Supreme Court: Workplace Inspection Obligations Under Canada Labour Code Limited To Areas Employer Controls

Late last year a majority of the Supreme Court of Canada rendered a much-anticipated decision, holding that it is reasonable to interpret the workplace inspection obligation under Part II of the Canada Labour Code (the Code) as being limited to parts of the workplace over which an employer has control.1 In so doing, the court overturned the Federal Court of Appeal's 2017 decision,2 and reinstated the decision3 made by the appeals officer back in 2014.

Facts

This case originated from a complaint to Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (now Employment and Social Development Canada) alleging the local joint health and safety committee at Canada Post's Burlington depot failed to comply with the Code's mandatory health and safety obligations by limiting its workplace inspections to the Burlington depot building. The complaint stated the safety inspections should have also included letter carrier routes and locations where mail is delivered (points of call).

Workplace inspection obligation under Part II of the Code

Paragraph 125(1)(z.12) under Part II the Code requires employers to have every part of the workplace inspected at least once a year:

125 (1) Without restricting the generality of section 124, every employer shall, in respect of every workplace controlled by the employer and, in respect of every work activity carried out by an employee in a workplace that is not controlled by the employer, to the extent that the employer controls the activity,

(z.12) ensure that the workplace committee or the health and safety representative inspects each month all or part of the workplace, so that every part of the workplace is inspected at least once each year

Decisions below

A health and safety officer found Canada Post had failed to comply with its workplace inspection obligation under paragraph 125(1)(z.12).

On appeal to the Occupational Health and Safety Tribunal Canada, the appeals officer rescinded the contravention and found the obligation only applied to the parts of the workplace over which Canada Post had control, which did not include letter carrier routes and points of call. The appeals officer based his decision on recognizing that the purpose of the workplace inspection obligation is to identify and fix hazards and control over the workplace is necessary for this purpose.

The Federal Court upheld the appeals officer's decision,4 but Federal Court of Appeal subsequently overturned the Federal Court's decision.

The Supreme Court...