Skip to content

Top five employment law issues going into 2021

Grant Machum, ICD.D and Mark Tector

2020 was a challenging year for many people and businesses. And while we are all happy to have 2020 in the rearview mirror, we anticipate that there will continue to be challenges going forward, including in employment law. Below are five legal questions we expect employers will have in 2021, along with our answers:

1. Once available, can I require employees to take the COVID-19 vaccine as a term of employment?

Yes, in certain circumstances, an employer can introduce a reasonable policy requiring vaccinations. The extent and terms of the policy will depend, in part, on the industry and should be crafted with input from legal counsel. Employers dealing with high risk populations (e.g. health care and nursing homes) and the public (e.g. retail) may have more extensive policies and requirements for their employees. Employers have statutory obligations to ensure the health and safety of their employees along with others who may be in the workplace. Any policy should:

  • have terms to address potential bona fide refusals (such as on the basis of legitimate health considerations);
  • consider the consequences for an employee who refuses the vaccine, including accommodation to the point of undue hardship of an employee who may refuse on grounds protected by human rights legislation;
  • remain flexible and allow for adjustment(s) as the pandemic and vaccination rollout evolves, including as the requirements and advice from Public Health may change; and
  • ensure reasonable measures and procedures are in place to address employee privacy requirements and considerations.

2. Can I terminate an employee for cause who disregards COVID-19 protocols and puts others at risk?

Yes. At law, each termination for cause must be considered on its own particular merits and circumstances. However, in a recent Ontario decision (a unionized workplace) an employee went to work during the mandatory self-isolation period after testing positive for COVID-19. The employer terminated the employee for cause as she had breached the safety requirements. The arbitrator hearing the matter upheld the termination.

3. Can I keep employees on lay-off?

With the second (or third) wave hitting much of the Canadian population, some businesses have continued to see drastic reductions in business or have had to again reduce their businesses after having opened up during the summer and fall. Some provinces have extended the ability under applicable legislation to continue lay-offs (e.g. Ontario converted statutory lay-offs into leaves and has now extended this until July 3, 2021). Nova Scotia also has a statutory exemption in relation to notice of termination (or pay in lieu of such notice) where the circumstances giving rise to the termination or lay-off are, in part, “beyond the control” of the employer. The pandemic is certainly beyond everyone’s control, unfortunately. Employers will generally also have to consider employment contracts to determine whether a lay-off or continued lay-off is permitted.

4. Given the impact on my business, can I modify the terms of employment for my employees?

The impact of COVID-19 on many businesses has been unprecedented. Accordingly, in these unprecedented times, employers generally have the ability to make changes to duties and terms, including the duties of those who may be returning from lay-off. The law recognizes that most employment relationships are not static and evolve. However, depending on the extent of the changes, some larger or more significant changes may require that an employer provide advance notice of the changes. An employers’ existing employment agreements or policies may also already have “baked in” terms that allow for changes, or require a stipulated amount of notice before changes can be implemented. Therefore employers should review any existing employment agreements and policies.

5. What should I do to be proactive and minimize employment-related issues going into 2021?

Update your employment agreements and policies, including occupational health and safety policies. By doing so, and being proactive, you may reduce employment-related issues and associated costs going forward. Understandably, COVID-19 was the main issue in 2020. However, in employment law there were some significant developments unrelated to the pandemic, including a number of key court decisions (see our earlier client updates, including in relation to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Matthews v. Ocean Nutrition concerning employee bonus/incentive plans). Many of our clients are taking the opportunity to review and update their employment agreements, including in relation to termination provisions, lay-off provisions, and bonus/incentive entitlements.


This update is intended for general information only. If you have questions about the above, please contact a member of our Labour & Employment group.

 

Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Client Update: “Lien”-ing Towards Efficiency: Upcoming Amendments to the Builders’ Lien Act

June 29, 2017

By Brian Tabor, QC and Colin Piercey Bill 81 and Bill 15, receiving Royal Assent in 2013 and 2014 respectively, are due to take effect this month. On June 30, 2017, amendments to the Builders’…

Read More

Weeding Through New Brunswick’s Latest Cannabis Recommendations

June 26, 2017

New Brunswick continues to be a thought leader in the field of regulation of recreational cannabis and provides us with a first look at what the provincial regulation of recreational cannabis might look like. New…

Read More

Client Update: Elk Valley Decision – SCC Finds that Enforcement of “No Free Accident” Rule in Workplace Drug and Alcohol Policy Does Not Violate Human Rights Legislation

June 23, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Richard Jordan In Stewart v. Elk Valley Coal Corporation, 2017 SCC 30, a six-judge majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) confirmed a Tribunal decision which concluded that the dismissal of an…

Read More

Client Update: The Grass is Always Greener in the Other Jurisdiction – Provincial Acts and Regulations under the Cannabis Act

June 22, 2017

By Kevin Landry New Brunswick’s Working Group on the Legalization of Cannabis released an interim report on June 20, 2017. It is a huge step forward in the legalization process and the first official look at how legalization…

Read More

Client Update: Cannabis Act regulations – now we are really getting into the weeds!

June 15, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Kevin Landry As we explained in The Cannabis Act- Getting into the Weeds, the Cannabis Act introduces a regulatory regime for recreational marijuana in Canada. The regime promises to be complex. The details of legalization will be…

Read More

Client Update: Requirement to register as a lobbyist in New Brunswick

June 15, 2017

On April 1, 2017, the New Brunswick Lobbyists’ Registration Act was proclaimed into force (the “Act”), requiring active professional consultant or in-house lobbyists to register and file returns with the Office of the Integrity Commissioner of New…

Read More

How much is too much?: Disclosure in multiple accident litigation in English v House, 2017 NLTD(G) 93

June 14, 2017

Joe Thorne and Jessica Habet How far can an insurer dig into the Plaintiff’s history to defend a claim? And how much information is an insurer entitled to have in order to do so? In English v.…

Read More

Client Update: Court of Appeal confirms accounting firms may take on multiple mandates for the same company

June 14, 2017

Neil Jacobs, QC, Joe Thorne and Meaghan McCaw The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal recently confirmed that accounting/auditing firms may take on several mandates in respect of companies that may or do become insolvent in Wabush Hotel Limited…

Read More

Negligence claims in paper-only independent medical examinations: Rubens v Sansome, 2017 NLCA 32

June 13, 2017

Joe Thorne and Brandon Gillespie An independent medical examination (“IME”) is a useful tool for insurers. An IME is an objective assessment of the claimant’s condition for the purpose of evaluating coverage and compensation. Where a…

Read More

Client Update: Mental injury? Expert diagnosis not required

June 12, 2017

On June 2, 2017 the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Saadati v. Moorhead, 2017 SCC 28, clarifying the evidence needed to establish mental injury. Neither expert evidence nor a diagnosed psychiatric illness…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top