Notes

1 We use occupational safety and health (OSH) instead of occupational health and safety (OHS) in this book because our assessment of the relationship between ERGM and worker health requires going beyond the issues and concerns that are typically the focus of OHS research and regulation. It encompasses physical and mental health hazards, including those related to work-family conflict.

1 See, for example, the UK study by Christie and Ward (2019, 115), who open their paper on health and safety in the gig economy by noting, “In Great Britain it is estimated that a third of fatalities on the road occur where someone has been driving as part of work. . . . Factors related to the elevated collision risk for driving for work include higher mileages . . . fatigue . . . being more likely to talk on a mobile phone, feeling time pressured . . . and driving at higher speeds. . . . People who drive for work are also more likely to be considered at fault for the collisions they are involved in” [original references omitted].

2 Bill S-221 amended the Canadian Criminal Code to create a new aggravating factor for the purpose of sentencing offenders convicted of assault-related offences against a public transit operator who was on duty at the time of the assault. See Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 269.01.

3 Dandurand et Communauté Urbaine de Montréal, 2002 CanLII 64568 (QC CLP).

4 De Montréal Métropolitain et Lafrance, 2003 CanLII 80862 (QC CLP).

5 Canadian Union of Postal Workers v Foodora Inc. d.b.a. Foodora, 2020 CanLII 16750 (ON LRB).

6 A few studies have examined the OSH hazards to which these workers are exposed (see Fitzpatrick and Neis 2015; Bohle et al. 2009). Some studies report that hazards of home care work are exacerbated when that work is done by the precariously employed working for temporary employment agencies (see Quinlan, Bohle, and Rawlings-Way 2015). These studies include hazards associated with travel in their analysis, but this is not always the case. See, for example, an American study that did not inquire about travel between homes, which found that hazards of home care workers were similar to those to which aides in institutional health care settings were exposed, although they faced the additional hazards of working in private homes, often alone (Quinn et al. 2014).

7 For an overview of hazards to which professional home care service workers are exposed, see David, Cloutier, and Ledoux (2011).

8 Knowledge necessary to respond to a health and safety concern and familiarity with work tasks and work methods are two variables retained by Peter Smith et al. (2015) in their measure of OSH vulnerability. Although they have not directly addressed issues of mobility in their scales, these measures speak to some of the challenges faced by many in the mobile workforce (see Lay et al. 2017).

9 Similarly, Nielsen, Hansen, et al.’s (2019) study of risk of injury and short time between shifts among Danish hospital workers found a higher risk of occupational, commuting, and leisure time injuries compared to injury risk among those with a standard fifteen to seventeen hours between two shifts.

10 Workers were stranded for some time in northern Alberta with no support to return to their home provinces when a subcontractor went bankrupt and reneged on contractual guarantees to pay for travel to and from the remote work site and home (CTV News 2015).

11 Twelve Turkish crew members of the Phoenix Sun were stranded in Sorel-Tracy, Québec, for five months with little food and no income because the ship was not seaworthy and the owner ceased to make payments to the mariners or to the municipality in which the port was situated. The ship was flying a Panamanian flag, a flag of convenience. The Ontario-based spokesperson for the ship’s owner, Menpas Shipping, was evasive when contacted by reporters (Hacker-B. 2014). After five months stranded in the port, they were able to return home thanks to donations from local residents in Sorel and donated airfare provided by Air Transat (Radio-Canada 2014). The ship was subsequently sold and eventually left the port of Sorel-Tracy eight months after the crew was repatriated. The literature confirms that this is not a rare occurrence (Kahveci 2006).

12 The ILO keeps records of ship abandonments in a database, and none have been reported in Canada since 2014 (ILO, n.d.-a).

13 Roy c. Transport Norvinic inc., 2015 QCCQ 13690.

14 Vulnerability of migrant workers in the European Union has also been identified as a challenge for policymakers (see, e.g., Guldenmund, Cleal, and Mearns 2013). A greater proportion of migrants than domestic workers were found to have been exposed to higher risks of OSH issues in Korea (Cha and Cho 2014). For studies in Australia, see Underhill and Rimmer (2015) and Bamford (2015).

15 For a particularly egregious case involving two TFWs who were preyed upon by their employer in Ontario, see O.P.T. v. Presteve Foods Ltd., 2015 HRTO 675. For an equally egregious case in British Columbia, see PN v. FR and another (No. 2), 2015 BCHRT 60, a case involving a live-in caregiver repeatedly sexually assaulted by her employer.

16 This is an issue for both immigrant workers and migrant workers (for immigrant workers in Canada, see Gravel et al. 2013; Premji, Messing, and Lippel 2008; in the US, see Rathod 2010; for migrant workers, see Malhotra et al. 2013; Sargeant and Tucker 2009; McLaughlin, Hennebry, and Haines 2014; Preibisch and Otero 2014, 190–91; in Québec, see Gravel et al. 2014, a study that discusses a variety of employer strategies to overcome language barriers in the interest of more effective OSH compliance). In the UK, the Health and Safety Executive responded to the need for increasing OSH awareness in migrant workers by a twelve-month outreach campaign using documentation in Polish, Gujarati, and Romanian for construction workers; however, funding cuts have limited the possibilities that such programs continue (Pai 2010; see also Reid-Musson, Buckley, and Anderson 2015).

1 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UNGA, 3rd sess, UN Doc A/810 (1948) GA Res 217A (III).

2 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, December 16, 1966, GA Res 2200A (XXI) (entered into force January 3, 1976, in accordance with art 27).

3 The portrait of Canada looks only at federal legislation, which is of a limited value for our purposes, but it is a worthwhile source for countries that are not federations.

4 See section 1, “Part XIII of the Treaty of Peace of Versailles” (International Labour Office 1923).

5 International Labour Office (1923), 332, sec. 1.

6 C001—Hours of Work (Industry) Convention, 1919 (No 1) (entered into force June 13, 1921). This Convention was ratified by Canada in 1935.

7 See, in particular, C155—Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981 (No 155); C187—Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 2006 (No 187).

8 C155—Occupational Safety and Health Convention.

9 C187—Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Convention.

10 C187—Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Convention, s 1, art 1(d).

11 These include C081—Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No 81); C129—Labour Inspection (Agriculture) Convention, 1969 (No 129); C155—Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981 (No 155); C161—Occupational Health Services Convention, 1985; and C187—Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 2006 (No 187).

12 P155—Protocol of 2002 to the Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981.

13 C190—Violence and Harassment Convention, 2019 (No 190).

14 C097—Migration for Employment Convention (Revised), 1949 (No 97); C143—Migrant Workers (Supplementary Provisions) Convention, 1975 (No 143); Maritime Labour Convention, 2006; C032—Protection against Accidents (Dockers) Convention (Revised), 1932 (No 32); C152—Occupational Safety and Health (Dock Work) Convention, 1979 (No 152); C176—Safety and Health in Mines Convention, 1995; C181—Private Employment Agencies Convention, 1997 (No 181); C184—Safety and Health in Agriculture Convention, 2001; C188—Work in Fishing Convention, 2007 (No 188); C189—Domestic Workers Convention, 2011 (No 189).

15 As we will see, Canada has a relatively broad set of maritime OSH regulations. Section 29 of the Canada Shipping Act provides that “schedule 1 lists the international conventions, protocols and resolutions that Canada has signed that relate to matters that are within the scope of this Act and that the Minister of Transport has determined should be brought into force, in whole or in part, in Canada by regulation” (Canada Shipping Act, 2001, SC 2001, c 26). The Maritime Labour Convention has been listed in schedule 1 since 2007. See Shan (2022a) and Shan and Lippel (2019); see also Braën and Katsivela (2019).

16 Constitution Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Vict, c 3, s 91 and s 92.

17 Canada Labour Code, RSC 1985, c L-2, art 122.1.

18 Occupational Health and Safety Act, SA 2020, c O-2.2 [Alberta OHSA]; Occupational Health and Safety Act, RSNL 1990, c O-3 [NL OHSA]; Occupational Health and Safety Act, RSO 1990, c O.1 [Ontario OHSA]; Act Respecting Occupational Health and Safety, CQLR c S-2.1 [Québec AOHS].

19 See in Alberta, for example, where such obligations also belong to suppliers, temporary staffing agencies, service providers, etc.; see Alberta OHSA, ss 13, 14, 16.

20 Canada Labour Code, s 128(3)(5).

21 In Alberta, the Minister of Jobs, Economy and Trade; in NL, the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL; in Ontario, the Minister of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development; in Québec, the Minister of Employment; and at the federal level, Minister of Labour.

22 Alberta OHSA, s 28.

23 NL OHSA, s 21; Ontario OHSA, s 54; Québec AOHS, s 177.

24 Canada Labour Code, s 122.21(1).

25 Alberta OHSA, s 38–40; NL OHSA, s 27–30; Québec AOHS, s 186; Ontario OHSA, s 57(6).

26 Canada Labour Code, s 141(5).

27 However, seafarers are subject to federal regulations when returning to work following a work injury (see Shan et al. 2025).

28 Government Employees Compensation Act, RSC 1985, c G-5; Martin v. Alberta (Workers’ Compensation Board), 2014 SCC 25, [2014] 1 SCR 546.

29 Merchant Seamen Compensation Act, RSC 1985, c M-6. The definition of “seaman” excludes pilots, apprenticed pilots, and fishers. Seafarers who can claim compensation under a provincial plan or under federal government workers’ compensation legislation are excluded from the application of the law (see Braën and Katsivela 2019).

30 Canadian provinces other than Québec use “out of and in the course of employment,” while Québec’s AIAOD defines a work injury to include injury and disease incurred “out of or in the course of employment” (emphasis added).

31 In many jurisdictions, firefighters can benefit from presumptions when they develop certain types of cancer. See in Ontario, Firefighters, O Reg 253/07; in Québec, Regulation Respecting Occupational Diseases, CQLR c A-3.001, r 8.1; in Alberta, Firefighters’ Primary Site Cancer Regulation, Alta Reg 102/2003; and in NL, Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act, 2022, SNL 2022, c W-11.1, s 108 [WHSCA].

32 Béliveau St-Jacques v. Fédération des employées et employés de services publics inc., 1996 CanLII 208 (CSC), [1996] 2 RCS 345; Genest v. Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, 2001 CanLII 11888 (QC CA) (permission to appeal denied: SCC, No. 28436, September 20, 2001). The immunity also applies to accidents incurred by seafarers: Marine Services International Ltd. v. Ryan Estate, 2013 SCC 44 (CanLII), [2013] 3 SCR 53.

33 In Ontario, section 21 of the WSIA provides that “an employer shall notify the Board within three days after learning of an accident to a worker employed by him, her or it if the accident necessitates health care or results in the worker not being able to earn full wages.” In Québec, section 62 of the AOHS provides that an employer must inform the commission of an incident within twenty-four hours only if the incident has caused the “death of a worker, the loss of a limb or of part of a limb, the total or partial loss of the use of a limb or a significant physical trauma to a worker such serious injuries to two or more workers as probably to prevent them from performing their work for one working day; or material damage valued at $150,000 or more.” In Alberta, section 33 of the OHSA provides that an employer shall report the time, place, and nature of certain types of injury or illnesses (in particular, when an injury, illness, or incident results in the death of a worker or incident in which there is reason to believe the worker has been or will be admitted to a hospital beyond treatment in an emergency room or urgent care facility). In NL, section 65 of the WHSCA provides that an “employer shall give the commission written notice of any, or the possibility of any, work-related injury to a worker that comes to the attention of the employer within 3 days of receiving the information.”

34 Workers’ Compensation Act, RSA 2000, c W-15, s 10 [Alberta WCA].

35 Alberta WCA, s 13.2 (6)b.

36 WHSCA, s 40.1.

37 Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, SO 1997, c 16, Sch A, s 126 [WSIA]; there is, however, an exception about matters enumerated in section 31 of the WSIA, such as whether the right to commence an action is taken away.

38 Thibault et Shawinigan Lavallin Inc. [1987] CALP 703, SOQUIJ AZ-87156247 (Banque CALP AZ-4000002200).

39 See, however, a recent decision made by the Québec WCB that stated otherwise: Taillon et Paprima Industries inc., 2024 QCCNESST 23. No appeal or judicial review has been lodged against this decision.

40 Rousseau International Corporation 1996 et Laplante, 2002 CanLII 65984 (QC CLP).

41 Escudero v Diversified Transportation Ltd./Pacific Western Group of Companies, 2015 CanLII 50878 (ON LRB).

42 Recently, NL OSH officials were involved in an investigation with the police when an accident happened between a fuel truck and a bus carrying refinery workers (see Cooke 2024).

43 Government Employees Compensation Act, RSC 1985, c G-5, s 4 [GECA]: “The employee or the dependants . . . are, notwithstanding the nature or class of the employment, entitled to receive compensation at the same rate and under the same conditions as are provided under the law of the province where the employee is usually employed.”

44 GECA, s 6; however, see Rochon et ACDI, 2008 QCCLP 5273, where a worker who was hired and trained in Québec by a federal organization contracted a disease overseas and was found to be compensable under Québec law; see also Vaillancourt et Agence Canadienne de Développement International, 2001 CanLII 45157 (QC CLP), where the tribunal concluded that regular international travel did not equate with being usually employed outside of Canada.

45 Act Respecting Industrial Accidents and Occupational Diseases, CQLR c A-3.001, art. 7 [AIAOD].

46 Establishment means “all installations and equipment grouped on the same site and organized under the authority of the same person or related persons, for the production or distribution of goods or services, with the exception of a construction site; this word includes in particular a school, a construction company as well as the premises made available by the employer to the worker for the purposes of accommodation, food or leisure, with the exception, however, of private premises used for habitation” (Québec AOHS, s 1).

47 Fauteux et Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail, 2015 QCCLP 1587; see also Richer et Elk Property Management, 2018 QCTAT 1992, where the appeals tribunal concluded that an Ontario enterprise, whose head office was in Ontario, had establishments in Québec, since it was operating residential buildings and housing in Québec. In Dib et Varite (Canada) inc., 2021 QCTAT 4499, the employer, whose headquarters was located in California, used an office within the premises of a car rental company in Québec. Since this office was reserved for the worker and contained the necessary equipment for the performance of his work, the employer was deemed to have an establishment in Québec.

48 See note 37.

49 The Commission des lésions professionnelles (CLP) heard the final appeals on workers’ compensation in Québec until January 1, 2016. It was replaced by the Tribunal administratif du travail (TAT) on that date: Loi instituant le Tribunal administratif du travail, RLRQ c T-15.1.

50 Mougeot et R.W. Tomlinson ltée, 2015 QCCLP 3271 (Cadieux-Mougeot et R.W. Tomlinson Ltd., 2016 QCTAT 1887, ruling on an application for review or revocation dismissed). The worker’s benefits were reinstated because the procedural requirements that would have legitimated the reconsideration of the initial decision of the CSST accepting the claim were not in place.

51 AIAOD, art 8; note the current formulation of this provision dates back to 1996: Rénovations Ancestrales Inc. et Lahaie, 1999 CanLII 22192 (QC CLP). This provision seems to apply without difficulty to accidents occurring outside the province. See, for example, A.C.F. Transportaide Enr. et Fortin, 2003 CanLII 78075 (QC CLP). The same principles apply, with necessary adaptations, to occupational disease claims made by workers working for an employer with an establishment in Québec at the time they contracted their illness. When a company such as Air Canada has establishments in many provinces, it suffices that they have an establishment in Québec, even if the worker was assigned to flights flying out of Toronto: Air Canada et Dallaire, 2008 QCCLP 2080.

52 Elyoumni (Re), 2006 CanLII 69285 (QC CLP).

53 Jalbert et Construction Gely inc., 2016 QCTAT 6813; Laflamme et Swenson Canada Inc., 1997 CanLII 19497 (QC CALP); Romaguer et Excel Human Resources, 2009 QCCLP 3012 [Romaguer]. In Romaguer, the claimant, a specialist in environmental biology, filed a claim alleging that the tendinitis in his right forearm and the carpal tunnel syndrome, which was more significant on the right than on the left, were attributable to his work with the keyboard and mouse of a computer carried out for the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). The CSST rejected his claim on the grounds that he was not a worker subject to the act. The review body confirmed this decision. The claimant linked his injury to work done for CIDA. When he applied to the CSST, he was told that because he was hired by an employment agency in Ontario, even though his residence was in Québec and his injury occurred in Québec, he should apply to the WSIB, which he did. The WSIB found that he was not covered by Ontario law because he was hired to work in Québec and was not a resident of Ontario, and his work was not performed in Ontario. When the applicant went back to the CSST, he was told that he was not covered by the AIAOD because the employment agency had its official address in Ontario. He then returned to the WSIB, where he was again told that he had to make his claim in Québec. Subsequently, his CSST claim was rejected on the basis that his employer did not have a place of business in Québec. The appeals tribunal in Québec finally accepted his claim, concluding the employer was CIDA and not the agency, which was only an intermediary, having an administrative duty in the situation.

54 Thus, an Ontario resident working for a Québec-based trucking company, injured in North Carolina, was found to not have coverage under Québec’s Workers’ Compensation Act because the criteria set in section 8 of the AIAOD were not met. The domicile requirement was contested under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (s 6 and s 15), and the Québec Court of Appeal found it to be constitutionally valid: Soucy c. Québec (Procureur général), 2007 QCCA 1482. The Supreme Court of Canada refused permission to appeal: Richard Soucy c. Procureur général du Québec, Commission des lésions professionnelles, Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail et Martrans Express (122085 Canada Inc.), 2008 CanLII 18938 (CSC). The worker could not successfully claim in Ontario because he did not meet the compensation criteria. This is a clear example of a regulatory vacuum leading to the absence of coverage for a worker who would normally be covered in both Québec and Ontario if his residence and his employer’s place of business were in the same province. The court of appeal confirms he maintains his common law rights to sue the employer given that he does not fall within the purview of workers’ compensation legislation.

55 Bertrand et Transport Taurus, 2021 QCTAT 4245. The tribunal notes, “Although the employer argues that it paid contributions in Québec and that these contributions should provide a ‘certain’ level of protection to the worker, there are very few grounds in the present case that would allow the Tribunal to grant the requested protection. This is one of those situations where the good faith and good intentions of all parties are not sufficient to resolve the dispute favourably” (our translation).

56 Kamano et Cavalia inc. 2019 QCTAT 1893; Zhang et Lock-Danseurs inc., 2013 QCCLP 2157; Deng et Lock-Danseurs inc., 2013 QCCLP 6269; Compagnie Marie Chouinard et Myeong, 2010 QCCLP 7620. For claims relating to truck drivers found to be domiciled in Québec and therefore covered by the AIAOD, see Laul et Transport Trans Xline inc., 2009 QCCLP 7497; Singh (Succession de) et 6709052 Canada inc., 2010 QCCLP 5667; an international sales representative with residences in Québec and India, who died accidentally in India, was found to be domiciled in Québec: Mahoon (Succession de) et Boutique Le Rock, 2008 QCCLP 3544.

57 However, Policy 06-01 (Part II) states some exclusions that fall outside of the scope of the WCA. For instance, “Trucking conducted by an employer based outside Canada if the employer does not have an ordinary place of business in Alberta or does not employ workers resident in Alberta; persons who ordinarily reside outside Canada and are employed by employers who are based outside Canada and carry on business in Alberta on a temporary basis” (WCB-Alberta 2023e, sec. 19; see also Cherry et al. 2016).

58 Alberta WCA, s 1(1) (j) (1).

59 Workers’ Compensation Regulation, Alta Reg 325/2002.

60 Alberta WCA, s 1, s 28(1); s 28(2) allows the board some flexibility in the application of this provision.

61 WSIA, s 18(1).

62 Decision No 1407/03, 2005 ONWSIAT 1377.

63 WHSCA.

64 WHSCA, s 59.

65 WHSCA, s 59.

66 WHSCA, s 57.

67 See, for example, Cousineau c. Forage M. Lafrenière inc., 2010 QCCA 1581 [Cousineau].

68 Cousineau. For similar situations, see R.V. et Compagnie A, 2010 QCCLP 2948, where the appeals tribunal noted that the worker, after having received some benefits from the WSIB, requested that the file be transferred to the CSST, a request to which there was no response for two years. The appeals tribunal acknowledged the validity of the choice of the worker and returned the file to the CSST for adjudication, five years after the initial accident.

69 For a similar example, see Milot et DL Instrumentation 1996 inc., 2010 QCCLP 8651, where the claim was initially accepted by the WCB-Alberta when his physician prescribed physiotherapy without the worker having actually filed a claim or received benefits in Alberta. The Commission des lésions professionnelles accepted a claim for a recurrence that manifested itself a few months after the initial injury, concluding that the worker can elect to be compensated for a recurrence under section 452 because he never initially elected to be compensated in Alberta. The same reasoning was applied in Mignault et Scotiablast Ltd., 2020 QCTAT 146, where the fact that a worker received benefits from WorkplaceNL did not, according to the tribunal, constitute a waiver of his right to exercise the option when the delays of section 452 are met.

70 Thomson v. Watson, 2020 ONSC 4409; in this case, an Ontario resident was injured while driving his employer’s truck in BC. The employer was based in Alberta. The plaintiff elected to receive Alberta workers’ compensation benefits. In 2014, he brought an action against the defendant (the employer), also an Ontario resident, for damages for improper maintenance of the truck. Also in Alberta, see Pe Ben Oilfield Services (2006) Ltd v Arlint, 2019 ABCA 400, where the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta concluded in 2017 “that workers’ compensation legislation may not have extra-provincial effect if it creates a conflict of laws or compromises the rights of a non-resident outside of Alberta. The issue remains, however, whether the Alberta WCA can compromise the rights of an Alberta resident outside of Alberta. The existing case law suggests that it cannot.”

71 See appendix A of the IJA for complete limits on the extent of participation by the signatory boards (AWCBC 2017).

72 AIAOD, s 8.

73 Racicot et Gérard Chabot (F), 2013 QCCLP 5947; this case relates to facts prior to the withdrawal from the agreement, and since only 5 percent of the exposure occurred in Québec, the tribunal asked the CSST to transfer the claim to the Ontario Board.

1 The authors note that weather conditions are a preoccupation of mobile health care workers (see Fitzpatrick 2021).

2 For example, ten Peruvian migrant farmworkers were killed in an accident near London, Ontario, in 2012 (CBC News 2012c). On October 30, 2022, eight migrant workers were injured—four with serious injuries—in a car crash in the early morning on their way to work (Shreve 2022).

3 See the report of WorkSafe BC (2007) on an accident leading to the death of three farm workers in a fifteen-passenger van rollover.

4 See, however, Boucher et CLSC Joliette, 2001 CanLII 46432 (QC CLP), where the right to refuse work because of bad weather exercised by home care workers was rejected.

5 The term workplace is used in health and safety legislation and in Ontario, for example, “means any land, premises, location or thing at, upon, in or near which a worker works” (Occupational Health and Safety Act, RSO 1990, c O.1, s 1).

6 Occupational Health and Safety Code, Alta Reg 191/2021 [OHSC].

7 OHSC, s 7.

8 Section 256(3) provides that he must “report to the employer any conditions affecting the safe operation of the equipment, operate the equipment safely, use the seat belts and other safety equipment in the powered mobile equipment, ensure that passengers in the powered mobile equipment use the seat belts and other safety equipment in the powered mobile equipment.”

9 According to section 275(3), he must ensure that equipment or material is positioned or secured to prevent injury to the operator and passengers, if any. He must also “ensure that sufficient protection against inclement weather is provided for workers travelling in a vehicle or unit of powered mobile equipment.”

10 OHSC, s 525.

11 OHSC.

12 Passenger Transport Vehicles, O Reg 418/21, filed June 7, 2021, under Highway Traffic Act, RSO 1990, c H.8.

13 Mines and Mining Plants, RRO 1990, Reg 854 [Mines].

14 Mines, s 110.

15 Industrial Establishments, RRO 1990, Reg 851.

16 Industrial Establishments, s 119.

17 Occupational Health and Safety Regulation, 2012, NLR 5/12. [NL OHSR]

18 NL OHSR, s 280.

19 NL OHSR, s 281.

20 NL OHSR, s 286.

21 NL OHSR, s 284.

22 Weir’s Construction Limited v Warford (Estate), 2018 NLCA 5.

23 Regulation Respecting Occupational Health and Safety, CQLR c S-2.1, r 13 [RROHS].

24 RROHS, s 358.

25 RROHS, s 360.

26 RROHS, s 361.

27 RROHS, s 362.

28 Occupational Health and Safety Regulation, BC Reg 296/97, 17: “Transportation of Workers.”

29 See also the report of the Offshore Helicopter Safety Inquiry (Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board 2010). See also this CBC News (2006) report of a geologist who was struck by the rotor blades of a helicopter.

30 In NL, the fatigue of ambulance professionals has been found to be an important challenge for the OSH regulator, as discussed by the Department of Health and Community Services (2013).

31 The hazard of long hours and associated fatigue has been identified in every study we found. Yet employers have been shown to deny responsibility for accidents resulting from fatigue. Despite the employer’s argument, the Québec appeals tribunal concluded that somnolence in a truck driver whose regular shift required twelve hours a night, five days a week was an inherent hazard of his job, and as such the employer was not entitled to cost relief, which would have allowed them to avoid experience rating for the cost of his injuries resulting from a motor vehicle accident (Transport TFI 5, s.e.c. et Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail, 2014 QCCLP 4154).

32 For an illustration of the complexity underpinning hours of work requirements in trucking, see Durdle (n.d.). This presentation discussed new regulations that came into force on January 1, 2007, so the information is not up to date, but it provides evidence of the complexity of the interjurisdictional challenges.

33 Federal regulations, which apply to interjurisdictional trucking, limit the daily driving time to thirteen hours a day, unless the driver takes at least eight consecutive hours of off-duty time before driving again (s 13); they also impose a maximum of fourteen hours of on-duty time, after which the driver must not be required to drive (s 12); finally, they specify that “no motor carrier shall request, require or allow a driver to drive and no driver shall drive after 16 hours of time have elapsed between the conclusion of the most recent period of 8 or more consecutive hours of off-duty time and the beginning of the next period of 9 or more consecutive hours of off-duty time” (s 13). However, section 10 of the regulation specifies that time spent in a commercial vehicle as a passenger heading to the destination at which the driver will begin driving may be considered off-duty time under certain conditions (Commercial Vehicle Drivers Hours of Service Regulations, SOR/2005–313 [Commercial Vehicle]).

34 Commercial Vehicle.

35 See An Act to Amend the Automobile Insurance Act, the Highway Safety Code and Other Provisions, SQ 2022, c 13.

36 For a complete overview of how family, mobility, and work intersect, see Neis, Spinks, and Murray (2022).

37 See the exchange between North American truckers on this issue on the TruckersReport discussion forum (Firestone 2015).

38 Ménard et Cascades Transport inc., 2021 QCTAT 5334.

39 Although those provinces where work organization is explicitly addressed in the general duty clause (such as in Québec) may be in a better position to raise these issues with employers.

40 In Di Milia and Bowden’s (2007) article, the authors discuss that despite the fact that twelve-hour shifts are associated with increased fatigue, they remain popular among employees. In fact, several studies report their popularity is “based primarily on the access to sufficient quantities of leisure time” (103).

41 Australian guidelines for workers and managers refer to the hazards associated with fatigue in FIFO workers (Comcare 2013).

42 Regulation Respecting Labour Standards, CQLR c N-1.1, r 3, s 12. This section provides that “the standard workweek for an employee working in a remote area is 55 hours.” Section 1 defines a “remote area” as “an area that is inaccessible by a passable road and where no regular transport system connects it to the Québec road network”; the same regulation provides for longer work weeks (between forty-seven and fifty-five hours) for workers working in sawmills in James Bay or in the forestry industry.

43 A regulation taken under Ontario’s Employment Standards Act, 2000 provides for exceptional work weeks in these industries, limiting the negotiated schedules to be no longer than twenty-eight days in a row: Terms and Conditions of Employment in Defined Industries—Mineral Exploration and Mining, O Reg 159/05.

44 In Québec, see Act Respecting Labour Standards, CQLR c N-1.1, s 78 [ARLS] (thirty-two hours per week). See more generally Gesualdi-Fecteau and Nakache (2017, 26–36).

45 Employment Standards Act, RSBC 1996, c 113, s 39.

46 Motor Vehicle Operators Hours of Work Regulations, CRC, c 990.

47 Various regulations address hours of work and Maritime transport, including a regulation applicable on the west coast, West Coast Shipping Employees Hours of Work Regulations, CRC, c 992, and another, with different rules, applicable to the east coast: East Coast and Great Lakes Shipping Employees Hours of Work Regulations, 1985, CRC, c 987.

48 Railway Running-Trades Employees Hours of Work Regulations, CRC, c 991.

49 See ARLS, s 78 (thirty-two hours per week). See more generally Gesualdi-Fecteau and Nakache (2017).

50 Hunt et 9185–9280 Québec inc., 2015 QCCLP 1714, cited in Lippel and Walters (2019, 325).

51 Regulation Respecting Occupational Health and Safety, CQLR c S-2.1, r 13, annex 1, art 16.

52 Industrial Establishments, RRO 1990, Reg 851, s 135.

53 OHSC, s 177.

54 Occupational Health and Safety Regulation, BC Reg 296/97, as amended by Occupational Health and Safety Regulation, BC Reg 132/2023.

55 Occupational Health and Safety First Aid Regulations, CNLR 1148/96 [OHSFR].

56 Regulation first-aid minimum standards, CQLR c A-3.001, r 10, s 20 [RFMS].

57 RFMS, s 5.

58 OHSC, s 180; OHSFR, s 11.

59 Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Area Occupational Health and Safety Regulations, SOR/2021–247.

60 Oil and Gas—Offshore, RRO 1990, Reg 855, s 6.

61 RFMS, s 20.

62 Regulation Respecting Health and Safety in Forest Development Work, CQLR c S-2.1, r 12.1.

63 ArcelorMittal Infrastructure Canada, s.e.n.c. et Archambault, 2015 QCCLP 1043.

64 Archambault c. Commission des lésions professionnelles, 2016 QCCS 4469.

65 A study in France showed how immigration rules were designed to facilitate control of migrant farm workers by limiting their mobility and that they also favoured the employers who made an income from the rent paid by the workers, deducted from their earnings (see Décosse 2016).

66 The freedom of movement guaranteed in section 6 of The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Constitution Act, 1982) does not apply to noncitizens. However, similar limitations are not specified in Québec’s Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, CQLR c C-12, which does apply to migrant workers according to the Québec Human Rights Commission (Carpentier and Fiset 2011).

67 More specifically, Jones (2014, 86) remarked that respondents “talked about the temptation to jump in a truck and leave the site when work became too stressful. If that is the case, vehicle access could increase turnover. Without access to a vehicle, this would be impossible and workers would be stuck at the site until their rotation ended.”

68 For example, a nurse practitioner working in a northern BC community was exposed to mould in both the residence provided by the employer and the workstation provided. Her claim for disease related to that exposure was upheld: WCAT-2005-01431 (Re), 2005 CanLII 87417 (BC WCAT).

69 In Québec, the Regulation Respecting Sanitary Conditions in Industrial or Other Camps, CQLR c S-2.1, r 5.1 [Sanitary Conditions] is a regulation adopted under the Environment Quality Act, CQLR c Q-2.

70 In Alberta, Work Camps Regulation, Alta Reg 218/2002, was adopted under the Public Health Act, RSA 2000, c P-37, which addresses buildings, beds, furnishings, laundry service, privies, hand-washing facilities, garbage, and sewage disposal and requires compliance by the owner of the work camp. In Ontario, some regulatory provisions governing camps can be found in Camps in Unorganized Territory, O Reg 502/17 [Camps], taken under the Health Protection and Promotion Act, RSO 1990, c H.7 [HPPA].

71 Health, Safety and Reclamation Code for Mines in British Columbia, adopted under section 34 of the Mines Act, RSBC 1996, c 293.

72 Sanitary Conditions, s 17.

73 See section 3.01: Building Trades of Alberta and Construction Labour Relations—an Alberta Association (2010). Construction Camp Rules and Regulations for Construction Camp Accommodations: 2010–2018, https://ualocal179.ca/pdfs/agreements/CampAgreement2010-2018.pdf. The rules include descriptions of conditions to be met relating to hot water, size of room, standards of construction and furnishing, windows, bedding, washrooms, gender segregation, and so on. There are also quite detailed provisions on the quality of the food to be provided, including the requirement that clam chowder be available on Fridays. The agreement also specifies mechanisms for dispute resolution.

74 See, for example, the following collective agreement: Construction Labour Relations—an Alberta Association Labourers (Provincial) Trade Division and the Construction and General Workers’ Union Local 92 (2023). Labourers General Construction Collective Agreement: January 29, 2023, to April 30, 2025, https://clra.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/LB-C-2023-2025-Collective-Agreement-Final-searchable-PDF.pdf.

75 HPPA; Camps.

76 Information about practices that employers should put in place in order to prevent contamination also came from public health authorities (see Groupe de travail SAT-COVID-19 2020).

77 FTQ Construction et Hydro-Québec (Gestion Acc. Trav), 2010 QCCLP 8337.

78 Tremblay et Transport Clément Bégin inc., 2013 QCCLP 5924; in this case, the fact that the private home was made available to the workers on a temporary basis, as an accommodation to give workers from Montréal a chance to see if they could get used to the Abitibi-Témiscamingue region, seemed to weigh in for the decision-maker. In his complaint, the worker claims that the place where he lived should be a nonsmoking environment; the appeals tribunal ruled that the worker’s request did not constitute the exercise of a right provided for in the AOHS because the place where the worker lived was not part of the employer’s establishment and could not be assimilated to his workplace.

79 Schedule 1 of the Regulation Respecting Prevention Programmes, CQLR c S-2.1 r 10 [Prevention Programmes], determined the three priority sectors to which the prevention program provisions apply. As of this writing, we are in the transitory phase of an important reform of both the AOHS and the AIAOD in Québec that eliminates the priority sectors, but the real potency of the reform is still unknown.

80 Sanitary Conditions; the requirement to integrate this regulation into the prevention program is found in section 5 of Prevention Programmes (this was not modified by the recent reform that took place in Québec).

81 Sanitary Conditions, s 1(a); our translation.

82 See, however, Sanitary Conditions, s 14, para. i, a Québec provision requiring special consideration for a woman worker accompanied by at least one child. The employer must “supply for the women who will reside in each camp a room with a window and completely separate from the kitchen; in the case of women having 1 child or more, they are required to erect and furnish, according to plans and specifications supplied or accepted by the Minister, a dwelling separate from the dormitories and the kitchen” (s 14). It is unclear if this regulation is ever applied since we found only two decisions applying it, including one in 1986, Reboisement Lavoie Enr. et Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail, 1986 CanLII 4195 (QC CALP), and one in 1996, Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail et Aménagement Forestier Lepro Inc., 1996 CanLII 12789 (QC CALP). In these two cases, a CSST inspector issued orders to close logging camps operated by the employer in remote locations, on the grounds that they did not comply with the requirements of different laws and regulations, including Sanitary Conditions.

83 Some provisions address the need for work camps to have laundering facilities that protect the natural environment or require that laundry facilities be made available to workers but don’t address the protection of the workers’ health needs in relation to the requirements governing laundry facilities. See, for instance, Camps in Unorganized Territory, RRO 1990, Reg 554, s 17, taken under the HPPA (section 17 refers to Building Code, O Reg 332/12, which provides that a camp for housing of workers shall include at least one washing machine or laundry tub for every fifteen beds); in Québec: Sanitary Conditions, s 14(c); in Alberta: Work Camps Regulation, s 7. For instance, in Alberta, it is required that workers access laundry facilities at least once a week, which does not provide a solution for workers who need to change contaminated clothes daily.

84 The same coping mechanism was also found in Dorow and Mandizadza’s (2018, 1249) study, where workers were “opting out of connecting with family.”

85 Amendments of 2022 to the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, as Amended (MLC, 2006) (110th Conference Session, Geneva, June 6, 2022).

86 “He crashed and died; that is all I know. . . . I don’t think I should be in Jamaica sitting down here struggling to find out what really happened”: Georgina Graham, widow of Omar Graham, who was killed in Paris, Ontario, in August 2011 (quoted in Davidson 2012).

87 In Preibisch and Otero’s (2014) study, they found evidence that employers intentionally played groups of workers, some TFWs, others recent immigrants to Canada, against each other by threatening to prefer one group over the other when next renewing contracts. For similar findings where competition between Mexican and Guatemalan agricultural workers is described, see Gesualdi-Fecteau (2014).

88 For an illustration of local resistance to FIFO work organization, see Thurton (2018). Similar resistance has been expressed by unions representing local workers in Labrador City who do not want to see FIFO workers introduced in the Iron Ore Company of Canada’s operations in that city (CBC News 2012a). For a detailed analysis of the impact of work camps on small communities, see Fionda and Jones (2018).

89 Balikama obo others v. Khaira Enterprises and others, 2014 BCHRT 107.

90 ERGM can pose challenges for people with disabilities including disabilities related to work. The relationship between return-to-work and mobility will be discussed in chapter 4.

91 Act Respecting Occupational Health and Safety, CQLR c S-2.1, art 40. For more detail, see Lippel (1998).

92 Labeaume et Société en Commandite Scierie Opticiwan, 2000 CanLII 33119 (QC CLP). The worker also raised the possibility that living conditions in the work camp were a hazard because of her pregnancy, but the tribunal concluded that she had not provided evidence that living in the forestry camp represented a hazard.

93 Canadelle Société en commandite (Re), 2006 CanLII 69460 (QC CLP).

94 Morissette et Mosaic Solutions de vente, 2015 QCCLP 1761.

1 Workers’ Compensation Act, RSBC 2019, c 1.

2 Occupational Health and Safety Act, RSPEI, c O-1.01, s 1 and s 4 provide that the WCB administers the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

3 Act Respecting Occupational Health and Safety, CQLR c S-2.1, s 137; Act Respecting Industrial Accidents and Occupational Diseases, CQLR c A-3.001, s 349 [AIAOD].

4 The minister designated under section 16 of the Government Organization Act, RSA 2000, c G-10, is the minister responsible for the Occupational Health and Safety Act, SA 2020, c O-2.2, s 1 (aa).

5 Occupational Health and Safety Act, RSO, 1990, c O.1, s 4.1.

6 Minister of Labour and Advanced Education has jurisdiction for implementation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, SNS 1996, c 7, s 3 (k) and s 6.

7 Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission of Newfoundland and Labrador (WorkplaceNL) has jurisdiction over compensation: Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act, 2022, SNL 2022, c W-11.1, s 20 [WHSCA].

8 The Occupational Health and Safety Division of the Department of Employment and Labour Relations has jurisdiction over the administration of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and regulations (WHSCA, s 20).

9 Unless there is a reasonable cause for failing to file a claim within the time limit set out in the law; see, for example, Succession de Chabot et Hôpital Sainte-Justine, 2020 QCTAT 728.

10 See Cole (Succession de) et Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail—Soutien à l’imputation, 2008 QCCLP 789, where the alleged exposure occurred in Ontario between 1956 and 1959 when the deceased worked for a Québec company and was domiciled in Québec. The claim of the estate was accepted.

11 Racicot et Gérard Chabot (F), 2013 QCCLP 5947. The appeals tribunal invokes section 7 of the Interjurisdictional Agreement on Workers’ Compensation (IJA) in referring the case to Ontario in order for it to deal with the worker’s claim, since 95 percent of the total contributory exposure occurred in Ontario (more than the 30 percent stipulated in the IJA for it to have jurisdiction to deal with his occupational disease file). However, Québec withdrew from that provision of the agreement in 2005. The worker’s exposure preceded that withdrawal, but one can imagine the worker might encounter technical difficulties in establishing their claim. See also Gypetch Acoustique inc. et Intérieurs Protouch inc., 2010 QCCLP 4543, revised in Gyptech Acoustique inc. et Doyon, 2011 QCCLP 3646, where a claim for carpal tunnel syndrome was filed by a construction worker who had worked in Québec after having worked for several years in Ontario. Québec’s WCB accepted the claim, but the appeals tribunal overthrew the decision because it deemed exposure in Québec to be insufficient when compared to exposure in Ontario. In the end, the worker was granted compensation, but the final decision came four years after the worker’s initial claim. However, in another case, the fact that the worker was exposed to excessive noise for many years while practicing his profession in another Canadian province was considered irrelevant, since the tribunal considered the period of exposure to noise in Québec from 1971 to 1978 sufficient to develop an occupational disease: Baril et Oslo Construction inc., 2022 QCTAT 2407.

12 Caux et Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail, 2001 CanLII 47309 (QC CLP); see also Bélanger et Agacie Transport (F), 2019 QCTAT 718; Roy et Cyr Drilling International Ltd., 2012 QCCLP 7423.

13 See, for example, Gordon Hicks et Canada (Ressources humaines et Développement des compétences), 2013 QCCLP 5925, where a federal employee filed a claim in Québec, where he was currently employed by the federal government. The claim was denied because the exposure to noise that could explain his diagnosis of work-related hearing loss occurred when he was working for the federal government in Nova Scotia. According to the tribunal, the claim should be filed in Nova Scotia, since the disability was the result of exposure to excessive noise that occurred in that province while the worker was living there.

14 For example, the Québec appeals tribunal accepted a claim for a recurrence from an injury compensated by the Québec WCB, a recurrence that occurred while the worker was on holiday in France: Cloutier et René-Paul Lambert & Fils, 2003 CanLII 81410 (QC CLP). In Ontario, the WSIAT accepted a claim for a recurrence that occurred after the worker left the province and moved back to their native province of Newfoundland and Labrador: Decision No 441/89, 1991 CanLII 4918 (ON WSIAT); this also appears to be the case in Alberta: Decision No 2005-1037, 2005 CanLII 76376 (AB WCAC); and in NL: Decision No 15115, 2015-07-07 (WCIRB); Decision No 16008, January 1, 2016 (WCIRB). See now WHSCA, s 95. It is worth mentioning that the IJA discussed in chapter 2 foresees two scenarios when a recurrence occurs: one where a recurrence or worsening results from subsequent employment and one where it is not derived from subsequent employment. In the first scenario, “where a worker who has been, or is, in receipt of benefits from one jurisdiction, and who has taken up employment in another jurisdiction, claims that his or her condition has recurred, worsened, or been aggravated as a result of his or her employment in that jurisdiction, the Board in that jurisdiction shall adjudicate the new claim and award additional benefits to which the worker is entitled and pay the full cost of such benefits and related services as are provided for by its Statutory Authority or policy, and shall advise the other Board upon request” (AWCBC 2017, sec. 8.1). Hence the WCB of the province in which the worker is working when the recurrence occurs will be in charge. In the other scenario, “the Board in that jurisdiction shall refer all pertinent information to the original adjudicating Board for adjudication and the provisions of this Agreement shall apply in respect of administrative co-operation” (sec. 8.1).

15 Nahimana et Groupe Datamark System inc., 2010 QCCLP 8028; see, however, K. Khan et Canadien Pacifique Ltée Bureau E-209, 1992 CanLII 11120 (QC CALP).

16 In the Northwest Territories and in Nunavut, coverage has been extended in 2023 to different diagnoses including acute stress disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and anxiety or depressive disorder (see WSCC 2023).

17 Workers’ Compensation Act, RSA 2000, c W-15, s 24.2 [Alberta WCA]; Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, SO 1997, c 16, Sch A, s 14 [WSIA]. In New Brunswick, emergency response workers are covered by a presumptive legislation when the emergency response worker is diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder by a qualifying psychologist or psychiatrist (WorkSafeNB 2021).

18 Regulation Respecting Occupational Diseases, CQLR c A-3.001, r 8.1. In Yukon, a post-traumatic stress disorder presumption applies to all workers who have been exposed to a traumatic event in the course of their employment (WSCB Yukon n.d.). A presumption also exists in Saskatchewan and Manitoba when a worker is exposed to a traumatic event that arose out of and in the course of employment (Saskatchewan WCB 2017; WCB Manitoba 2022).

19 WHSCA, s 112; for the definition of a “traumatic event” and diagnostic requirements, see WorkplaceNL (2023b).

20 See, for example, in Ontario Decision No. 3528/18, 2019 ONWSIAT 987: “The Panel acknowledges that there has been some variation in Tribunal decisions in the application of Board policy regarding what constitutes ‘in the course of employment’ or conversely, the kinds of activities that cause a worker to be excluded from coverage and entitlement because an activity is not reasonably incidental to his/her employment.”

21 Instech Télécommunication inc. et Charbonneau, 2015 QCCLP 3153; Plomberie & Chauffage Plombec Inc. et Deslongchamps, 1995 CanLII 14384 (QC CALP); Commission Scolaire Catholique Sherbrooke et Binette, 1998 CanLII 20128 (QC CLP); Autobus Bourassa ltée et Barthell, 2022 QCTAT 1848 [Autobus Bourassa], a school bus driver who, between two work periods, fell in the parking lot of her home after getting off the bus that she was authorized to keep at home during the school year and was injured in the course of employment.

22 The WCB uses the “but for” test (WCB-Alberta 2023b): “The ‘but for’ test is a finding of fact—the work exposures were necessary for the accident and injury to occur. In other words, if not for the work exposures, the injury or disease would not have happened. In some cases, there may be several causes that meet the ‘but for’ test that work in combination to cause an injury. Work does not have to be the only factor, or even the primary one, for the injury to be compensable. It must, however, be a necessary factor; if the injury or disability would have happened anyway, regardless of the work factor, it is not compensable” (WCB-Alberta 2018b, ques. 5).

23 When assessing a claim, “the WSIB will consider entitlement in claims where a worker is injured when going to or from work in transport under the control and supervision of, or chartered by, the employer; obtaining pay or depositing tools, etc., on the employer’s premises after actual work hours; participating in a work-related sports activity, for example, school teachers and camp counselors, when the employer condones these activities by making the premises available and/or exercising a form of supervision and control; attending compulsory evening courses; travelling on company business, by the most direct and uninterrupted route, under the supervision and control of the employer; travelling to or from a convention and/or participating in convention activities; and on a lunch, break, or other non-work period (period of leisure) by ordinary hazards of the employer’s premises” (WSIB Ontario 2004c).

24 Decision No 398/14, 2014 ONWSIAT 514.

25 Workmen’s Compensation Board v. C.P.R., 1952 CanLII 44 (SCC), [1952] 2 SCR 359.

26 Decision No 2256/15, 2015 ONWSIAT 2420; the same reasoning was applied for a worker who was staying in overnight accommodation for the purpose of a business trip: Decision No 1038/16, 2016 ONWSIAT 2101.

27 Guemeni et Montréal (Ville de), 2013 QCCLP 6229.

28 Sergerie et Groupecho Canada inc., 2007 QCCLP 4977.

29 Pommes Ma-gic inc., 2014 QCCLP 3309, in which the worker’s return to France was governed by the Québec-France agreement and treated as a resignation. The CSST managed the claim at a distance, and the employer lost his appeal when he tried to claim the costs of compensation were unjustly attributed to his account.

30 WSIB Ontario’s (2023) “Health Care Outside Ontario” policy concerns nonresident workers covered by the WSIB but who reside outside Ontario at the time of the accident or who move out of Ontario after the accident. In these cases, “as long as non-residents maintain an employment connection to Ontario (e.g., they are employed by an Ontario company) they can choose to seek elective treatment in Ontario or in the community in which they reside. If there is no longer an employment connection with Ontario, (e.g., a worker retires or takes a new job outside the province), the WSIB does not continue to pay for treatment in Ontario, unless otherwise authorized. In such cases, workers must seek elective treatment in their own community. . . . The WSIB determines entitlement to elective treatment in locations outside Ontario and beyond the worker’s own community, based on the clinical status of the worker and the availability and clinical appropriateness of the treatment required” (WSIB Ontario 2023).

31 Decision No 2010-117, 2010 CanLII 5952 (AB WCAC); Decision No 16189, September 29, 2016 (WCIRB); Decision No 673/16, 2016 ONWSIAT 943: “On that basis, we find treatment was interrupted between January 25th and March 29th. We further find that interruption arose from the worker’s absence from Canada. We find this to be an intervening event which precludes full LOE [loss of earnings] entitlement. Accordingly, we find that while the worker continued to be unable to work, LOE benefits should be reduced during that period.” It is worth noting that this decision followed the refusal by the WCB to compensate the worker for treatment outside of Ontario. See also Decision No 654/21, 2021 ONWSIAT 1113, where a worker was allowed to receive treatment in Winnipeg rather than Toronto, since repeated extensive travel might pose significant health challenges for the worker; WCB-Alberta 2018c, ques. 3; see Decision No 2019-0275, 2019 CanLII 48028 (AB WCAC).

32 Decision No 2021-0267, 2021 CanLII 56962 (AB WCAC), paras. 89–90.

33 Act Respecting Industrial Accidents and Occupational Diseases, CQLR c A-3.001, s 2, s 210 [AIAOD]; there are similar dispositions in the Alberta WCA, s 39, and the Ontario WSIA, s 36.

34 Fermes Sunchef inc. et Morena Quintanilla, 2012 QCCLP 1195: The facts in that case showed that the worker had a work permit that was not renewed after her injury. The employer had tried to assign her light duties but could not do so as she did not have a valid work permit; see also Usitech 2000 inc. et Fonseca Cabrera, 2018 QCTAT 6172; Socadis inc. et Mahamad, 2022 QCTAT 1809.

35 In Québec, the term consolidation is used and refers to “the healing or stabilization of an employment injury following which no improvement of the state of health of the injured worker is foreseeable” (AIAOD, s 2).

36 WSIA, s 40; AIAOD, s 145, 146; Alberta WCA, s 89; WHSCA, s 100.

37 AIAOD, s 179.

38 AIAOD, s 145.2.

39 AIAOD, ss 170–71.

40 Decision No 2012-301, 2012 CanLII 16749 (AB WCAC): “Given the requirement for the worker’s active participation in the physiotherapy and the RTWS [return to work services] program as described above and the travel time and distance between his place of employment and his place of treatment, it would not have been practical or reasonable to expect the worker to commute back and forth to perform modified work during those limited days or hours of the week when he was not otherwise committed to his active treatment and rehabilitation. That is, the remoteness and inaccessibility of the worker’s place of employment relative to the place where he was directed to attend for treatment effectively ruled out the possibility of his concurrent participation in a return to modified work.”

41 Construction Énergie renouvelable, s.e.n.c. et Tessier, 2013 QCCLP 2479 [Construction Énergie].

42 The appeals tribunal considered the travel requirements, which it found to be acceptable, given that travel was on main roads and not bumpy roads: Ringuette et Les Entreprises Afl 2000 Inc., 2001 CanLII 45651 (QC CLP).

43 Bilodeau et Transport Doucet & Fils, 2013 QCCLP 5005 [Bilodeau]; Laliberté & Associés inc et Roy, 2005 CanLII 80118 (QC CLP).

44 Bilodeau.

45 Construction Énergie.

46 SGT 2000 inc. (Re), 2005 CanLII 73570 (QC CLP).

47 Centre de santé et de services sociaux Alphonse-Desjardins et Fortier, 2014 QCCLP 6104.

48 MC Forêt inc. et Commission des normes, de l’équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail, 2016 QCTAT 3315.

49 See Commission scolaire des Premières Seigneuries, 2015 QCCLP 2629. However, the employer succeeded in his petition for the costs of benefits to be transferred from his account under section 326 of the AIAOD.

50 Hydro-Québec et Charest, 1996 CanLII 14642 (QC CALP).

51 Decision No 1083/22, 2022 ONWSIAT 1439. See also Decision No 1773/21, 2022 ONWSIAT 1323, paras. 34–5.

52 Decision No 1672/18, 2018 ONWSIAT 1947.

53 Decision No 2005-863, 2005 CanLII 76499 (AB WCAC), para. 40.5.

54 Decision No 2010-391, 2010 CanLII 25589 (AB WCAC).

55 After an accident, the employer, the worker, and the Ontario WCB will work together to enable the worker’s RTW. Depending on circumstances, the WSIB may develop an RTW plan “that outlines the assistance and services the worker requires to enable their return to work with the injury employer or in the labour market. The WSIB conducts the RTW assessment and develops the RTW plan in collaboration with the workplace parties/authorized representatives and, where necessary, the worker’s treating health professional” (WSIB Ontario 2020).

56 Decision No 2713/08, 2010 ONWSIAT 241.

57 AIAOD, s 142(d)(e).

58 Cochonnailles Champenoises et Petit Renaud, 2012 QCCLP 5865.

59 2016-0686 (Re), 2016 CanLII 79642 (AB WCAC); see WCB-Alberta (2021a, ques. 10).

60 It is worth mentioning that, in Alberta, the election over a short period of time of different political parties with different allegiances led to consecutive modifications of the compensation regime. Hence in the Alberta WCA, one can find dispositions that apply only to workers whose date of accident is from September 1, 2018, to March 31, 2021. See WCB-Alberta (2021c, ques. 6). There is also a particular regime for workers’ claims with dates of accident from September 1, 2018, to March 31, 2021, inclusive, whose employers have an obligation under the Alberta WCA to accommodate and reinstate workers injured on the job.

61 However, a worker with a reduced earning capacity may no longer wish to travel for work, and this “may prove to be a problem as refusal of alternative employment may also affect their benefits. The difficulties associated with ‘personal’ travel to and from work are not always considered when evaluating the worker’s ability to return to work after injury and those workers who decline opportunities offered may see their claims closed” (Lippel and Walters 2019, 337).

62 Côté et Fujitsu Conseil (canada) Inc., 2004 CanLII 80254 (QC CLP) [Côté]; Saletti et Distribution Couche-Tard inc., 2012 QCCLP 7948.

63 Côté, para. 21.

64 Cloutier et ATS Sécurité inc., 2011 QCCLP 1127 [Cloutier]; see, however, Synergie Hunt International inc. et François, 2021 QCTAT 3570, where the appeals tribunal considered that some work-life balance issues, which had motivated the occupational choices prior to the injury, must still be considered when assessing the appropriateness of suitable employment. Hence in this case, even though the suitable employment proposed was within the limits usually considered by the WCB, the appeals tribunal considered it not suitable, as it did not allow the worker to reconcile his work and family obligations.

65 Pelletier et Forages Chibougamau ltée, 2016 QCTAT 131. For similar reasoning, see also Veilleux et Ateliers d’usinage V & V inc., 2014 QCCLP 5889; Riel et Transelec / Common inc., 2023 QCTAT 1295. A position as a warehouseman was available with the employer, but the tribunal concluded it was not a suitable employment for the worker. Even though the worker had previously always held jobs outside his home region, the 247-kilometre commute required in this case was deemed to constitute too great a hardship.

66 A.C. et Compagnie A, 2017 QCTAT 125; in this case the worker suffered from an intellectual disability and was under guardianship.

67 Casavant et Korhani Manufacture inc., 2015 QCCLP 949, para. 86; Cloutier; Lafrance et Waterloo (Ville de), 2010 QCCLP 7709.

68 2016-0596 (Re), 2016 CanLII 67031 (AB WCAC).

69 2014-0807 (Re), 2015 CanLII 1286 (AB WCAC).

70 Decision No 1610/14, 2014 ONWSIAT 1969; see also Decision No 452/22, 2022 ONWSIAT 1425, and Decision No 1517/17, 2017 ONWSIAT 2413, where the appeals tribunal considered the meaning of the term available in determining the appropriate suitable employment for an injured worker who lived fifty kilometres outside of Windsor and did not drive. The fact that the worker was a nondriver was considered a relevant factor in the assessment.

71 Decision No 2020081, June 11, 2020 (WCIRB).

72 “Relocation is a return-to-work option that is not usually considered until all other reasonable options within the community have been exhausted” (WCB-Alberta 2021b, ques. 1); “A vocational rehabilitation program may include . . . the payment of any cost incurred to explore an employment market or to move near a new place of employment” (AIAOD, s 167[7]); “Relocation Assistance is a financial benefit available to assist an injured worker in permanently relocating to an area where suitable employment has been secured as part of the labour market re-entry (LMR) program or permanent accommodation review process with the pre-injury employer” (WorkplaceNL 2020, sec. 50.02).

73 Decision No 2006-545, 2006 CanLII 78831 (AB WCAC).

74 In Québec, the WCB policy states that the gross annual income of suitable employment will be established according to the Québec labour market, whether the employment is determined in Québec or outside Québec (CNESST 2022b); see Gmyzun et Cirque du Soleil inc., 2015 QCCLP 1312; Pépinière 55 inc. et Torres-Angel, 2018 QCTAT 2538 [Pépinière]. The WCB will estimate earning capacity as though the worker had continued to work in suitable employment in Alberta (WCB-Alberta 2025, ques. 10); see 2017-0434 (Re), 2017 CanLII 53401 (AB WCAC). “WorkplaceNL shall rely on provincial wage rate information which establishes average entry and average wages” (WorkplaceNL 2005, para. 3; see also Allen 2018).

75 See Pépinière.

76 Decision No 1428/09, 2012 ONWSIAT 521, with, however, a few exceptions. See, for example, the case of a worker who lived remotely where there were no job opportunities and was employed seasonally in Ontario while maintaining his domicile in Newfoundland: Decision No 1355/07, 2007 ONWSIAT 2373.

77 Decision No 1172/20, 2023 ONWSIAT 1420; Decision No 1736/21, 2023 ONWSIAT 1422; Decision No 1171/20, 2023 ONWSIAT 1421; Decision No 1169/20, 2023 ONWSIAT 1423.

78 Decision No 1617/12, 2013 ONWSIAT 905; however, in another case, the appeals tribunal took the average of the two median rates of the salaries in NL and Ontario and concluded that the worker’s deemed earnings in the suitable employment should be $16.75 per hour: Decision No 1720/12, 2015 ONWSIAT 846.

79 2017-0434 (Re), 2017 CanLII 53401 (AB WCAC).

80 It is worth mentioning that during a reform of the OSH regime in Alberta in 2018, the ceiling for the maximum insurable earnings was abolished but was then rapidly reinstated in 2019.

81 Even though the definition of “suitable employment” refers to the worker’s locale, the policy seems to be applied within the limits of the province (see WCB-Alberta 2021d). In a decision, the tribunal concluded, however, that job opportunities should not be restricted to Fort McMurray, the location of the accident, as the worker could no longer perform his preinjury job. Indeed, the court considered suitable employment income in the Edmonton area: Decision No 2009-1159, 2009 CanLII 73200 (AB WCAC), paras. 23–24.

82 The European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (2013) tracks commuting accidents in those European countries that provide coverage for these accidents. It notes that women are more often implicated in commuting accidents than men, possibly because their modes of commuting are different, women being less likely to use an automobile, and their commuting trajectories differ as well, because women may more often take children to school on their way to work (20). None of these issues is on the radar screen of Canadian regulators, and commuting accidents—those accidents occurring while the worker travels from home to work to home—are noncompensable in all Canadian jurisdictions.

83 In Québec, the legislative definition requires that the accident arise “out of or in the course of employment” (AIAOD, s 30[1]), unlike the term used in the other provinces, but the interpretation is analogous.

84 However, if an automobile accident is work related, the claim will have to be made under workers’ compensation law; Automobile Insurance Act, CQLR c A-25, s 83.63.

85 Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Area Occupational Health and Safety Regulations, SOR/2021–247, s 50 and following.

86 ILO Convention 190: Violence and Harassment Convention (108th Conference Session, Geneva, June 10, 2019) [art. 3].

87 Decision No 2020-0048, 2020 CanLII 13212 (AB WCAC); reconsideration application was denied, Decision No 2020-0544, 2020 CanLII 98316 (AB WCAC).

88 Decision No 377/18, 2018 ONWSIAT 526.

89 Decision No 2297/14, 2015 ONWSIAT 62; application to reconsider was denied, Decision No 2297/14R, 2017 ONWSIAT 972.

90 Commission scolaire de Montréal et Desjardins, 2018 QCTAT 2747; see, however, Sylvain et Polimix inc., 2016 QCTAT 4106.

91 Desrochers et Réseau de transport de Longueuil, 2018 QCTAT 6209; see, however, Dufour & Frères inc. et Imbeault, 2018 QCTAT 6234 [Dufour]; Desvignes et Université du Québec à Montréal, 2017 QCTAT 243; Gagné et Bombardier inc. centre de finition, 2016 QCTAT 724.

92 Abitibi-Price inc. et Potvin, 1992 CanLII 12541 (QC CALP); Pasalic et Société en commandite Gaz Métro Plus, 2010 QCCLP 996.

93 Roy et Société Canadienne de la Croix-Rouge, 1998 CanLII 20241 (QC CLP).

94 Gaudreau et Mines Agnico-Eagle ltée (exploration), 2022 QCTAT 240 [Gaudreau].

95 2014-0459 (Re), 2014 CanLII 31716 (AB WCAC); Decision No 1966/18, 2018 ONWSIAT 3236 (application to reconsider denied: Decision No 1966/18R, 2019 ONWSIAT 1345); Sasseville et Compagnie de construction et de développement Crie ltée, 2009 QCCLP 1964 [Sasseville].

96 Decision No 2022-0063, 2022 CanLII 27327 (AB WCAC); see, however, 2018-0358 (Re), 2018 CanLII 66303 (AB WCAC), where a worker, who worked on a shift rotation cycle consisting of extended days at work and extended days off work and lived out of province, had to fly to Edmonton and use his truck to drive the remaining distance to the remote work or lodging site. The tribunal found that the worker’s injuries resulting from the motor vehicle accident while driving to the worker’s place of employment did not arise out of or occur in the course of employment. “The panel finds that the worker’s travel back to work was not under the direction or control of the employer. The purpose of the travel was for the worker’s personal leave and days off and was not part of his job requirements. The worker did not provide any persuasive evidence that the employer directed him during his travel. . . . We are not influenced by the fact that the worker was carrying the employer’s diesel fuel back to where he took it from on February 9, 2015 or transporting personal equipment for work” (s 23.8).

97 Sasseville.

98 Decision No 1966/18, the application to reconsider was denied: Decision No 1966/18R; Decision No 941/16, 2017 ONWSIAT 498; Decision No 2256/15, 2015 ONWSIAT 2420.

99 The plaintiff’s right of action was taken away; Decision No 1581/03, 2004 ONWSIAT 311. Because of the isolated and remote location, the workers worked for twenty-one days, twelve hours per day, and then had seven days off. The employer paid travel expenses and four hours for travel, even though the worker’s travel time was about twelve hours. See also WSIB Ontario (2004e).

100 Canada’s hesitant response to the inclusion of commuting conditions within the purview of ongoing discussions at the ILO regarding an international convention on violence illustrates how commuting conditions are not perceived to fall within the regulatory frameworks governing working conditions (see International Labour Office 2018, 25–26).

101 For Québec, see Mpi-Moulin à papier Portneuf et Sylvestre, 2014 QCCLP 2428; for Ontario, see WSIB Ontario (2004b; the policy states that the condition of the employer’s private roads must cause the accident); for Alberta, see WCB-Alberta (2023c, ques. 11; the policy even considers injuries that occur on roads that the employer has permission for the worker to use to be compensable).

102 Decision No 2602/18, 2021 ONWSIAT 1810.

103 Dufour.

104 Beauvais et Personnel Alter Ego Inc., 2003 CanLII 75800 (QC CLP).

105 Fortier et Clsc Basse-Ville-Limoilou-Vanier, 2002 CanLII 65134 (QC CLP); Larivière et C.L.S.C. J.-Octave Roussin, 2000 CanLII 31394 (QC CLP); Martel et CSSS Lucille-Teasdale, 2010 QCCLP 7727, where a home care worker had an accident fifteen minutes before arriving at her first client’s home (her claim was denied); Géronto + inc. et Joseph, 2015 QCCLP 2466, where a home care worker was injured before arriving at the home of her first client (her claim was denied).

106 Lussier et CSSS Val-St-François (CLSC, CH, CHSLD), 2018 QCTAT 884.

107 Compensation was granted in the following cases: Bell Canada (Re), 2005 CanLII 64407 (QC CLP), where a service technician was injured while exiting the company car he had parked at his home; Québécor Média inc. et Delgadillo, 2011 QCCLP 4843, where a publicity salesman injured in the entranceway to his home; Instech Télécommunication inc. et Charbonneau, 2015 QCCLP 3153, where a communication systems installer had an accident when he lost control of the van he was driving toward the home of the first customer of the day. The vehicle was provided by the employer and was equipped with the necessary equipment to install the company’s telecommunication systems, and the employer had paid for the vehicle and required the worker to use it to travel to customers’ homes: “In this case, the worker’s travel from his home to his first customer of the day in the vehicle provided by the employer is not only incidental to the performance of his work, but also has a clear purpose” (s 32).

108 Maison St-André Abitibi-Ouest et Germain, 2018 QCTAT 6048. See, however, Autobus Bourassa, where a bus driver fell in her driveway between two periods of work. The tribunal noted the worker was authorized to keep the bus at home during the school year and hence deemed she had suffered an industrial accident in the course of employment.

109 Clyke et Logi+Net, 2009 QCCLP 5634; Roberge (Re), 2006 CanLII 64137 (QC CLP); Service Travail-Maison et Bélanger, 2010 QCCLP 3049; Coopérative de solidarité d’aide domestique de Shawinigan et Fugère, 2010 QCCLP 3658. The same is true for other itinerant workers: CPE Le Kangourou et Darveau, 2009 QCCLP 671.

110 Decision No 83/19, 2019 ONWSIAT 1156.

111 See also Decision No 188/15, 2015 ONWSIAT 633.

112 Decision No 1668/22, 2022 ONWSIAT 1947; Decision No 83/19, 2019 ONWSIAT 1156; Decision No 1501/16, 2017 ONWSIAT 513.

113 Decision No 993/21, 2021 ONWSIAT 1616, para. 3.

114 Decision No 2008-783, 2008 CanLII 85743 (AB WCAC), para. 21.

115 For an interpretation of what is meant by a captive worker, see Decision No 2019-0049, 2019 CanLII 14230 (AB WCAC).

116 2015-0493 (Re), 2015 CanLII 48909 (AB WCAC); see also Decision No 2022-0397, 2022 CanLII 86632 (AB WCAC), where a worker had a slip-and-fall accident while on the premises of the employer’s work site but not on a designated work shift. The WCB accepted the claim. The employer appealed that decision, but their appeal was denied.

117 2013-0703 (Re), 2013 CanLII 50894 (AB WCAC).

118 2014-1175 (Re), 2015 CanLII 7371 (AB WCAC). See also 2015-0447 (Re), 2015 CanLII 32286 (AB WCAC); 2016-0453 (Re), 2016 CanLII 44231 (AB WCAC), where the tribunal applied WCB-Alberta’s Policy 02-01, Part II, Application 5, about “removing oneself from the course of employment” to a captive worker: A “claim is not denied simply because the worker is under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of injury. Sometimes, drinking may be a permitted, required or condoned activity of the employment. . . . A claim may still be compensable if there is some factor in the employment that caused or contributed to the injury. If an injury results from intoxication alone, with no contributing factor in the employment situation and drinking is not permitted or condoned by the employer, the claim is denied because the injury is not one that arises out of and occurs in the course of employment. This may apply in a case where a worker who is intoxicated loses balance, then falls to a normal flat surface and sustains an injury” (WCB-Alberta 2018a, ques. 7).

119 “If the worker chooses to dine in a restaurant other than in the hotel but within a reasonable distance of it, coverage is extended during this activity. There is no entitlement if the worker is injured while visiting a movie theatre or cocktail lounge or engaging in some other personal activity” (WSIB Ontario 2004e, para. 5).

120 Decision No 305/15, 2015 ONWSIAT 438; Decision No 2175/03, 2003 ONWSIAT 2746; Decision No 2219/11, 2012 ONWSIAT 443.

121 Decision No 305/15, para. 28. See also Decision No 765/13, 2015 ONWSIAT 1210.

122 Lapierre et Neilson Excavation Inc., 1998 CanLII 19666 (QC CLP); Lapierre et Neilson Excavation Inc., 1999 CanLII 21991 (QC CLP). In that case, the obligation to stay at the logging camp was, according to the decision-maker, more a condition of work than a condition of life. The worker had to take the icy road to go to lunch and prepare his dinner. This activity was carried out as part of his duties.

123 Talbot et ArcelorMittal Mines Canada inc., 2020 QCTAT 4546. A locomotive driver who was injured while waking up to answer the railway coordinator’s telephone call did not benefit from the presumption of occupational injury; even if he slept in a camp used for the employer’s activities, he was not at work since he was engaged in a personal activity; see, however, Groupe Nokamic inc. et Dion-Lyna, 2007 QCCLP 3979, where the CLP upheld the claim of a worker who tripped on her way to her trailer in the work camp and injured herself.

124 Boudreau et Groupe Compass ltée, 2010 QCCLP 3313; the same reasoning applied to a worker residing in a camp in a remote location. The worker was injured on his way to the cafeteria to have breakfast. Goupil et Groupe de sécurité Garda, 2018 QCTAT 4085; see also Demontigny et Groupe Plombaction inc., 2014 QCCLP 3173, where the tribunal concluded there was no connection between the activity and the work in the situation of a worker who returned from the bathroom during the night and injured himself. The tribunal noted that the worker was not paid; the event occurred outside of working hours; the activity was not carried out under the control, at the request, or for the benefit of the employer; there was no use to the employer in relation to the performance of the work; and the purpose of the activity was totally distinct from the worker’s working conditions. In Truchon et Commission scolaire Kativik, 2022 QCTAT 5090, the appeals tribunal concluded that a teacher had stepped out of the professional sphere and into the personal sphere when she fell and injured her shoulder while carrying jugs of water between the school and her employer-provided accommodation, which were close to each other.

125 Groupe Plani-Ressources inc. (Re), 2006 CanLII 68523 (QC CLP); see Martin et 9304-6696 Québec inc., 2023 QCTAT 925.

126 Leduc et Anciens Combattants Canada, 2022 QCTAT 4960. The worker was injured when the plane landed; her injury happened in the course of employment. See Gaudreau; a Québec worker suffered a recurrence of a psychological injury when he got on a plane that was taking him to Nunavut.

127 International humanitarian missions have led to many injuries sustained by Canadian workers that are covered under the Québec workers’ compensation legislation: Roche Ltée (groupe Conseil), 2004 CanLII 78037 (QC CLP); Vaillancourt et Agence Canadienne de Développement International, 2001 CanLII 45157 (QC CLP); Hrynkiw (Re), 2006 CanLII 70292 (QC CLP).

128 “When the conditions of the employment require the worker to travel away from the employer’s premises, the worker is considered to be in the course of employment continuously except when a distinct departure on a personal errand is shown. The mode of travel may be by public transportation or by employer or worker vehicle if the employment requires the use of such a vehicle. However, the employment must obligate the worker to be travelling at the place and time the accident occurred” (WSIB Ontario 2004e, para. 2).

129 “In general, a worker is covered throughout their journey except when: the worker makes a distinctly personal deviation that removes the worker from the course of employment . . . , or the injury is due solely to a personal hazard” (WCB-Alberta 2023c, ques. 1); “Is a worker covered while on a work-related overnight trip? Yes, provided the worker is required to stay overnight during work-related travel (e.g., a worker staying in a hotel to attend a conference in another city). The worker is considered to be under the direction of the employer throughout the trip. The worker is not under the direction of the employer if: they make a distinctly personal deviation (e.g., sightseeing, going to a sporting event, using a hotel’s recreational facilities) . . . , or the injury is due solely to a personal hazard (e.g., neck strain due to sleeping in an awkward position) . . . , or they are not making reasonable and permitted use of the facilities. . . . Coverage begins when the worker starts the journey (e.g., enters a taxi to go to the airport) and ends when the journey ends (e.g., worker exits the taxi when they arrive home). Coverage extends to breaks during the journey (e.g., washroom break, or going to a restaurant to have a meal). Coverage does not extend if the worker is staying at a private residence (e.g., with family) while they are at the private residence (this is a personal deviation)” (WCB-Alberta 2023c, ques. 14).

130 “Coverage begins when the worker begins the employment related travel and extends continuously while the travel is taking place, unless there is personal deviation that removes the worker from the course of employment. An injury sustained during a refreshment break while traveling for the purpose of employment is covered. Any deviation from the reasonable and most direct route for personal or non-work-related reasons constitutes removal from employment and coverage is not extended” (WorkplaceNL 2001, sec. 2[a]).

131 Decision No 2019-0049, the tribunal concluded that the worker’s situation did not meet the policy criteria for extended coverage for workers while they live in facilities operated by the employer, which by their nature give them less control than in a normal home environment. A “natural occurrence such as waves in the water are not analogous to a ‘facility operated by the employer.’ Simply put, the employer did not have control over waves in the water that by the worker’s own account led her to slip on the sandbar” (s 22.10).

132 Bombardier inc. (Aéronautique Usinage) et Gammieri, 2015 QCCLP 3353.

133 Filo et Air Canada, 2021 QCTAT 4727, the tribunal concluded that the worker stepped outside his professional sphere when he let someone into his hotel room for personal purposes.

134 Martel Belmihoub et Air Canada, 2023 QCTAT 746; see also Bouchard et Air Canada, 2020 QCTAT 3768.

1 The chapter incorporates legal developments up to 2023–24 while recognizing the ongoing volatility and evolving nature of the regulatory environment.

2 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27.

3 In 2012, ESDC and the Ministère de l’Immigration, de la Francisation et de l’Intégration (MIFI) of Québec, signed an agreement to enable employers to apply for an LMIA and to fill selected positions without having to include proof of recruitment efforts. Under the facilitated process, as with the rest of the program, the wage being offered for the position will determine if the employer should apply for an LMIA under the stream for high-wage positions or the stream for low-wage positions, each with its own requirements. The facilitated LMIA assessment process includes professions in high demand and in industry sectors experiencing labour shortages in Québec. The list of occupations, which is updated every year, contains occupations classified under the National Occupational Classification (NOC) training, education, experience, and responsibilities (TEER) 0/1/2/3. Since May 2022, NOC TEER 4 occupations have been included in the list of occupations eligible for the facilitated process as per the agreement between the governments of Canada and Québec.

4 Some authors point out the fact that precariousness and labour fragmentation intersect to create the axis of dynamics of hardship and abuse that dominate work experiences of migrant workers in the global labour market (see Rodriguez and Mearns 2012).

5 This issue is discussed in some detail in Law Commission of Ontario (2012, 70–74). It also refers to the Dean Report, Recommendations 33, 34, and 35, some of which have been implemented, providing the Office of the Worker Advisor with jurisdiction to handle reprisal complaints under section 50 of the OHSA.

6 The lack of training in OSH for TFWs and possible solutions to improve this problem, possibly through ESDC-imposed mandatory provisions in the TFW contract, are discussed in detail in Allen (2018, 124–25).

7 As case law shows, this fear is far from being theoretical: Osmani v. Universal Structural Restorations Ltd., 2022 ONSC 6979; Kenny Bernard Florent v. 2492309 Ontario Limited, 2021 CanLII 39057 (ON LRB); Decision No. 125/15, 2015 ONWSIAT 1271; 2015-0574 (Re), 2015 CanLII 43795 (AB WCAC); Korkomaz v 1771292 Alberta Ltd. o/a Cora Breakfast and Lunch, 2022 AHRC 126.

8 It seems that in Ontario, in cases where there is doubt as to the worker’s ability to access health care in the home country, the WSIB will possibly pay accommodation expenses in Ontario so that the worker may remain in Ontario during treatment.

9 Muller et Cirque du Soleil inc., 2012 QCCLP 6320. See also Mojtehedzadeh (2016). The article notes that the worker, Robert Sulph, sought, through his complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, public interest remedies that would include “WSIB-funded medical investigations inside and outside Ontario to ensure injured workers can access appropriate medical care; WSIB-pays upfront for all medical expenses directly to migrant workers’ health care providers, prior to services being delivered where necessary; require WSIB to pay transportation expenses so that workers [in their home countries need not pay up front]; assist migrant workers to remain in Ontario for medical care where necessary” (see also Brewster 2023).

10 See, for example, the case of a Russian-speaking acrobat for the Cirque du Soleil who returned home to Kazakhstan after his injury. Understanding the different steps and decisions rendered in his case took months, yet appeal deadlines are thirty days or forty-five days depending on the level of appeal. The Commission des lésions professionnelles accepted to extend the deadline in light of these difficulties, although the worker lost his case: Gmyzun et Cirque du Soleil inc., 2015 QCCLP 1312. See also Sanon et Écolait ltée, 2015 QCCLP 3311. In this case, in Québec, the appeals tribunal describes a situation that suggests that the worker was led astray by confusion on the part of the WCB as to the correct procedure to apply for compensation.

11 Case law in provinces under study confirms this: Socadis inc. et Mahamad, 2022 QCTAT 1809; Decision No 1172/20I3, 2022 ONWSIAT 2077; Decision No 1045/14, 2014 ONWSIAT 2368; 20150043 (Re), 2015 CanLII 30418 (ON WSIB); Decision No 2018-0664, 2019 CanLII 51186 (AB WCAC); 2016-0835 (Re), 2017 CanLII 3142 (AB WCAC).

12 See Decision No 1773/17, 2017 ONWSIAT 2962 (Decision No 1773/17R, 2019 ONWSIAT 1817).

13 Research on other groups of seasonal workers has shown that temporal constraints experienced by seasonal workers expose them to high risks of musculoskeletal disorders (Major, Clabault, and Wild 2021; Major and Vézina 2017; Yachnin 2025).

14 For recommendations on improving OSH for migrant farmworkers in BC, see Otero and Preibisch (2010). See also Lazo Bautista et Faille, 2021 QCTAT 5854.

15 In the US, studies have documented the exposure of agricultural farm workers to pesticides that were found to be transferred to their living quarters (Thompson et al. 2003).

16 In Québec, several reports from the WCB document the circumstances that lead to such accidents (CNESST 2019, 2020a, 2022a). See also Succession de Batzibal et Cultures Fortin inc., 2023 QCTAT 597; appeal for judicial review, Succession de Lares Batzibal c. Tribunal administratif du travail, 2024 QCCS 157; Vosko and Spring (2022); Vosko et al. (2022b).

17 The province of Alberta only included the agricultural sector within the purview of its OSH legislation in 2016 (Government of Alberta n.d.). For the situation prior to the adoption of this legislation, see Barnetson (2012). See also Luis Gabriel Flores Flores v Scotlynn Sweetpac Growers Inc., 2020 CanLII 88341 (ON LRB).

18 Agricultural Employees Protection Act, 2002, SO 2002, c 16.

19 L’Écuyer c. Côté, 2013 QCCS 973.

20 Loi modifiant le Code du travail à l’égard de certains salariés d’exploitations agricoles, LQ 2014, c 9.

21 Labour Relations Act, RSNL 1990, c L-1.

22 Labour Relations Code, RSA 2000, c L-1.

23 Farm Freedom and Safety Act, 2019, SA 2019, c 19 [FFSA].

24 Occupational Health and Safety Act, RSO 1990, c O.1 [Ontario OHSA].

25 Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, SO 1997, c 16, Sch A [WSIA].

26 Act Respecting Occupational Health and Safety, CQLR c S-2.1 [Québec AOHS].

27 Act Respecting Industrial Accidents and Occupational Diseases, CQLR c A-3.001.

28 Occupational Health and Safety Act, RSNL 1990, c O-3 [NL OHSA].

29 Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act, 2022, SNL 2022, c W-11.1.

30 FFSA.

31 Occupational Health and Safety Act, SA 2020, c O-2.2.

32 Workers’ Compensation Act, RSA 2000, c W-15.

33 The authors noted that these employers also expressed concerns with regard to what were perceived as personal health issues of their workers, notably “‘heavy drinking’, ‘unprotected sex’, ‘unwanted pregnancy’, ‘unhealthy diet’, and ‘unsanitary houses’” (Narushima and Sanchez 2014, 10).

34 Workers are required to be provided with their own bed, a shower, and a toilet for every ten workers and a sink for every seven workers.

35 C189—Domestic Workers Convention, 2011 (No. 189); R201—Domestic Workers Recommendation, 2011 (No. 201).

36 Ontario OHSA.

37 WSIA.

38 Loi modernisant le régime de santé et de sécurité du travail, LQ 2021, c 27; they are now included if they meet a certain threshold, having to work at least 420 hours over a period of one year for the same individual or if they can provide proof of seven consecutive weeks of work at a rate of at least thirty hours per week during that period.

39 Québec AOHS.

40 NL OHSA.

41 Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act, 2022, SNL 2022, c W-11.1

42 Amendments to Alberta’s OHSA that became effective in June 2018 included workers hired to perform domestic work within a private residence (Government of Alberta 2018).

43 Domestic workers who are working for homeowners providing domestic help are also excluded from the purview of the Alberta WCA (see Workers’ Compensation Regulation, Alta Reg 325/2002).

44 Peart v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2014 HRTO 611. The media attention as a result of the accidental death of an agricultural worker on a farm in Québec also shed light on the abusive practices he had denounced (Noël 2014). In the end, the complaint was rejected.

45 United Mexican States v. British Columbia (Labour Relations Board), 2015 BCCA 32. The underpinnings of this case are discussed in Vosko (2013). Although the Labour Relations Board was ultimately found, in 2015, to have jurisdiction over the case, the original malfeasance that led to decertification of the union occurred five years before.

46 Orantes Silva et 9009-1729 Québec inc., 2016 QCTAT 2155, para. 145 and conclusions; Orellana et 9009-1729 Québec inc., 2016 QCTAT 7086. See also Prado Paredes et Entreprise de placement Les Progrès inc., 2019 QCTAT 4593. Following overwhelming evidence of their abusive working conditions, Québec’s labour board ruled in their favour despite the fact that workers were undocumented.

47 Still c. M.R.N. (C.A.), 1997 CanLII 6379 (CAF), [1998] 1 CF 549 and Godoy Enriquez c. M.R.N., 2019 CCI 114. Several cases were adjudicated in Québec, and they all confirm that undocumented workers should be able to access the workers’ compensation regime if they showed that they were in the midst of getting their work permit and thus were in “good faith”: N’Zi et Coopérative de services à domicile du Cap Diamant, 2018 QCTAT 306; Services JAH et Saint-Julien, 2021 QCTAT 1940; Reyes Avila et Aliments Alasko inc., 2013 QCCLP 3771.

1 Referring to United Nations Human Rights Council (2019).

2 Their third recommendation is for government-funded housing and for permanent residency, open work permits, and fair grievance procedures.

3 Act Respecting Occupational Health and Safety, CQLR c S-2.1, s 32.

4 Cinq-Mars et CTAQ, 2021 QCTAT 625, petition for review or revocation denied, Cinq-Mars et CTAQ, 2021 QCTAT 4179; Commission des normes, de l’équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail c. Tribunal administratif du travail, 2022 QCCS 3268; Péloquin et Coopérative des techniciens ambulanciers de la Montérégie, 2021 QCTAT 2605.

5 Dekkar et Coopérative des techniciens ambulanciers de la Montérégie (CETAM), 2022 QCTAT 5261; Cantin et Services préhospitaliers Paraxion inc., 2023 QCTAT 2776.

6 Haché et Société de transport de Laval, 2023 QCTAT 3317; St-Laurent et Société de transport de Laval, 2023 QCTAT 951; Castro-Ortiz et Société des transports de Laval, 2023 QCTAT 1327; Butsitsi et Société de transport de Laval, 2023 QCTAT 1525; Dupuis et Société de transport de Laval, 2023 QCTAT 4548; Vaida et Société de transport de Laval, 2022 QCTAT 2441; Tremblay et Société de transport de Laval, 2022 QCTAT 2494; Beauchamp et Société de transport de Laval, 2022 QCTAT 2737; Comeau et Société de transport de Laval, 2022 QCTAT 2977; Robillard et Société de transport de Laval, 2022 QCTAT 3407; Hamel et Société de transport de Laval, 2022 QCTAT 2844; Dion et Société de transport de Laval, 2022 QCTAT 4953.

1 At a macroscale, corporate investment decisions, union contracts, and plant closures have been key drivers of work-related mobility over the past several decades. See, for instance, Steven High’s (2015, 2019) works on deindustrialization, plant closures, and worker mobility. As we have shown throughout this book, other forms of industrial and policy restructuring also have mobility and risk dimensions including implications for OSH regulatory effectiveness. These include, for example, deinstitutionalization (as within health care), outsourcing, the expansion of precarious employment, the development of turnkey operations based on work camps and FIFO/DIDO (as in mining), deregulation, and the internationalization of labour recruitment (see, e.g., Quinlan and Bohle 2009; Walters et al. 2011).

2 Occupational Health and Safety Act, SA 2017, c O-2.1, s 40(2)b, which is now repealed; see Occupational Health and Safety Act, SA 2020, c O-2.2, s 33(2)b [Alberta OHSA]: “An injury, illness or incident in which there is reason to believe the worker has been or will be admitted to a hospital beyond treatment in an emergency room or urgent care facility.”

3 Alberta OHSA, s 33(2)b.

4 Act Respecting Occupational Health and Safety, CQLR c S-2.1, s 62 [Québec AOHS]: “Every employer must inform the Commission of an incident, by the most rapid means of communication, and, within 24 hours, make a written report to it, in the form and with the information prescribed by regulation, if the incident has caused (1) the death of a worker; (2) the loss of a limb or of part of a limb, the total or partial loss of the use of a limb or a significant physical trauma to a worker; (3) such serious injuries to two or more workers as probably to prevent them from performing their work for one working day; or (4) material damage valued at $150,000 or more.”

5 As we have seen, currently, commuting accidents are not usually covered by Canadian workers’ compensation systems, although they are covered in many other countries, including France, Germany, and many Asian countries (see, e.g., Salminen 2012; Rusli Bin 2014).

6 Alberta revised its Occupational Health and Safety Act to specify that “‘health and safety’ includes physical, psychological and social well-being” when it adopted Bill 30 in December 2017 (An Act to Protect the Health and Well-being of Working Albertans, SA 2017, c 25, Royal Assent granted on December 15, 2017). See now Alberta OHSA, where they removed the definition of “health and safety,” but they have retained the purpose of the act as “the promotion and maintenance of the highest degree of physical, psychological and social well-being of workers” (s 2[a]). In 2018, section 122.1 of the Canada Labour Code was also amended to include psychological injuries and illnesses: “The purpose of this Part is to prevent accidents, occurrences of harassment and violence and physical or psychological injuries and illnesses arising out of, linked with or occurring in the course of employment to which this Part applies.” In 2021, An Act to Modernize the Occupational Health and Safety Regime, SQ 2021, c 27, was adopted in Québec and now formally includes psychological injuries within the purview of the law. However, prior to this modification, case law and policy interpretations confirmed that protection of workers’ mental health fell within the jurisdiction of the OSH regulator (see Lippel, Vézina, and Cox 2011).

7 In many Canadian jurisdictions, there are specific rules governing working alone, and these may perhaps be adapted to the health and safety needs of the mobile workforce on the road and at work, whether they work alone or not.

8 Regulations Amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2019-148 (Canada Gazette, Part II, May 29, 2019), https://gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2019/2019-05-29/html/sor-dors148-eng.html.

9 They also specify a series of legislative amendments required to ensure migrant workers’ equality, although none of these explicitly target health and safety legislation.

10 Act Respecting Labour Standards, CQLR c N-1.1, s 92.5 [ARLS].

11 ARLS, s 92.9.

12 ARLS, s 92.11 and s 92.12.

13 Working for Workers Act, 2021, SO 2021, c 35.

14 Working for Workers Act, 2021, SO 2021, c 35 (modifying the Employment Standards Act, 2000, SO 2000, c 41, see Part XVIII.1).

15 Licensing—Temporary Help Agencies and Recruiters, O Reg 99/23, s 4.