Skip to content

Federal work place harassment and violence prevention regulations

Chad Sullivan and Kathleen Nash

In late June 2020, the Federal Government released the official version of the new Work Place Harassment and Violence Prevention Regulations¹ (“Regulations”) along with Bill C-65, the federal anti-harassment and violence legislation.

The Regulations streamline and consolidate harassment and violence provisions for all federally regulated work places that fall under Part II of the Canada Labour Code,² which includes private sector employers engaged in a federal work or undertaking (e.g. air transportation, telecommunications, or banking), federal Crown corporations, and those in the federally regulated public sector. The Regulations replace a number of provisions in the Canada Labour Code as well as other regulations which include violence prevention provisions in order to provide a more comprehensive regulatory scheme in one regulation.³

The Regulations will come into force on January 1, 2021, less than six months after their publication, providing employers with a short time frame to prepare for their enhanced obligations under the Regulations.

Our last update on the Regulations (found here), provides a comprehensive overview of the Regulations and outlines what employers need to know before the Regulations come into force.

Since our last update, the Federal Government has updated a few aspects of the Regulations including the following:

  1. “Designated recipient”

At the time of our previous update, the Regulations allowed the employer to designate an individual to receive notification of an occurrence. In the current Regulations, an employer can designate a work unit in a work place or an individual to receive notification of an occurrence. The individual or the work unit is referred to as the “designated recipient” in the Regulations.

  1. Training

Our previous update sets out in detail the training employers and the applicable partner (a policy committee or a workplace committee or the health and safety representative) must develop and provide to employees, the employer, and the designated recipient.

Employers must ensure that employees are provided with the required training within three months after the day on which their employment begins or, for employees whose employment began prior to January 1, 2021, within one year after January 1, 2021. Employers must also undergo the required training within one year after January 1, 2021. Training must then be completed at least once every three years after that.

  1. Resolution of an “occurrence”

(a) Notification to parties

The Regulations now provide the employer or designated recipient with seven days (rather than five as indicated in our previous update) to contact the principal party (the employee or employer who is the object of an occurrence) and inform them:

  • that their notice of occurrence has been received or they were identified as a principal party;
  • how to access the work place harassment and violence prevention policy;
  • how each step in the resolution process works; and
  • that they may be represented during the resolution process.

As indicated in our previous update, there is no time limit for when the employer or designated recipient must contact the responding party (the person who is alleged to be responsible for the occurrence; if involved).

(b) Negotiated resolution

Within 45 days after the day on which notice of an occurrence is provided, an employer or designated recipient, the principal party and the responding party must begin to make every reasonable efforts to resolve an occurrence. There is no longer a requirement that the negotiated resolution be concluded within 180 days; rather, the parties must begin to attempt to resolve the occurrence within 45 days of the day on which notice of the occurrence was provided.

(c) Limitation period

The Regulations provide for a one-year limitation period for the completion of the resolution process (either conciliation or an investigation). The limitation period begins on the day on which notice of the occurrence is provided and the onus is on the employer to ensure that the resolution process is completed within the one year period.

The limitation period may be extended if either the principal party or the responding party is temporarily absent from work for more than 90 consecutive days after the day on which notice of the occurrence is provided. If this occurs, the resolution process must be completed within the later of one year after the day on which notice of the occurrence is provided or within six months after the day on which the party returns to work.

  1. Investigator’s report

Our previous update indicates that, if an investigation is requested, the investigator must provide both a final report and a summary report. The Regulations now only require the investigator to provide a final “investigator’s report” after the conclusion of the investigation. The investigator’s report must set out the following information:

  1. a general description of the occurrence;
  2. the investigator’s conclusions, including those related to the circumstances in the work place that contributed to the occurrence; and
  3. their recommendations to eliminate or minimize the risk of a similar occurrence.

The investigator’s report must not reveal, either directly or indirectly, the identity of persons who are involved in an occurrence or the resolution process for an occurrence under the Regulations. A copy of the investigator’s report must be provided to the principal party, the responding party, the work place committee or health and safety representative, and a designated recipient.

  1. Updates on the status of an “occurrence”

After notice of an occurrence is provided, the Regulations require employers (or designated recipients) to provide monthly updates regarding the status of the resolution process (either conciliation or an investigation) as follows:

  • to the principal party beginning on the first month after the month in which notice is provided; and
  • to the responding party beginning on the first month after the month in which the responding party is first contacted by the employer or designated recipient concerning the occurrence.

The monthly status updates end on the month in which the resolution process is completed.

  1. Record keeping

Lastly, the Regulations require an employer to keep the following health and safety records for a period of 10 years:

  1. the work place harassment and violence prevention policy;
  2. the documents that form part of the work place assessment;
  3. a copy of the documents that form part of each review and update of the work place assessment;
  4. for each instance where the employer and the policy committee, the work place committee or the health and safety representative are unable to agree on a matter that is required by these Regulations to be jointly done by them, a record of the employer’s decision in that matter and the reasons for that decision;
  5. a record of each notice provided under subsection 15(1) and of each action taken in response to the notice;
  6. for each instance where a time limit set out in section 33 [the limitation period noted above] is not met, a document that sets out the reason for the delay;
  7. a copy of each report that is prepared by an investigator under subsection 30(1);
  8. a copy of each annual report; and
  9. a copy of each fatality report provided under subsection 37(1).

¹ SOR/2020-130.
² RSC, 1985, c L-2.
³ Government of Canada, Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (Executive Summary – Work Place Harassment and Violence Prevention Regulations) (PC 2020-456, June 17, 2020).


This article is provided for general information only. If you have any questions about the above, please contact a member of our Labour and Employment group.

Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership articles and updates.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

TTC’s Random Testing Decision: A Bright Light for Employers in the Haze of Marijuana Legalization

April 11, 2017

Rick Dunlop In my December 15, 2016 article, Federal Government’s Cannabis Report: What does it mean for employers?, I noted the Report’s1 suggestion that there was a lack of research to reliably determine when individuals are impaired…

Read More

Unionization in the Construction Industry: Vacation Day + Snapshot Rule = Disenfranchisement

April 4, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Michelle Black On March 14, 2014, CanMar Contracting Limited (“CanMar”) granted a day off to two of its hard working and longer serving employees so they could spend time with their respective families. That…

Read More

Sometimes a bad deal is just a bad deal: unconscionability and insurance claim settlements in Downer v Pitcher, 2017 NLCA 13

March 16, 2017

Joe Thorne and Meaghan McCaw The doctrine of unconscionability is an equitable remedy available in exceptional circumstances where a bargain between parties, be it a settlement or a release, may be set aside on the basis that…

Read More

Privilege Prevails: Privacy Commissioner protects solicitor-client communications

March 16, 2017

Jonathan Coady After more than five years, the Prince Edward Island Information and Privacy Commissioner (the “Privacy Commissioner”) has completed her review into more than sixty records withheld by a local school board on the…

Read More

The Latest in Labour Law: A Stewart McKelvey Newsletter – Nova Scotia Teachers Union & Government – a synopsis

March 7, 2017

Peter McLellan, QC & Richard Jordan Introduction On February 21, 2017 the Nova Scotia Government passed Bill 75 – the Teachers’ Professional Agreement and Classroom Improvement (2017) Act. This Bulletin will provide some background to what is, today,…

Read More

Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Furlong: The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador weighs in on the former client rule in commercial transactions

March 1, 2017

Bruce Grant, QC and Justin Hewitt In the recent decision of Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Furlong1 the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador confirmed that where a law firm acts jointly for the borrower and lender in the placement…

Read More

The Ordinary Meaning of Insurance: Client Update on the SCC’s Decision in Sabean

February 21, 2017

The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Sabean v Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Co, 2017 SCC 7 at the end of January, finally answering an insurance policy question that had divided the lower…

Read More

Client Update: Outlook for the 2017 Proxy Season

February 8, 2017

In preparing for the 2017 proxy season, you should be aware of some regulatory changes and institutional investor guidance that may impact disclosure to, and interactions with, your shareholders. This update highlights what is new…

Read More

Client Update: The Future of Planning and Development on Prince Edward Island – Recent Amendments to the Planning Act

January 23, 2017

Perlene Morrison and Hilary Newman During the fall 2016 legislative sitting, the Province of Prince Edward Island passed legislation that results in significant changes to the Planning Act. The amendments received royal assent on December 15, 2016 and…

Read More

Plaintiffs’ medical reports – disclosure obligations in Unifund Assurance Company v. Churchill, 2016 NLCA 73

January 10, 2017

Joe Thorne1 and Justin Hewitt2 In Unifund Assurance Company v Churchill,3  the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal considered the application of our rules of court and the common law as they relate to disclosure of documents produced in…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top