Case over large, gregarious deer destroying property in Yukon’s Takhini River Valley lives to see another day
The Yukon Court of Appeal decided a fascinating case on September 15, 2022, dealing with the Yukon Government’s decision to introduce wild elk between 1951 and 1994 in the Takhini River Valley. In Grove v. Yukon (Ministry of the Environment), ranch owners in ...
The author would like to thank Gillian Bourke and Sheila MacPherson for their assistance in preparing this commentary.
Most provinces and territories have passed legislation recognizing and regulating personal directives in their jurisdictions. The sole exception is Nunavut, which as of 2022 does not have its own personal directives legislation. Because of this, it is ...
With news of the ending of COVID-19 restrictions in some regions in Canada and the announcement of the easing of restrictions in the NWT, the real question is whether working from home is here to stay. Can Northern employers ask that their employees to return to the workplace? The answer: it depends.
Health and Safety Obligations
The anticipated lifting of restrictions does not mean that the pandemic itself is over. The potential for future outbreaks and variants remains. Employers are obligated, pursuant to relevant health and safety legislation, to maintain a safe workspace for their employees. This obligation extends to the COVID-19 context, even as restrictions lift. If the employer does not take steps to prevent the spread and infection of COVID-19 in their workplace, such as providing personal protective equipment or installing physical barriers, they may be faced with requests from employees to work from home on the grounds of health and safety concerns surrounding COVID-19. As restrictions ease, it may be prudent for employers to keep such protections in place to assure employees that any health and safety concerns in their workspace continue to be adequately addressed. However, employers’ obligations may shift with changing public health guidance, and they should be mindful of these changes and adapt appropriately to new information and direction from official sources.
Employers must be aware of any obligations to accommodate under the relevant human rights legislation. If an employee refuses to return to work and the reason is based on a protected human rights ground, then a duty to accommodate could be triggered. An employer could find themselves in a situation where they must continue to provide the employee with an opportunity to work from home. However, the accommodation must be reasonable and cannot cause the employer undue hardship. When considering if an accommodation is reasonable, employers can request additional information to make this determination.
For employers who have implemented a robust response to COVID-19, and policies which include working from home, recalling employees may be a natural transition. It may also be an expectation of both the employer and the employee. However, where an employee was hired during the pandemic and has always worked from home, or where there is no COVID-19 policy or written employment agreement setting out the expectations of returning to work, an employee may claim that working remotely is a fundamental term of their employment. Consequently, unilaterally changing their place of work could be considered a constructive dismissal.
A constructive dismissal occurs when an employer unilaterally changes the fundamental terms of employment. Common examples of unilateral changes to fundamental terms of employment include changes to an employee’s hours, remuneration, or duties but could in theory apply in the context of ordering a return to work.
Absent a clearly written employment agreement or a COVID-19 policy that communicates an intention and approach to return in-person to the workplace, an employee may allege that there has been a change to the fundamental terms of their employment.
Even if an employer is on the right side of the law when asking employees to return to the office, recognizing the benefits of having a continued work-from-home policy may be beneficial.
Recent surveys indicate that employees across Canada would prefer to continue working from home permanently or with a mix of in-office and work from home. Data also suggests that there is a significant number of employees who would resign from their positions if forced to return to work, both for safety and lifestyle reasons.
If employers have not significantly experienced an impact on work productivity and efficacy while their employees have been working from home, it may be advantageous for employers to weigh their options.
Instituting a progressive, flexible approach to working from home could have the effect of boosting employee retention and moral.
Ultimately, an employer could force a return to an in-person working environment but whether they should depends on the unique circumstances of each workplace.
If you have any questions about your organisation’s COVID-19 policies, please contact a member of our Northern Group.
As a part of Lawson Lundell’s North of 60 blog, we will be providing summaries of every civil law decision from the Court of Appeal in the Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut in two installments per year. The following summaries are all of the decisions release from January 1, 2021 to June 30, 2021.
List of Cases
Decisions made by government officials about any number of things, can in many cases be challenged on judicial review. One recent case out of the Federal Court of Appeal reminds us – against a truly Northern backdrop – that administrative decisions must be procedurally fair and substantively reasonable (i.e. based on common sense). When they are not, they risk being ...
Why does it matter?
Contractors and subcontractors – also known as lienholders in the context of this post – may run into difficulties with obtaining prompt payment during the course of a construction project, whether it is in completing renovations to a home residence or providing construction services to a mine. In the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, parties ...
On September 21st, 2020, the Nunavut Legislative Assembly met for the first time since March 12th. Originally scheduled to sit on May 26th, 2020, the Assembly decided to cancel that sitting as a result of the global Covid-19 pandemic. In September, the Nunavut Assembly welcomed two new members elected in by-elections over the summer (Calvin Pedersen for Kugluktuk and Craig ...
The governments of each of the Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut have implemented restrictions on who can enter their respective territories and what manner of self-isolation procedures those who are permitted entry must follow upon their arrival.
As these COVID-related travel restrictions remain in place, many business may find themselves, their contractors ...
The Northwest Territories Legislative Assembly convened May 26th to June 12th, 2020, to continue the second session of the 19th Assembly, which was unexpectedly cut short in March due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The primary purpose was to pass the 2020-21 budget, however, the Assembly did consider the following bills:
Bill 6-19(2) – An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly ...
A group of businesspeople in Yukon has challenged the constitutionality of various measures taken by the Yukon government in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Like the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, Yukon has mostly closed its borders except to residents and essential workers, and has made a number of orders affecting daily life and the economy.
The petition, filed ...
Our North of 60 Blog provides commentary on current legal trends and developments, and legislative updates affecting businesses in Northern Canada.
Legal Disclaimer: The information made available on this webpage is for information purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and should not be relied on as such. Please contact our firm if you need legal advice or have questions about the content of this webpage.