Labour & employment law column by Robert Smithson

When Daniel Leblanc was publishing stories in the Globe and Mail newspaper relating to the federal sponsorship scandal, he nicknamed one of his confidential sources “Ma Chouette” (“My Sweetie”). Thanks to a recent Supreme Court of Canada decision upholding the confidentiality of the identity of media sources, “Ma Chouette” will remain unidentified, for now.

 

The case being heard by our highest court pitted Montreal media company Le Groupe Polygone Editeurs Inc. against the Globe and Mail and Mr. Leblanc. Le Group Polygone is one of a number of companies from whom the Attorney General of Canada sought to recover millions of public dollars paid to them by the federal government under the sponsorship program.

 

Leblanc, relying on his sources, wrote a series of articles about the sponsorship program, alleging the misuse and misdirection of federal funds. Le Groupe Polygone sought to force Mr. Leblanc to reveal the identity of his key source.

 

The Quebec Superior Court ordered Leblanc to answer questions about his sources but Leblanc refused to identify the one he code-named, “Ma Chouette”.

According to WorkSafeBC, robbers do not select their targets randomly but, instead, consider environmental factors in choosing which stores to rob (they tend to choose targets which reduce the risk of being caught and which present the greatest reward). Businesses can, therefore, reduce their risk of robbery by eliminating those characteristics which make their site attractive to thieves.

 

These seemingly logical premises support the 2008 amendments to B.C.’s Occupational Health and Safety Regulations. Those amendments were introduced to protect the health and safety of workers who work alone in retail premises, such as gas stations and convenience stores, late at night.

 

The amendments apply to employers who have workers who are working alone or in isolation in retail premises between 10:00pm and 6:00am. These employers must develop written procedures for handling money and the workers must be trained in these procedures. 

 

It may seem odd that an employer can discriminate against an employee based on a mental or physical disability when the employee doesn’t actually have a disability. It is, however, a legal concept which seems to make good sense in practice.

 

In effect, an employer who deals with an employee as if he or she suffers from a disability is treated, for the purposes of human rights law, as it would be if the employee does have a disability. Though it may be difficult to imagine why an employer would do that, this isn’t a particularly rare occurrence.

 

This concept has perhaps arisen most frequently in relation to mandatory drug testing imposed on employees. Such drug testing policies effectively treat employees as if they are drug dependent (which is a disability) and are likely to attend at work in an impaired state.

 

The great majority of employees are, of course, not addicted to drugs. However, by imposition of a mandatory drug testing policy, the employer presumes or perceives them to be addicted.

 

Each year, around this time, I dedicate a column to the topic of the heightened risk of injuries resulting from alcohol consumption at work-related events. While accidents arising out of these circumstances are seemingly few, the ramifications can be quite substantial.

 

Canadian court cases have firmly established the employer’s duty of care to take active steps to prevent injuries as a result of its employees’ alcohol consumption. If banning alcohol from staff events altogether isn’t satisfactory, there are many steps the employer can take towards reducing the likelihood of an accident.

 

Among other things, employers may implement a policy governing service and consumption of alcohol at company events. The first objective of such a policy is to put employees on notice that staff events are not an excuse for consuming alcohol to the point of posing a danger to themselves and others.