turn has an obligation to report the injury to the Board within 3 days of being informed.

‍

Question: If an employee is in an accommodated position, that is not working out due to their ability, are we required to accommodate into a different position?

Interesting question. To be safe I would say that the duty to accommodate lasts for at least six months after the worker returns to work. So if it is not working out in one position, there would be an obligation to offer another position, assuming that alternative suitable work is available within the employee’s skills set and your operations.

‍

Question: In a social services workplace, where say someone has a limitation on working with a client with aggression... how would one handle that RTW piece if we cannot guarantee that no aggression would come up in any role, they would be suitable for?

In that situation you would have to carefully consider if you could modify the position to accommodate the worker. For example, can you screen the clients or put some protective measures in place to ensure that the worker doesn’t have to deal with an aggressive client? Can you modify the position so that the worker does not deal directly with clients? If those options are not possible without creating an undue hardship, then you may tell WorkSafeBC that there is no suitable work available given the nature of the limitations.

‍

Question: Is there any documentation yet written for seasonal worker cases? 6-months for a 3-month annual work-season could have 2 possible interpretations (at least).

The duty to maintain employment will apply to full-time and part-time employees who have been employed for a continuous period of 12 months pre-injury. This raises the interesting question of whether a seasonal worker who only works 3 months of the year is continuously employed or not. If the worker is formally laid off at the end of each season and works elsewhere, it could be argued that their employment is not continuous and starts anew each season. If that is the case, then the duty would not apply to this worker, as they would not meet the continuous 12 months.

‍

Question: If a worker injures themselves at home and the employer is concerned that the worker may intensify that injury if they return to work too early, is the employer justified in discouraging an early return?

Any return to work will have to be in conjunction with the recommendations of the worker’s medical team and WorkSafeBC’s assessment. If the evidence indicates that the worker is at risk for reinjury by returning early, then the employer would be justified in discouraging an early return. However, if there is no evidence for the employer’s position (i.e. the workers doctor and/or WorkSafeBC say that the worker is cleared to work) then taking this position could be problematic and lead to a non-compliance.

‍

Question: How does one handle a situation where suitable Modified Duties are extended to an injured worker, but they choose to ignore them and stay at home?

If WorkSafeBC finds that the modified job offer is suitable and reasonably available to the injured worker, failure to accept the job may result in an end to their Vocational Rehabilitation benefits.  Now, there will also a reciprocal duty to cooperate between the worker and the employer (Section 154.2 Duty to Cooperate). Employers can contact the Board to advise that an employee is failing to cooperate. The Board has 60 days to decide whether the worker failed to cooperate from the date the complaint is made (Section 154 (5)).  If the Board agrees with the employer, the Board has the power to reduce or suspend the worker’s payment until the worker cooperates (Section 154 (6)).

‍

Schedule

Please see the "Commencement" table at the end of the Bill for information as to when the various parts of the legislation will take effect – details below:

‍

‍

Our experienced Employment & Disability Group is ready to assist you. Get in touch today.

With the many recent significant changes to the workers compensation system, understanding an employer’s obligations under the BC Workers Compensation Act (“WCA”) has never been more important. Bill 41- 2022: Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No. 2), 2022 (“Bill 41”) received Royal Assent on November 24, 2022, and contains further amendments to the WCA that increase employers' obligations to injured workers and have significant impact on both employers and employees.

‍

Once you've reviewed this article, we recommend visiting our follow up resources below:

• Employer FAQs: Bill 41 Changes to the Workers Compensation Act - from our presentation for the Manufacturing Safety Alliance of BC
• Bill 41 - Amendments to the Workers Compensation Act - Surrey Board of Trade Presentation - view/share the recording or review our presentation slides
• WorkSafeBC's presentation slides from October 21, 2023 presentation, covering the New Duty to Cooperate and Duty to Accommodate
• WorkSafeBC's Discussion Paper and Guidance on Return to Work Obligations: Duty to Cooperate and Duty to Maintain Employment

‍

Background on WCA Amendments

By way of background, since 2018, the BC Ministry of Labour has commissioned 5 lengthy and comprehensive reports reviewing various aspects of the compensation system. The reports can be found here. In summer of 2020, the Government started implementing some of these recommendations through amendments to the Workers Compensation Act. The amendments included increased worker benefits, Covid-19 related amendments, as well as new tools added for criminal prosecutions for serious health and safety violations.

‍

Most of the amendments introduced with Bill 41 originate from the Workers Compensation System Review by Janet Patterson, report released in October, 2019. The Report is a mega-report which totals no less than 517 pages, and contains 102 Recommendations. It expanded on the “worker centered approach” that was mandated in the Petrie Report. Ms. Patterson is a former labour lawyer with a strong connection to the BC Federation of Labour.

‍

In our view, the most significant aspect of Bill 41 is the introduction of two new statutory duties – the Duty to Cooperate and the Duty to Maintain Employment.

‍

These duties will require both employers and workers to become much more active participants in claims.

‍

Importantly, both duties are triggered when a worker:

‍

1. suffers an injury that arose out of and in the course of employment; and  
2. is disabled from earning full wages as a result.

‍

There needs to be an accepted WorkSafeBC claim and the worker has to be disabled from their pre-injury job in some way for these duties to be triggered.  

‍

Another important point is that these duties apply to union and non-union settings. Section 154.4 of the Act says that if there is a conflict between these duties and the collective agreement, the WCB duties will take precedence if they are more generous to the worker.

‍

Important note: at this time, these sections are not in force yet - they are going to come into force by regulation at some time in the future, so they do not yet apply to any current WorkSafeBC claims (as of December, 2022).  

‍

More details about these duties below.

‍

Duty to Cooperate

Section 154.2 creates a duty for both employer and worker to co-operate and work together with each other and with the Workers’ Compensation Board (the "Board") to facilitate the injured worker’s return to suitable work as soon as possible.  

‍

The reciprocal duty to cooperate between the employer and the worker includes the following components:

‍

1. Contacting each other as soon as practicable after the injury and maintaining communication;
2. Identifying suitable work for the worker that, if possible, restores the full wages the worker was earning pre-injury; and
3. Providing the Board with information the Board requires in relation to the worker’s return to, or continuation of work.

‍

The first component is essentially a duty to communicate, and it is reciprocal, so the injured worker also has an obligation to contact and communicate with the employer about coming back to work.  The section says if they don’t, then their benefits can be reduced or suspended until they do. The duty to communicate does not apply if, having regard to all of the circumstances, contact and communication between the employer and the worker are likely to imperil or delay the worker's recovery.

‍

The second and third components introduce a formal obligation to identify suitable work with the goal of restoring the workers full earnings. This duty is just about providing the information, and only deals with identifying the work and giving the Board this information and whatever information the Board might require.  It does not deal with actually offering that work to the employee, that comes in the next section.

‍

Dispute Resolution

If either the employer or the worker believes the other is not cooperating in the process, they can lodge a complaint to the Board, and the Board has to make a determination about the complaint within 60 days.  

‍

If the employer is offside, they can be hit with a fine, if the worker is offside their benefits can be suspended.

‍

Duty to Maintain Employment - Accommodating and Returning Injured Workers to Work

‍

Most notably, the Bill 41 amendments establish a new legal duty requiring employers to maintain employment of injured workers and make any necessary changes to the work or workplace to accommodate their successful return to work, up to the point of undue hardship (section 154.3).

‍

Exceptions: This duty applies only to employers with 20 or more workers, and in respect of workers who have been employed by the employer for at least 12 continuous months, and who have been unable to work as a result of a work-related accident.

‍

This duty comes into play when the injured worker has been cleared to return to work by WorkSafeBC and there are two situations:

‍

1. A worker is “fit to work”, but cannot carry out the essential duties of their pre-injury work, the employer must offer the worker the “first suitable work that becomes available.”
2. A worker is fit to carry out the essential duties of their pre-injury work, the employer must either (a) offer the same pre-injury work to the worker, or (b) offer the worker alternative work “of a kind and at wages that are comparable to the worker’s pre-injury work and wages from that work.”

‍

What is “suitable work”? – that is not defined, so we think it will become the subject of much dispute. Do you have to offer work that that worker is not trained or qualified for? Probably not, because that is not suitable.  Do you have to create work that you don’t actually have?

‍

This new duty to accommodate is separate from any obligations under BC’s Employment Standards Act, any employment or collective agreements, or the existing accommodation duty under the Human Rights Code, meaning employees will have the option of filing a claim with the Board or a complaint with the Human Rights Tribunal (or both) in connection with termination and accommodation issues relating to the same work-related illness or injury.

‍

Limit to the Duty to Maintain Employment

An employer must make any change to the work or the workplace that is necessary to accommodate a worker, up to the point of undue hardship. Whether or not accommodating an injured worker amounts to undue hardship is a complex issue and requires a detailed analysis of the specific circumstances, including physical requirements, evidence of financial impact on the business and operations, etc.

‍

These duties expire 2 years after the date of injury if the worker has not returned to work or if the worker is carrying out suitable work - this coincides with the concept of “frustration of employment.”

‍

Employer’s Failure to Comply & Penalties – Six Month Rule

‍

The amendments also include a built-in mechanism to ensure that employers comply with the duty to return injured workers to employment. If an employer terminates a worker within six months of their return to work, the employer will be deemed to have failed to comply with its legal duty to return the injured worker to work unless the employer can prove that the termination was unrelated to the worker’s injury.

‍

If the employer is found to have breached the duty to re-employ, the Board may compensate the worker by paying them an amount equivalent to the compensation that the worker was entitled to pursuant to the temporary total or partial disability provisions of the WCA. In addition, the Board can impose an administrative penalty on the employer in an amount not exceeding the Board’s maximum wage rate for the applicable year - for 2023 maximum wage rate is $112,800!

‍

There will be the usual right to seek a review to the Review Division or appeal to WCAT to challenge these fines but again that is more time and cost to employers and no guarantee they will win the appeal.

‍

Other Changes Implemented with Bill 41

1. Establishing an entirely independent Fair Practices Commission to hear complaints from workers, which would be funded by the Accident Fund;
2. Giving employers and workers the right to request an Independent Health Professional to provide independent advice in a Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal (WCAT) appeal;
3. Requiring interest to be paid on compensation benefits that are determined by the Review Division of WorkSafeBC or WCAT to be owing to a person for 180 or more days;
4. Adding explicit provisions against employers dissuading workers from filing claims, with enforcement through penalties under the WCA (claim suppression);
5. Indexing workers’ compensation benefits to the full rate of annual percentage changes in the Canadian Consumer Price Index for cost of living increase (used to be CPI less one percent); and
6. Increasing the maximum compensation for non-traumatic hearing loss, which is currently capped at 15% of a total disability when there is no loss of earnings.

‍

Many of these amendments will result in increased claims and benefits costs, which means higher premiums for employers who fund 100% of the workers compensation system. This gives employers a further reason to ensure they understand their obligations under the WCA, and carefully evaluate employees who are injured at work as well as any WorkSafeBC claims started by their workers.

‍

Please see the "Commencement" table at the end of the Bill for information as to when the various parts of the legislation will take effect – details below:

Employer Takeaways

1. Given additional duties and obligations towards injured workers, employers should evaluate whether they wish to protest new WorkSafeBC claims. Once claim accepted, everything triggered.
2. Avoid terminating workers returning from WorkSafeBC claims within the first 6 months. If you must terminate returning injured workers, make sure you document reasons very well.
3. Communication is key – ensure early communication with worker and Board in event of a claim.
4. Keep an eye out on Regulations to know when some of the amendments come into force.
5. Take these obligations seriously – penalties can have a big impact.
6. Get to know and follow the WCA provisions.
7. Have good record keeping for: date of employment, injury date, termination date, length of time off work.
8. Review human rights law around undue hardship concept.

‍

Our experienced Employment & Disability Group is ready to assist you. Get in touch today.

When it comes to gifting property to a relative, the government does not treat it as a gift but as a sale at fair market value. This can result in capital gains taxes if you are gifting property that is not covered by your principal residence exemption and the value has increased since you acquired it. However, if you have an appraisal at a lower value, this may reduce the amount of tax.

‍

Your taxes could also be reduced by selling the property to a child in exchange for a promissory note (a legal IOU). This may allow you to space your taxes over up to five years and possibly at a lower tax bracket.

‍

We can work with you and your accountants to come up with a plan than works for your family. Get in touch with Dan today.

‍

There are two ways you can buy or sell a business – a share purchase or an asset purchase.

‍

If the business is incorporated, the shares can be purchased. This allows the buyer to gain full control of the business and assume all of its assets and liabilities.

‍

Alternatively, parties can do an asset purchase. This involves buying all the assets of the business, including tangible items like buildings and inventory and intangible items like copyrights and trademarks. Unlike a share purchase, an asset purchase lets parties exclude certain assets or liabilities.

‍

As a general rule of thumb, sellers of a business tend to prefer share sales because of the favourable tax consequences for sellers (e.g., capital gains exemptions) and the ability to offload all liabilities of the business to the buyer. Meanwhile, buyers of a business tend to prefer asset purchases because of the favourable tax implications for buyers (e.g., ability to write-off depreciation of certain assets like equipment from the buyer’s taxable income) and the ability to pick and choose which assets or liabilities the buyer will assume.

‍

If you have questions on this topic or any other legal matters, reach out to Aman Bindra

‍

To learn more about Disability Insurance Benefits eligibility, definition of "Totally Disabled", submitting a claim and claim denials, wrongful dismissals and cutting off benefits, please read our articles:

1. Overview of Disability Insurance Benefits and Eligibility
2. Applying for Long Term Disability and Denied Claims
3. Calculating Damages in a Wrongful Dismissal With a Disability Benefit Claim

Disability Insurance Appeals

Typically, disability insurance policies provide for an internal appeal process that an insured can try before commencing a civil action if their claim has been denied or terminated. There may be one or more than one round of internal appeal available under the policy.

‍

Although internal appeals are an option, they're not often the recommended route because unfortunately often times the Insurer maintains their original decision, it causes extra work (and potentially costs) and can lead to delays in filing of a lawsuit.

‍

The more common approach is to commence a civil action. An insured is not required to use the internal appeal process before commencing a civil action in respect of their benefits entitlement under a disability insurance policy.

‍

Understanding Your Disability Lawsuit

‍

Who Are the Defendants in a Civil Action?

The defendants in a civil action for LTD benefits are:

‍

1. the insurance company (where it underwrites and/or administers the policy);
2. a claims handling company ("third party"), if there is one involved; and
3. the employer (for group policies if the employer underwrites the insurance and/or improperly cancelled the benefits depriving the plan member of access to insurance when they needed it).

‍

There may be further defendants depending on the circumstances of each particular case.

‍

What Remedies Are Available in LTD Lawsuits

The most common outcome for a LTD case is a lump-sum settlement being reached at a mediation.

Here is a list of a number of common remedies sought in an action for LTD benefits, including:

‍

1. A declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to recover disability benefits for the extent and duration of their disability.
2. Payment of all disability benefits due and owing. The remedy in breach of contract is the payment of all disability benefits that the plaintiff would have received had their claim been approved. At the point in time of commencing a lawsuit, there will be a retroactive amount from the date benefits would have first been payable under the policy and, potentially, an ongoing amount in the future (possibly up to age of 65).
3. Future payments.
4. Relief from forfeiture. This is a remedy available to protect a person from a loss of interest or right because of imperfect compliance (not non-compliance) with a condition of a contract. For example, this may arise in disability benefit claims because the insured person may not have submitted their application or proof of claim within the prescribed time period set out in the policy.
5. Waiver and return of premiums. LTD policies typically include a provision for the waiver of premiums during a period of approved disability. Where there has been a dispute about entitlement to benefits, the insured will have continued to pay premiums but will not have received the benefit of the insurance. In an action for breach of contract then, the plaintiff should request a reimbursement for the premiums they have paid, but which they would not have had to pay had their claim been approved.
6. Payment of any income tax or income tax interest and penalties that might arise due to a delay in the payment of benefits, resulting in a lump sum award at trial. Disability benefits might be taxable or non-taxable depending on the policy and who pays the premiums. Typically, if premiums are paid entirely by an employee, then the benefits are non-taxable whereas, if some or all of the premium is paid by the employer, the benefits are taxable. Taxable benefits become taxable damages when awarded as a lump sum by a court. Thus, the plaintiff should seek an order that the defendant be liable to pay all extra income tax payments due, interest, and/or penalties resulting from the delay in benefits and resulting lump sum for arrears awarded at trial.
7. Damages. In a disability benefit action, there may be cause for general damages flowing from the breach of contract, mental distress damages (both arising out of a breach of contract and "true aggravated damages", and punitive damages). Typically, aggravated and punitive damages are pleaded in LTD cases.

‍

Documentary Discovery and List of Documents

After commencing a civil action, the insured or their counsel can start building the file with a view to preparing the List of Documents. As with all civil litigation, documentary disclosure is an ongoing process.

‍

There tends to be a standard set of documents for disability benefit files. Typical documents include:

1. Insurance file. Insurance policy (with any amendments) and employee benefit handbook.
2. LTD claim file. Employee, attending physician (with medicals), and employer forms.
3. Appeal file. If the insured has appealed internally, there will be the appeal submission, medical documents, and the insurer's decision letter.
4. Correspondence file. All correspondence between insured and insurer (or claims handling company), including benefit denial or termination letters.
5. Medical file. All relevant clinical notes and records ("CNRs") covering the disability period, including medical reports, test results, imaging, etc.
6. Employment file. Employment contract (or collective agreement), group health benefit plan documents, T4s covering the disability period, termination letter (if applicable), workplace injury and WSIB forms (if applicable), human rights workplace accommodation documents (if applicable).
7. Income file. Other sources of relevant insurance or disability benefit income.

‍

Documents the insurer typically requests for the insured to obtain include:

‍

1. personal claims history for the time period of disability;
2. pharmacy prescription drug summaries;
3. income tax returns covering the disability period; and
4. CPP disability records.

‍

Our experienced Employment & Disability Group is ready to review your claim in a free consultation, and assist you. Get in touch today.

Typically, disability insurance is obtained through an employer's group health benefits, which are provided to an employee as part of their compensation and benefits package. To learn more about Disability Insurance Benefits eligibility, definition of "Totally Disabled", submitting a claim and claim denials, disputing claims and overview of legal process, please read our articles:

1. Overview of Disability Insurance Benefits and Eligibility
2. Applying for Long Term Disability and Denied Claims
3. Disputing Your Denied Disability Claim, Remedies and Overview of Legal Process

‍

An employment law issue may arise if an employer improperly cuts off access to group health benefits for a dismissed employee who becomes disabled during the common law reasonable notice period.

‍

Normally, upon a termination of employment without cause, an employer is required to provide notice of termination or pay in lieu of notice commensurate with the dismissed employee's total compensation for the full duration of the notice period, subject to any enforceable contractual limitations. This includes continued membership in a group health benefits plan. If the employer cuts off access to group health benefits (which is often done because of the terms as between the employer and insurer), it will step into the shoes of the insurer and be required to pay out benefits under the policy if the employee becomes disabled and entitled to LTD benefits during the notice period. Employers should therefore proceed with caution in such circumstances.

‍

Calculating Damages in a Wrongful Dismissal With a Disability Benefit Claim

Upon termination of employment without cause, an employer must provide notice or pay in lieu of notice and continue to make all benefit plan contributions, Employment Standards Act, RSBC 1996 c. 113 ("ESA"). At common law, reasonable notice (damages for wrongful dismissal) is calculated at total annual compensation including pay and benefits. However, a dismissed employee is generally not entitled to 'double recovery' of both reasonable notice and disability benefits (Sylvester v British Columbia, [1997] S.C.J. No. 58).

‍

An employer may also run into trouble if it substantially changes or cancels its group health benefits plan without notice or commensurate compensation and where an employee relies on those benefits. This may give rise to a claim for constructive dismissal, based on an alleged unilateral and fundamental change to the terms of employment that is not accepted by the employee.

‍

Can An Employee on Disability Leave be Fired Due to “Frustration of Contract?”

‍

Frustration of contract refers to an intervening event that makes performance of the contract impossible. In this situation, the parties can deem the contract at an end without obligation or liability to one another.

‍

In some rare circumstances, a prolonged disability without any prognosis of return to work within a reasonable time frame can result in a frustration of contract.

‍

‍

Our experienced Employment & Disability Group is ready to assist you. Get in touch today.

When an employee has been absent from work during the past few months due to illness or injury, they may be eligible for benefits under the Long Term Disability Plan (LTD) if they are unable to return to full duties. To learn more about Disability Insurance Benefits eligibility and definitial of "Totally Disabled" please ready our article Overview of Disability Insurance Benefits and Eligibility. For more information on disputing denied insurance claims and overview of the legal process involved, please read Disputing Denied Disability Claims, Remedies and Overview of Legal Process.

‍

‍

Submitting a Claim for Disability Benefits

The benefit booklet (and policy) will describe and set out the details for submitting a claim for disability benefits in the event of an illness or injury. Typically, the employee will notify the employer of the incident and need for a medical leave of absence from work. The employee should request the claim forms from the employer (human resources or plan administrator) or otherwise contact the insurer directly to request the application forms as directed in the handbook.

‍

Claim forms typically include three separate forms:

1. the employee or plan member form;
2. the employer form; and
3. the plan member's attending physician form.

‍

Our Disability Lawyers can assist you in completing the plan member form and facilitating the doctor to complete the attending physician form, if these forms have not already been completed and submitted. The benefit booklet and insurance policy will confirm the process for providing Notice or Proof of Claim and the deadlines for submitting a claim.

‍

What if My Disability Claim is Denied?

Disability insurance is based primarily on contract law principles. The insurance contract (i.e., the policy) sets out the applicable terms and conditions. Each policy is unique and it's important to have an experienced lawyer carefully and thoroughly review each policy for its specific details. If an insurer denies or terminates a claim for benefits or fails to adjudicate a claim in a timely and good faith manner, the insured may have a cause of action for breach of contract and/or breach of the duty of good faith.

‍

There is no requirement to participate in an insurer's internal appeal process before commencing an action, though it may be wise to do so depending on the circumstances (e.g., if the initial application did not accurately describe the disability and/or did not provide sufficient medical evidence in support of the application and appeal might be warranted). Damages for breach of contract in disability benefit cases is the same as any other breach of contract case: to put the plaintiff in the same position had the contract been performed.

‍

An action for breach of a disability insurance contract will focus on the denial of benefits or termination of benefits after one has been approved for a period of time. The related damages will center on the disability benefits that the plaintiff would have received had the claim been approved for the extent and duration of the entitlement under the policy.

‍

Disability Insurer's Duty of Good Faith

An insurer owes a duty of good faith to an insured. Insurance contracts are considered to be contracts of utmost good faith and, accordingly, there is an implied obligation in every insurance contract that the insurer will deal with claims from the insured in good faith. The duty of good faith requires the insurer to act both promptly and fairly when investigating, accessing, and attempting to resolve claims made by an insured person.

A breach of the duty of good faith by an insurer is an independent actionable wrong giving rise to damages.

‍

Wrongful Dismissals and Disability Benefits

An employment law issue may arise if an employer improperly cuts off access to group health benefits for a dismissed employee who becomes disabled during the common law reasonable notice period. More on this topic in our article Wrongful Dismissals and LTD (Disability) Benefits.

‍

Our experienced Employment & Disability Group is ready to review your claim in a free consultation, and assist you. Get in touch today.