Covid-19 Employment Law Update

by | Apr 14, 2020 | Articles & Research, Candice D Grant, Covid-19, Curtis P Clavelle, Labour and Employment

Following Candice Grant’s March 13, 2020, article, “COVID-19: Information for Employers”, published on our firm website, the Government of Saskatchewan introduced new legislation to address public health emergency leave and temporary layoffs due to COVID-19. This article is intended to provide an update on this new legislation and how it will impact employers and employees.  This information, which is current as of the date of publication (April 13, 2020), is not legal advice and we recommend consulting with your legal advisors for advice specific to your circumstances.

Public Health Emergency Leave

This leave was enacted through Bill No. 207, an Act to amend The Saskatchewan Employment Act, to provide protection to employees who have been directed to isolate themselves and certain other employees impacted by COVID-19.  The changes have retroactive effect to March 6, 2020.

Public health emergency leave is only available during periods in which the Chief Medical Health Officer has declared a public health emergency.  It is available to employees who have been ordered to isolate by one of the following:

  • their employer;
  • the government;
  • their doctor; or
  • the Chief Medical Health Officer for Saskatchewan.

In these situations, the employee would not be allowed to attend work.  The rationalization is presumably that people should not be risking their own health and the health of others in order to work, which is why the introduction of a protected category of leave was necessary.  The length of the leave depends on the length of time the employee has been ordered to isolate.

As indicated above, this leave provides employers an opportunity to order an employee to stay home if they are showing symptoms consistent with COVID-19.  However, if an employer’s direction to self-isolate conflicts with the opinion of a qualified medical practitioner, the opinion of the medical practitioner will prevail.

If an employee is eligible for public health emergency leave, there is no requirement that the employee have worked for any minimum period of time prior to taking leave.

Employees who must care for their children or an adult family member affected by the public health emergency are also eligible for this leave.  For example, in the case of children, this leave applies to parents who must remain home in order to care for their children, which is a common situation as a result of the closure of elementary and secondary schools.  In the case of adult family members, it could be that an employee’s spouse is infected with COVID-19 and the employee must take time off of work to care for their spouse.

It is possible for an employer to designate certain employees as necessary to provide critical public health and safety services, in which case the employee’s ability to access this leave may be limited.

It is important to note that the leave is unpaid.  The employee is only entitled to be paid and receive their benefits if their employer has authorized them to work from home during their period of isolation.  This, of course, depends on the nature of the business.  If working from home is not an option, or the employer does not authorize it, then the employee is not entitled to be paid, although the employee may have access to other provincial and federal financial benefits.  In addition, employees who have entitlement to sick leave under a workplace policy, collective agreement, or other employment contract may be able to invoke that leave rather than take the unpaid public health emergency leave.

We recommend that employers seek out legal advice before making any decisions to order an employee to isolate or any other long term decisions respecting their employees.

Temporary Layoff Provisions

Amendments were also made to The Employment Standards Regulations to provide for temporary layoffs by employers during public health emergencies.  These layoff provisions are only in effect during periods of public emergency.

Normally, under The Saskatchewan Employment Act, employers have to provide notice to employees before laying them off, or pay in lieu of notice.  Under the emergency layoff provisions, employers do not need to provide notice to employees before laying them off, or pay in lieu of notice, for all layoffs that will have a duration of a maximum of 12 weeks in a 16-week period.

Employees who are laid off pursuant to this provision are still considered employees for the purposes of notice or pay in lieu of notice if they are not recalled in time; more on this below.  The upside for employees is that they are able to immediately access supports provided through provincial and federal programs specifically aimed at helping employees laid off during the COVID-19 pandemic.

If the layoff exceeds 12 weeks within a 16-week period and the employee has not been reinstated, the employee’s employment has been considered terminated and they are owed pay instead of notice.  The amount which would have to be paid pursuant to The Saskatchewan Employment Act is based on the employee’s wage and length of service and ranges from one to eight weeks of wages, as follows:

 

Length of Time Employee has been Employed Number of Weeks of Wages Employee must be Paid
More than 13 consecutive weeks to one year of employment One week of wages
Greater than one year of employment but equal to or lesser than three years Two weeks of wages
Greater than three years of employment but equal to or lesser than five years Four weeks of wages
Greater than five years of employment but equal to or less than 10 years Six weeks of wages
Greater than 10 years of employment Eight weeks of wages

Employers and employees should bear in mind that these are minimum standards which could be superseded by employment contracts or collective agreements.  In many cases, an employee will also have additional entitlements at common law which significantly exceed the statutory amounts set out above.  However, any agreement must provide, at minimum, the protection to the employee offered under these new provisions.

We recommend that employers seek out legal advice before making any decisions to lay off employees pursuant to this new provision.

For more information, please contact:

Candice D. Grant

Direct: 306.933.1304

Email: [email protected]

Curtis P. Clavelle

Direct: 306.933.1341

Email: [email protected]

Virtual court operations in Saskatchewan

by | Apr 14, 2020 | Articles & Research, Covid-19, James D Steele

Despite the availability of virtual technology, it remains impossible in many Canadian courts to file court documents online, or hold video hearings. This article argues that Canadian court systems face two options during the COVID-19 pandemic:

  1. First, resign themselves to pause the vast majority of civil matters indefinitely, risking the loss of public confidence, and lack of justice, which could result;
  2. Alternatively, use this time to make swift investments in e-filing systems, and video technology, to allow virtual operations to continue as normal.

The rule of law is not something that society can suspend indefinitely. In an era in which many people conduct their lives online, the legal profession should embrace virtual court processes to maintain public access to court services.

Read Full Article

For more information, please contact:

 

James D. Steele

306.933.1365

Email: [email protected]

Insurance Coverage Considerations on Covid-19

by | Apr 3, 2020 | Articles & Research, Covid-19, Insurance, Jennifer D Pereira

As of March 30, 2020 the Saskatchewan government signed an order pursuant to the provincial State of Emergency directing that all orders of the government and Chief Medical Health Officer must be followed and that law enforcement agencies in Saskatchewan have the full authority to enforce those orders. As a result, gatherings of more than 10 people in one room are prohibited; and nightclubs, bars, lounges and similar facilities are closed.  As other businesses respond to COVID-19 their bottom lines are facing significant impact.

In this uncertain climate, businesses are attempting to manage this crisis and limit their continuing financial losses. One potential avenue for relief is insurance. All businesses should be seeking guidance as to whether their existing insurance coverage can respond to COVID-19 related financial losses.

This article outlines some key insurance coverage considerations to determine whether initiating an insurance claim may be a viable relief option for your business.

COMMERCIAL PROPERTY POLICIES

 

Most businesses’ first party property insurance policies include coverage not only for property damage but also for lost profits resulting from that damage.  The coverage for lost income often covers loss resulting from:

  1. Damage to the policyholder’s own property (business interruption);
  2. Damage to the property of a customer or supplier or a supplier’s supplier (contingent business interruption); or
  3. Government action (order of civil authority)

The event that triggers any of these coverages is property damage — without which there will be no coverage for lost profits under a first party property policy.

When purchasing your property policy for your business, it may have been referred to as “All Risk.” All risk doesn’t necessarily mean that you are entitled to coverage for all risks. These policies can sometimes exclude coverage for virus, contagious disease or bacteria. In that case, any COVID-19-related claims will likely be denied.

Business Interruption

With respect to your commercial property policy, the definition of physical damage found within the policy becomes crucial to determining whether coverage applies.

Contingent Business Interruption

Contingent business interruption is a coverage that allows a claim for lost income resulting from a covered loss to an insured’s customer or supplier (Indirect Loss). This type if coverage is typically triggered as a result of a physical damage to the customer or supplier listed as a reliant party, critical to the insured’s operations.

Government action/civil authority

Some property policies will responds to Interruption by Civil Authority, which is often defined as “actual loss as insured hereunder during the period of time, not exceeding two to four weeks, while access to the “premises” is prohibited by order of civil authority”

Given that the definition of this coverage may vary by policy, there is a possibility that if operations of a business are restricted due to an Order prohibiting access, then coverage may apply. The opposite would be true if the policy wording specifies the requirement for Physical Damage. Once again, the applicability of this coverage and length would be case specific.

NEXT STEPS

 

A determination of whether your business is entitled to coverage is wholly depends on your policy wording. Businesses should be evaluating their policies including any extensions and exclusions, with their insurance brokers and legal counsel to better understand terms and conditions. To get started request a complete copy of your insurance policy and review to determine whether coverage might apply to your business.

For more information, please contact:

 

Jennifer D. Pereira, QC

306.933.1320

Email: [email protected]

Importance of the Press

by | Mar 27, 2020 | Articles & Research, Covid-19, Media Law / Defamation, Sean M Sinclair

On March 26, 2020, the Government of Saskatchewan further limited the businesses that can continue to operate in the province as a result of COVID-19.  Among the “critical services” that are to be maintained are local and national media.

Journalists across our province are continuing to provide up-to-date and important information to citizens. They continue to attend press conferences, ask our leaders important questions, try to digest and disseminate important health-related information and disabuse individuals of potentially dangerous misinformation.

Having reliable and professional information broadcast to a wide audience (through newspapers, television and social media) is incredibly important for our public officials to provide updates on this crisis. Dr. Theresa Tam, Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer, and Dr. Saqib Shahab, Saskatchewan’s Chief Medical Health Officer, have, through the media, imparted daily updates on the medical risks and transmission of the virus. Our political leaders have warned residents through daily press briefings on the importance of social distancing to attempt to flatten the curve.

In addition to providing important health information, the media has provided messages of hope and resilience. Media organizations have covered:

  1. The outpouring of support for marginalized youth in Saskatoon: https://thestarphoenix.com/news/local-news/the-helpers-in-saskatoon-an-outpouring-of-support-for-youth/
  2. Families working out together at home while practicing social distancing: https://saskatoon.ctvnews.ca/more-saskatoon-families-working-out-together-at-home-during-isolation-physical-distancing-1.4870362 and
  3. Veterinarians assisting pets from outside of their clinics: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/sask-curbside-veterinary-medicine-animal-health-covid-19-1.5511951.

In recent years, the media has been vilified in some corners.  However, it is at times like these, that the importance of the press is highlighted.  We see journalists, every day, digesting quickly changing information, trying to weed out “fake news” and doing so at potential personal peril as they attend briefings and track down stories.  The media has proven itself to be a “critical service” to the public.

For more information, please contact:

 

Sean M. Sinclair

306.933.1367

Email: s.sinclair

Cash Flow Concerns: How to Collect Payment in the Midst of COVID-19

by | Mar 19, 2020 | Articles & Research, Construction, Covid-19, Jared D Epp, Misty S Alexandre

Introduction

Over the past year much of the focus of the Saskatchewan construction industry has been on the impact that new prompt payment legislation will have on the timeliness of payment on construction projects. Cash flow is never far from the mind of any prudent business owner. However, a focus and concern with cash flow is perhaps never more evident than now, given the global, and increasingly local, rescheduling and shutdown of various construction projects.

In considering your ability to collect on outstanding invoices, it is critical that the payment terms of your contract be reviewed. Although contract terms, like force majeure, may justify a suspension of work or an adjustment to schedule, they do not necessarily suspend or modify a party’s payment obligations. Rather, the exact contract language needs to be reviewed. Absent specific contractual language excusing a party’s payment obligations, payments are still required to be made.

However, what is legally required, and what will, in practice, actually happen are, of course, two different things. A contractual right to be paid, though important, may not change the fact that certain companies will either not be able to pay or will, in an act of self-preservation, simply choose not to pay. In these types of circumstances, a few different collection options should be considered:

  1. Register a lien. Although a lien may not result in immediate payment, it provides security, in the event the project fails or is not completed, for future payment. It also ensures, in the event a future progress draw is made, that enough funds are withheld to satisfy the lien claim in the future. Although it is best practice to ensure a lien is registered in Saskatchewan within 40 days of substantial completion, liens can still be registered after this date and, in many circumstances, will remain enforceable.
  2. Determine whether or not a project is secured by a labour and material bond. Labour and material bonds are secured by insurance companies. As companies cease meeting their obligations, the ability to receive payment from an insurance company under a bond may, in certain cases, represent the best option available to collect payment. As labour and material bonds have predetermined pay-out amounts, it is important to submit your claim for payment as soon as possible. All L&M bonds have cap limits, and after the insurance company has paid out the amount of the bond, additional claims cannot be processed.
  3. Determine whether or not the project is secured by a performance bond. Although a performance bond is often put in place for the benefit of the owner, in the event a general contractor defaults, the ability of an owner to rely upon insurance to complete a project may be beneficial, given the possibility of the insurer using existing subcontractors to complete the work.

  4. File a lawsuit. Although lawsuits typically do not lead to quick payment, if your claim for payment is not defended, you may have the ability to register and then enforce a judgment. As judgments, once registered, exist for 10 years, this also may give your company a long-term option to satisfy a debt.

  5. Be mindful of trust obligations in the lien legislation. Saskatchewan’s lien legislation imposes trust obligations on project financing, and on funds paid between the owner, contractor and subcontractors. During times of cash flow crisis, it may be tempting for parties to pay money out of the project chain. This may result in a breach of trust obligations under the lien legislation, and could lead to personal liability for directors and officers as well. The lien legislation provides lien claimants a right to certain information from the owner, so use these tools to find out what’s happening in the project payment chain.

Like any situation, the best approach depends on your particular circumstance. However, all options should be explored given the uncertainty that is COVID-19.

For more information, please contact:

Misty M. Alexandre

306.933.1352

Email: [email protected]

Jared Epp

306.933.1326

Email: [email protected]

Judicial technological innovations

by | Mar 19, 2020 | Articles & Research, Covid-19, James D Steele

Closings of courthouses should be a wake-up call to adopt 21st century technology

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused unprecedented disruption to daily norms in Canada. Lawyers are not exempt, and many courts in Canada have either severely reduced their case hearing schedule, or paused activity altogether. This will have a huge impact on day to day Canadians, whose lives may be waiting for decisions in family custody disputes, criminal hearings, or lawsuit seeking compensation, etc.

Canadian court systems may face a difficult time in attempting remote work. Despite the rise of the personal computer decades ago, it remains impossible in many Canadian court systems to file many court documents online, hold video hearings.

The current closure of courts reminds us that technology has the potential to revolutionize the process of serving documents, and placing them before the court.  If proper investments are made, basic technology can allow future court matters to continue remotely, and save ordinary Canadians significant time, and therefore, legal fees.

To name only two potential innovations, Canadian courts should consider the following:

  1. Allowing the majority of civil Chambers hearings (not involving live witnesses) to go forward via either telephone conference, or video conference. Massive business deals are now routinely negotiated via video, and there seems little reason why in person attendance should always be required for all court hearing;
  2. Allowing documents to be filed online, instead of requiring paper copies in physical form to be sent to the courthouse.

The Canadian legal system is not a mere luxury that Canadians can suspend for months at a time. The issue of judicial adoption of twenty-first century technology is more timely than ever, and has the potential to benefit all who seek justice.

For more information, please contact:

 

James D. Steele

306.933.1338

Email: [email protected]

Lawyers