Category: COVID-19

Immediate Family Members of Canadians – Entering Canada

Since the onset of the pandemic, the rules about who can enter Canada have been confusing and hard to keep up with at times. A particularly hard hit group has been “immediate family members” of Canadians. The temporary travel ban enacted under the Quarantine Act has consistently defined “immediate family members” as the spouse or common-law spouse of a Canadian; a dependent child of a Canadian; the parent or step-parent of a Canadian or their spouse or common-law partner; or the guardian or tutor of a Canadian. However, it has not always been clear who can enter and when, nor have the changes thus far to the rules been sufficient for all family members or loved ones of Canadians.

Initially, the COVID-19 travel ban did not apply to “immediate family members” of Canadians so long as the purpose for their entry was not discretionary or optional. In the first few months of the pandemic, this meant airline personnel and border services officers were assessing whether a person’s stated purpose was discretionary. One person coming to visit their Canadian spouse for a few weeks may have been turned away while another in the exact same circumstances may have been let through depending on which officer they got.

In June 2020, the travel restrictions were revised so that immediate family members of Canadians could enter regardless of their purpose so long as they could show they were coming for a period of at least 15 days to be with their Canadian family members. Inherently, this seemed to accept that anyone coming in for a period for at least fifteen days was not coming in for an “optional” or “discretionary purpose” and took some of the pressure off of travellers who no longer needed to convince an officer their travel was essential. Those seeking to come for less than 15 days have continued to be exempt from the travel ban but remain subject to the “non-discretionary”/”non-optional” rule.

The June changes regarding immediate family members have remained in place up to now. Last week, the federal government announced that further expansion to the exception would be released on October 8, 2020. The proposed changes will allow grandparents, siblings, and adult children of Canadians (not currently exempt) to enter in certain circumstances. Other foreign nationals seeking entry for compassionate reasons such as critical illness or death are also expected to be included in the changes. Stay tuned for further updates.

For more information on immigration law, please contact Maya Krishnaratne, Immigration Lawyer at Devry Smith Frank LLP, 416-446-5841, Maya.krishnaratne@devrylaw.ca

This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.”

By Justin DominicBlog, COVID-19, ImmigrationOctober 6, 2020November 4, 2020

Back To School Amid Covid-19?

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice (ONSC) has recently, and in numerous instances, been called upon to decide the question as to whether children should be sent back to school amid the current Covid-19 pandemic. According to the Guide to reopening Ontario’s schools issued by the Ministry of Education, parents can choose between online schooling from home or in-person schooling for the next semester. However, when separated or divorced parents cannot agree on this, the courts are, often perhaps unnecessarily, asked to get involved.

This Blog reports on four Endorsements released on this issue by the ONSC over the course of the last few weeks and comments on alternative strategies to resolve the back to school question in the best interest of the child and everyone involved.

Home-schooling may only be ordered when a medical condition or the safety of a child’s inner circle requires it

The two cases Chase v Chase and Wilson v Wilson come to different outcomes that can nevertheless be reconciled. In Chase, the ONSC ordered for the child to be registered for in-person schooling, whereas the court came to the opposite conclusion in Wilson. Factually, the two cases differ, because only in Wilson did the court find that there were underlying health concerns, namely asthma, that would put one of the Wilson children at disproportionate risk if they had to return to school in September. This important health factor is was weighted by the court and balanced against the child’s mental health, psychological, academic and social interests, as well as many parents’ need for childcare which usually speak in favour of attending school in-person.

The ONSC’s approach to expert evidence on the safety of in-person schooling

Notably, the ONSC in Chase pays deference to the government’s decision to reopen schools. The court holds that the government is better placed to decide upon the reopening than the courts are because the government is benefitting from extensive expert evidence and is conducting consultations with relevant stakeholders on this matter. As a consequence, the ONSC rejects to consider a recently released report by the Toronto Hospital for Sick Children that the parties, in this case, made reference to in the proceeding. Stating that there is evidence on both sides, the ONSC declines to be the adjudicator between differing expert opinions, leaving it to the government to evaluate the conflicting evidence. The court does, however, look to the particular facts of each case to determine whether there are individual risk factors that weigh in favour of making an exception from the general in-person attendance requirement set out in the respective provincial Education Act, i.e. in s. 21(1) of the Ontario Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.2

In its finding in Chase, the ONSC draws upon non-binding, yet persuasive arguments from two Quebec Superior Court decisions delivered on May 7, 2020: Droit de la famille – 20641, 2020 QCCS 1462 (CanLII) and Droit de la famille – 20682, 2020 QCCS 1547 (CanLII). The two decisions, too, come to different conclusions due to the fact that in only one of the two cases a family member suffers from a medical condition that puts the family at disproportionate risk, outweighing the child’s interest to return back to school.

The approach by the ONSC taken in Chase following the Quebec decisions falls neatly in line with the principled division of powers between the executive branch and the judiciary. It is the responsibility of the government to establish general policies with broad application, whereas the judiciary has to focus on individual cases in order to ensure that the government’s policies in their application to actual people do not lead to unintended hardships.

In Wilson, however, the ONSC takes a slightly different approach. Here, the court in fact considers the report of the Toronto Hospital for Sick Children, which recommends a return to in-person schooling. The court determines that it is unclear whether the in-person plan actually conforms with expert reports and that it appears to lack some of the recommended safeguards. The court concludes that it did not have any evidence to the contrary that returning to school was safe. To some degree, the ONSC in this case did evaluate the evidence and made a finding on its reliability in order to justify a decision that diverges from the recommendation of the Sick Children report. For this reason, it remains somewhat unclear whether reliance on expert reports will help a parent’s case to achieve the desired order.

Conclusion from current case law

In a third decision, Manabat v. Smith decided on September 2^nd and involving one of DSF’s family lawyers, Katelyn Bell, the court affirmed a test previously set out in another very recent case, Zinati v. Spence, 2020 ONSC 5231. This test summarizes the factors determined in the (sparse) case law on the question of whether it is in the child’s best interest to be schooled at home or in person during the current pandemic:

The risk of exposure to COVID-19 that the child will face if she or he is in school
or not in school;
Whether the child or a member of their family is at increased risk from COVID-
19 as a result of health conditions or other risk factors;
The risk a child faces to their mental health, social development, academic
development or psychological well being from learning online;
Any proposed or planned measure to alleviate any of the risks noted above;
The child’s wishes if they can be reasonably ascertained; and
The ability of the parent or parents with whom the child will be residing during
school days to support online learning, including competing demands of the
parent’s work or caregiving responsibilities or other demands.

Overall, the outcome of every case will really depend on the children and the family involved.

Alternatives to an Application to Court

A further comment made by the ONSC in Wilson deserves mentioning. The Honorable Justice Himel points out that bringing the issue of whether the child should return to school or not before a judge is not the most recommendable course of action. For one, the decision is likely going to be made on the written evidentiary record due to a lack of time and resources and a large number of emergency applications that need to be decided upon before school starts. This means that a judge who has never met the parties, let alone the child, will decide on what is in the best interest of the child and the family. A course of action that would empower the parties to make the decision and yet provide the benefit of professional advice and opinion is court-based mediation. This service is readily available and often free or subsidized. It has the further benefit of mitigating the tremendous burden on the family justice system that has arisen from the Covid-19 pandemic.

If you have more questions about your education law matter for both private or public schools contact John Schuman at 416-446-5080 and john.schuman@devrylaw.ca or Katelyn Bell at 416-446-5837 and katelyn.bell@devrylaw.ca.

“This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.”

By Justin DominicBlog, COVID-19, Education Law, Family LawSeptember 17, 2020September 29, 2020

Temporary Layoffs During COVID-19 – “COVID-19 period” extended until January 2, 2021

On May 29, 2020, Ontario passed Regulation 228/20 under the Employment Standards Act (“ESA”). As a result of this new regulation, non-unionized workers who had their hours reduced or eliminated due to COVID-19 are deemed retroactively to be on Infectious Disease Emergency Leave, which is an unpaid, job-protected leave under the ESA. The regulation applies retroactively from March 1, 2020, and initially was set to expire on September 4, 2020, six (6) weeks after the state of emergency ended. This period of time is referred to in the Regulation as the “COVID-19 period”. Our initial blog, which explains the impact of the Regulation on employer and employee rights, can be found here.

On September 3, 2020, the government of Ontario announced that the COVID-19 period would be extended until January 2, 2021.

Impact of the Regulation and the Extension of the COVID-19 Period

As a result of the Regulation and the government’s latest announcement, non-unionized employees who have been temporarily laid off between March 1, 2020, and January 2, 2021, for reasons related to COVID-19 would be deemed to be on Infectious Disease Emergency Leave.

Under the ESA, an employee who has been laid off for more than 13 weeks in any period of 20 consecutive weeks (or for at least 35 weeks in any period of 52 weeks, if certain other conditions are met) will be deemed to have been dismissed from their employment. This constructive dismissal would then entitle the employee to statutory termination pay, as well as severance pay (if certain other criteria are met).

The extension of the COVID-19 period to January 2, 2021, means that there will be no deemed terminations arising from temporary layoffs until after January 2, 2021, provided that the reason for the layoff was related to COVID-19. As noted by the government of Ontario, the Regulation can relieve employers from substantial payments to their employees, which can make a difference in times where the business is already struggling to survive the economic effects of the pandemic.

Does the Regulation Alter the Common Law related to Temporary Layoffs and Constructive Dismissal?

As set out above, an employer has a right to temporarily lay off employees under the ESA. However, it is well-established law that an employer does not have a common law right to temporarily lay off an employee, even if the employer complies with the provisions of the ESA. This would result in a constructive dismissal at common law.

The common-law prohibition of temporary layoffs in Ontario can be altered if there is an express term in an employment contract that permits an employer to temporarily layoff employees in accordance with the ESA.

In order for the common law to be altered by a statute, there would need to be express language in the statute to that effect, which is not the case here. In fact, the ESA expressly states that “no civil remedy of an employee against his or her employer is affected by this Act” and the Regulation does not contain any language which would modify this section of the ESA.

In the event that the common law provides a greater right or benefit to an employee than their ESA entitlements, the common law will prevail. However, an employer can limit an employee’s entitlements by contract, as long as the contract ensures that the employee will not receive less than their minimum ESA entitlements.

COVID-19 has resulted in unique and unprecedented circumstances for both employers and employees and how the courts will interpret and apply Regulation 228/20 (and the most recent amendment to the COVID-19 period) remains to be seen. The courts may still find that employees have been constructively dismissed at common law, but may award less generous severance package to employees. The specific facts which resulted in the temporary layoff or reduction in hours or wages will also be relevant.

If the common law remains unaltered, many temporary layoffs due to COVID-19 would be unlawful and may result in the employee’s entitlement to a common law notice period and significant severance payouts for employers.

Key Takeaway for Employees:

Employees who have been temporarily laid off during the COVID-19 period and were waiting until after September 4, 2020, to claim statutory termination pay and severance pay from their employer arising from a deemed termination of their employment will now have to wait until after January 2, 2021. However, assuming that there was no lay-off provision in their employment contract, employees in this situation should consider taking the position that the lay-off was in contravention of the common law, their employment was constructively dismissed, and that they are therefore entitled to a common law notice period.

Key Takeaway for Employers:

Employers will not be obligated to pay out hefty sums for severance pay and termination pay under the ESA until after January 2, 2021, with respect to employees who have been temporarily laid off due to COVID-19, and may therefore wish to consider extending temporary layoffs until January 2, 2021. However, the Regulation does not bar employees from pursuing an action in common law and it is unclear at this stage how courts will interpret and apply this Regulation.

If you have more questions about how this new Regulation will affect you as either an employer or employee, contact employment lawyer Marty Rabinovitch at 416-446-5826 or at marty.rabinovitch@devrylaw.ca to discuss your rights and options.

By Justin DominicBlog, COVID-19, Employment LawSeptember 15, 2020September 29, 2020

Four things you need to know about “Time shall be of the essence” in real estate transactions (especially in a pandemic!)

A contract of sale for a piece of real estate property will almost always expressly provide that time is of the essence. This clause means that you and the other parties in the agreement must be punctual and fulfill their obligations promptly. Otherwise, if you fail to perform in a timely fashion, the contract may end and you may be liable for damages.

For example, if you change your mind about purchasing the property or cannot attain suitable funding in time for the closing date, you may be in breach and liable to the other parties. In other words, the deadlines are very important; missing them could cost you. You may need to pay for the other parties.

Here are four things you need to know:

Proceed diligently and in good faith

Stay true to your word, secure funding, fulfil your obligations with diligence. Complete your obligations faithfully and do not interfere with the other party’s ability to fulfil their responsibilities. If you are uncertain about your obligations, obtain legal advice.

How to rely on the clause

If you want to rely on the clause to accuse another party of failing to live up to their obligations, you must demonstrate that you are ready, willing, and able to complete the agreement. In other words, if both parties are not ready to close on a real estate transaction, neither party can rely on the clause to bring an action for specific performance, damages, or termination of the contract.

When the clause is negated

By waiver. For example, if both parties agree to extend the closing date by two days then there is a waiver. In general, if one party in a contract takes action(s) to make it clear that the strict contractual provisions will not be enforced, the clause is waived in that instance.

By-election: For example, if the buyer does not have the requisite financing completed on the closing date, the seller could agree to extend the closing date. In general, when one party breaches the contract and the other parties’ consent, the clause is negated by-election.

How the clause is impacted by the Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19)

COVID-19 has disrupted the economy and caused some aspects of the institutions which help real estate transactions move along have temporarily scaled back or suspended their operations. Further, COVID-19 has caused financial hardships which also have the potential to delay real estate transactions. Delays may cause deadlines to be missed, and you do not want to be on the hook due to a delay caused by COVID-19.

To ensure that your real estate deal is not held up by the pandemic, obtain legal advice to ensure you either:

enter into agreements properly drafted with COVID-19 in mind, or
that your existing agreement completes without delays caused by COVID-19.

For more information or any other questions regarding real estate transactions, please contact our real estate lawyers today. Don’t delay, time is of the essence.

By Justin DominicBlog, COVID-19, Real EstateAugust 18, 2020September 29, 2020

Small Business Evictions Banned in Ontario

On March 19, 2020, two days after announcing a state of emergency due to the coronavirus pandemic, Ontario moved to temporarily protect residential tenants from eviction. The Landlord and Tenant Board suspended all eviction application hearings and the Superior Court of Justice ordered that no eviction orders shall be enforced. With 2.2 million Ontario workers directly affected by either job losses or reduced hours, this action provided Ontario renters—many of whom living paycheque to paycheque—with critical relief. However, by May 15, the Ontario government continued to resist calls to extend the same protection to small business tenants.

In lieu of providing legal protection, the province instead encouraged “cooperation” and called on commercial landlords of small businesses to be fair, flexible, and leverage the Canada Emergency Commercial Rent Assistance (CECRA) program which would open for applications on May 25. CECRA provides eligible commercial landlords with unsecured, forgivable loans to supplement lost rental income from their small business tenants. Commercial landlords are eligible if their small business tenant(s) pay no more than $50,000 in monthly gross rent per location, generate no more than $20 million in gross annual revenues, and have experienced at least a 70% decline in revenue. To qualify, the commercial landlord must agree to reduce their small business tenants’ rent by at least 75% and agree to a moratorium on the eviction.

As a result of the structure of CECRA, the relief is provided to commercial landlords—should they choose to apply—without direct protections for small business tenants. However, as of June 5, there were only 7,000 applications out of the province’s 418,000 small businesses. This figure, in combination with calls from advocacy groups to extend legal protections, resulted in the passage of the Protecting Small Business Act.

The Act suspends evictions by commercial landlords who are not applying for the CECRA program despite their tenants being eligible for the program. Tenants and landlords can learn more about eligibility and the application process at ontario.ca/rentassistance. Applications are being accepted until August 31, 2020.

By Justin DominicBlog, Commercial Litigation, COVID-19August 5, 2020September 29, 2020

Are You Still Eligible For The CERB?

THE CERB & RETURNING TO WORK

Amidst the economic challenges of COVID-19, a number of Canadians have relied on financial assistance in the form of the Canadian Emergency Response Benefit (the “CERB”). As businesses now slowly prepare to reopen in a phased approach, individuals must consider if they are still eligible to receive the CERB benefit if they are recalled to work. In doing so, they should keep in mind the potential consequences of receiving the CERB if no longer eligible.

With continued relief being provided by both the Federal and Provincial governments, through measures such as the 75 percent Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy, employers have slowly begun to recall their workforces as they prepare to reopen. What this means for individuals receiving CERB is that, if re-employed, they may be ineligible for future CERB benefit payments.

ARE YOU STILL ELIGIBLE?

One cannot receive a salary in excess of $1,000 during a CERB payment period while also receiving the CERB benefit. Failure to comply with this can result in penalties and fines.

As things begin to normalize, the CRA will begin reviewing all CERB applications and will flag any erroneous, ineligible and fraudulent claims. This will result in correcting and collecting any benefit payments paid out in error.

While mistakes can happen, it is always better to err on the side of caution, and if applicable, individuals should self-disclose to the CRA in the event of their receipt of a benefit payment to which they were not entitled.

THREE THINGS TO CONSIDER BEFORE REAPPLYING FOR THE CERB

Things to consider in the coming days and weeks as it relates to reapplying for the CERB benefit:

1. Individuals who believe they will be recalled to work in the coming weeks may prefer to hold off on reapplying until the next CERB benefit period. If their employment salary exceeds the permitted $1,000.00 cap during the CERB benefit period, they will likely be deemed to have been ineligible for the CERB and will be obliged to repay the benefits received for the relevant period.

2. Remember that the CERB is repayable by a recipient who failed to meet the eligibility requirements for the relevant four-week period.

3. Individuals who received a benefit payment to which they were not entitled should repay the funds.
• The CRA’s website sets out steps to help individuals repay benefits received in error. Those who fail to do so will be flagged, and risk the imposition of fines and penalties.
If you have additional questions about returning to work and/or about receiving the CERB, feel free to contact the lawyers at Devry Smith Frank LLP to discuss your rights and options.

By Justin DominicBlog, COVID-19, TaxJuly 7, 2020September 29, 2020

Weddings & Contract Frustration during Covid-19

WEDDINGS, CONTRACTS & COVID-19

Before entering into a marital contract, couples and newlyweds may enter into a number of other contractual relationships. From vendors for decor & entertainment to catering and venues, there are a number of legal implications to be considered when unforeseen circumstances arise and threaten to disrupt contractual performance.

COVID-19 & WEDDINGS

With COVID-19’s current impact on the airline industry with restrictions in place on international travel and upon large social gatherings, the wedding industry has experienced significant disruption. So what does that mean for wedding vendors, venues and couples facing wedding cancellations or postponements?

FORCE MAJEURE

“Force majeure” clauses generally discharge a contracting party from the obligation to perform when an unanticipated event, beyond the control of either party, renders performance impossible or significantly different than what was anticipated. Many commercial agreements contain “force majeure” clauses which provide for parties to be excused of their contractual obligations in the event of serious unforeseen circumstances. These clauses are applicable when unforeseen events, such as an “act of God”, government action or change in legislation takes place, so as to disrupt contractual performance. To be applicable, a force majeure clause has to be contained within the written contract.

A party seeking to rely on a force majeure clause must first establish that the intervening event falls within the contract’s definition of force majeure. In most contracts, there typically is a list outlining specific triggering events and terminology that is covered. Some contracts contain broader catch-all phrases such as “other events beyond the reasonable control of the parties.” Such assessments would likely be conducted on a case-by-case basis and will depend on the language of the contract and the facts of each individual case.

It is important to note that the party seeking to invoke a force majeure clause must establish that the event sufficiently impacted contractual performance. Some force majeure clauses set out the degree of requisite impact required for applicability, ranging higher standards of performance being “rendered impossible,” to lower standards such as performance being “delayed.” Where the requisite impact is not specified in the agreement, Canadian courts have typically applied a higher threshold. An event that has made the performance more costly or unprofitable is insufficient to trigger the application of a force majeure clause.

THE DOCTRINE OF FRUSTRATION

Frustration occurs where an event occurs after entering into a contract, which renders performance impossible or radically different than negotiated and goes to the very root of the contract. The doctrine of frustration may apply in situations where there is no force majeure clause contained in the applicable contract.

It is not enough for a contract to simply become more onerous or more difficult to perform. Rather, a party must show that the original purpose of the contract has been undermined and it would be unjust for them to be bound to the contract under the existing circumstances.

Where the doctrine of frustration is applicable, the effect of the doctrine of frustration is to discharge parties from their contractual obligations. Cases involving frustration are determined by the courts based on their specific facts. Given the significance of its impact, the threshold for establishing frustration is very high.

VENUES & VENDORS

Venues and vendors facing losses incurred due to business interruption as per COVID-19 are advised to reach out to their insurance providers to see if they are able to claim for any of their losses based on their insurance coverage.

MITIGATION & COOPERATION FOR VENDERS AND COUPLES TO CONSIDER

In any situation where losses are likely to be incurred, contractual parties have a duty to mitigate. Parties would be advised to consider and discuss any viable options if possible in regards to accommodations, rescheduling or postponements if available. Relying on force majeure and frustration claims should be viewed as a last resort where conversations and negotiations have stalled or broken down.

As businesses begin to reopen and restrictions begin to ease, we encourage couples, vendors and venues to stay apprised of updates that impact the wedding industry. (Link here)

For more complex issues and questions pertaining to wedding contracts with venues, vendors, or couples in relation to refunds, deposits or monies paid for weddings and other contracts – where performance is now in question as a result of COVID-19, please contact one of the lawyers at our firm to discuss your rights and options.

By Justin DominicBlog, Commercial Litigation, COVID-19July 3, 2020September 29, 2020

Custody, Access and Covid19

In the recently decided case of Ribeiro vs Wright, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice affirmed that parties with a pre-existing separation agreement or court order in place with respect to access rights cannot unilaterally change their access schedule on the basis of COVID-19.

The court stated that parties should not attempt to take advantage of the current challenges in relation to COVID-19 and seek to unilaterally not put in place different schedules for access. Parents who share custody of their children should continue to respect custody agreements during Covid-19 and continue their split parenting arrangements with their former spouse unless there is specific evidence that the child’s health is at risk.

CHALLENGES AFFECTING PARENTS & ACCESS DURING COVID-19

There are some challenges in relation to access rights and issues that affect family law matters in relation to COVID-19 – including but not limited to the following:

Parents who are unable to work from home and have to interact with the general public on a regular basis
- Example: Individuals who are considered to be essential workers (Nurses, Grocery Clerks, etc.)
Parents returning home to Canada from abroad who must self isolate for a period of 14-days
Parents who fail to comply with social/physical distancing recommendations from public health or parents who fail to take reasonable health precautions in relation to the safety of their children
Parents who rely on their own parents for child care

EMERGENCY ORDER IN ONTARIO COURTS & FAMILY LAW

As Ontario courts are still closed and operating in a virtual capacity due to the emergency order in place currently, courts are continuing to only hear urgent matters on a case-by-case basis.

If you have additional questions pertaining to family law matters, access or additional COVID-19 related issues related to family law, feel free to contact the lawyers at Devry Smith Frank LLP to discuss your rights and options.

By Justin DominicBlog, COVID-19, Family LawJune 30, 2020September 29, 2020

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH & SAFETY REOPENING ONTARIO –THINGS TO CONSIDER IMPLEMENTING AS BUSINESSES BEGIN TO REOPEN

Reopening Ontario

The province of Ontario has presented a multi-phase plan to reopen the economy. The province will follow a gradual approach to allow public health officials to monitor and assess conditions before moving onto the next phase. A practical guide to follow from the City of Toronto has been provided for employers, workplaces and businesses on workplace recommendations, protocols and procedures to protect employees and customers. The link can be accessed here.

Stage 1

Stage 1 will consist of reopening business that can immediately meet or modify operations to satisfy public health recommendations and occupational health and safety requirements.

Stage 1 will focus on workplaces that are well equipped and positioned to follow public health advice in terms of ensuring safe workplaces and appropriate physical distancing measures.
What businesses can open in Stage 1?
Construction, retail, vehicle dealerships, media industries, health services, outdoor recreational amenities, professional sports without spectators and many more.

Stage 2

Ontario announced they will be taking a regional approach to Stage 2, reopening more workplaces and businesses based on additional risk assessments and public health information, determining which regions will be permitted to enter the stage when certain criteria are met.

What businesses can open in Stage 2?
Restaurants & bars, personal care services, shopping malls and centres, beaches, parks & camping, drive-in & drive-thru venues, libraries, community centers, along with weddings, funerals and other similar gatherings.

Stage 3

Stage 3 will consist of reopening most remaining workplaces and businesses, while carefully and gradually lifting restrictions. Public health and workplace safety guidelines will remain in place, while large public gatherings will also continue to be restricted.

Fifteen Proactive and Protective Measures to Keep Everyone Safe

Keeping two meters or six feet of distance from others
Washing your hands often – using soap and hand sanitizers
Avoid touching your face with unwashed hands
Cough into your elbow or a tissue
Staying at home when you are sick or experiencing signs of illness
Cleaning & disinfecting frequently touched objects and surfaces
Wearing facemasks
Avoiding all non-essential trips
Screening staff and clients in regards to COVID-19 when possible, briefly questioning or implementing screening measures, prohibiting anyone with symptoms from entering the workplace
Ensuring staff do not come to work when sick
Maintaining flexibility, reducing operating hours, staggering of shifts and implementing flexible work policies when work can be done remotely, manage meetings electronically if possible
Reduce overcrowding by establishing proper physical distancing measures and markings within workplaces for employees, workers and clients
Managing entrances/exits effectively, controlling both the flow and capacity within workplaces while maintaining physical distancing
Implementing signage and additional information to help advise individuals regarding important changes during this time, as it may additionally help the flow of information for workers, employees and clients
Implementing proper cleaning and disinfection protocols for workplaces and/or implementing the use of air filters and cleaning services to reduce airborne contamination

It is important that employers and employees work together to develop effective plans to manage and ensure the wellbeing of everyone as businesses begin to reopen.

Occupational Health and Safety Act, RSO 1990, c. O. 1 (“OHSA”)

In Ontario, employers have an obligation to ensure employees have a safe and healthy work environment. Employers are required to show that they acted reasonably to protect the safety of employees in hazardous circumstances, which may include exposure to COVID-19.

For additional information, we encourage employers and employees to visit the Ontario website and review the latest information as it relates to the reopening of Ontario. Clickable Link here

If you have more questions as it relates to occupational health and safety standards, or if you are an employer or employee who needs additional assistance regarding returning to work, please contact our firm to discuss your rights and options.

By Justin DominicBlog, COVID-19, Employment LawJune 25, 2020September 29, 2020

What to Expect from your Personal Injury Case during COVID-19

This pandemic has affected every aspect of our daily lives in profound ways. However, our firm is still operating as usual albeit remotely, as legal services were deemed an essential service by the province. From a procedural standpoint, there have been a number of changes due to the closure of courts.

Suspension of Limitation Periods

Under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, limitation periods have been suspended retroactive to March 16, 2020, along with procedural deadlines in the Rules of Civil Procedure, although the Superior Court of Justice’s Consolidated Notice has encouraged all litigants to continue to move their matter along and comply with the Rules as much as possible through virtual means. Though claims can still be issued electronically, this suspension will significantly delay proceedings as courts will not be hearing the majority of non-urgent matters until further notice.

Medical Examinations

There may be significant delays in obtaining medical records or to schedule examinations. Ontario announced that on May 27, 2020, a number of health care providers including dentists, optometrists, massage therapists, chiropractors, physiotherapists, psychologists etc. can return to work once health and safety guidelines are met. However, this does not mean that these providers can begin seeing their patients right away. Premier Doug Ford noted that “health regulatory colleges are now in the process of developing guidance to ensure high-quality and safe clinical care that must be met before services can resume.”

Examinations for Discovery and Mediation

Examinations for Discovery and/or mediations may be cancelled, postponed or conducted virtually using video-conferencing software. Though these are less than ideal conditions, if all parties consent to using video-conferencing this could bring about speedier outcomes for a case than waiting for these steps to resume in-person. However, additional precautionary measures should be taken regarding privacy concerns and ensuring high-quality video and audio.

Delays in Scheduling Motions and Trials

Currently, Ontario Superior Court is not hearing any in-person court matters until July 6, 2020, at the earliest, although they have a list of matters that can be heard virtually which they plan to continue to expand. Civil jury selection or jury trials will also not re-commence at the earliest until September 2020. This can leave the most contentious cases at a standstill until a trial can be scheduled. Considering how long civil proceedings can remain in the legal system, this will delay matters even further.

The above information is general in nature and if you have a specific question related to your personal injury matter contact Marc G. Spivak, managing partner of the personal injury group at marc.spivak@devrylaw.ca or 416-446-5855.

By Justin DominicBlog, COVID-19, Personal InjuryJune 22, 2020September 29, 2020

LAWYER SEARCH