Summary
The Court of Appeal of Québec ruled that the death of a foreign farm worker outside regular working hours constituted an employment injury,[1] which follows the current trend in case law favouring a broad interpretation of the concept of an accident “in the course of work.”[2]
Background
Mr. Ottoniel Lares Batzibal (the “Worker”), a seasonal farm worker, lost his life after being crushed by a vehicle belonging to his employer. The accident occurred while he was repairing a flat tire when the jack lifting the vehicle suddenly gave way.
What makes this case unique is that the accident occurred outside working hours. The Worker, who was authorized to use the Employer’s vehicles for both work-related and personal purposes, had dropped off his co-workers for a game of soccer, but returned to the workplace to repair a flat tire on the vehicle.
The Lower Court Decisions
In hearing an appeal of the CNESST’s decision on eligibility, filed by the Worker’s estate (the “Estate”), the Administrative Labour Tribunal (“ALT”) found that the Worker’s death did not constitute an employment injury.[3]
Since the presumption of employment injury was not found to apply in this case, the only issue was whether the sudden and unforeseen event that led to the Worker’s death occurred “in the course of work.” The ALT therefore considered the factors established by the case law to assess the connection between activity performed at the time of the accident and the worker’s duties, namely:
- the place of the accident;
- the time of the accident;
- the payment received by the worker for performing the activity at the time of the accident;
- the existence and degree of authority or subordination of the employer when the accident does not occur on the premises or during working hours;
- the purpose of the activity performed by the worker at the time of the accident, whether it was secondary, ancillary or optional/voluntary in relation to the worker’s working conditions and employment duties;
- the relevance and relative usefulness of the worker’s activity in relation to the employer’s operations.
The ALT concluded that the accident had not occurred “in the course of work.” Although the accident occurred on the work premises, it took place outside working hours. The tire repair was neither expressly nor implicitly required by the Employer and was not a secondary or optional task related to a seasonal farm worker’s employment. Rather, the activity undertaken by the Worker was a personal initiative falling within his private sphere of activities.
The Superior Court dismissed the application for judicial review filed by the Estate, as it found the ALT’s ruling to be reasonable.[4]
Court of Appeal’s Pivotal Decision
In a decisive reversal, the Court of Appeal ruled that the Worker’s death constituted an employment injury, more specifically, an accident that had occurred “in the course of work.”
Interpretation of AIAOD
The Court reiterated that the Act respecting industrial accidents and occupational diseases (“AIAOD”)[5] must be given a broad and liberal interpretation. Moreover, section 351 expressly provides that the CNESST must render its decisions “according to equity and upon the real merits and justice in the case.”
Case Law Criteria for Assessing the Connection to the Activity at the Time of the Accident
The Court underscored that the relevant tests are tools to assist in its analysis, but they are not restrictive and should not be considered in isolation, as this could lead to erroneous outcomes.
ALT’s Decision Found Unreasonable
Although the ALT correctly set out the applicable test, it failed to apply the principles of interpretation under the AIAOD when it sought a direct link between the Worker’s work and his attempt to repair the tire. In doing so, it failed to consider all of the evidence establishing a ‘more or less close’ connection, in particular:
- The Worker had been employed by the Employer for several seasons and was one of the Employer’s authorized drivers.
- He was driving the vehicle in question on the afternoon of the accident when the first flat tire occurred. He assisted with, or at least witnessed, the first repair to the tire. He then immediately returned to the fields to continue his work.
- Rather than immediately joining his co-workers for the soccer game, the Worker chose to repair the vehicle first to ensure its availability for the next day’s work, thereby acting in the Employer’s interest. Had he instead decided to go to the game quickly, he could have used another of the Employer’s vehicles.
- The vehicle collapsed due to the Worker’s use of a defective car jack owned by the Employer.[6]
- The specific context of the worker’s employment, who lived on or near the premises in accommodation provided by the Employer, should have been considered. In the Court’s view, this context gave rise to “employer control (even if involuntary)” and blurred the line between the employee’s personal life and work, and should have been considered in assessing connection.[7]
The Court therefore allowed the Estate’s appeal and referred the matter to the CNESST to determine the appropriate indemnity.
Takeaways for Employers
Broad and liberal interpretation of the concept of an accident “in the course of work”
Employers should keep in mind that the concept of an accident “in the course of work” may include events occurring outside normal working hours, especially when the activity is related, even indirectly, to the employer’s interest.
Supervising off-duty activities
Employers will have to review their internal policies concerning the use of vehicles and equipment made available to workers outside working hours. We recommend clarifying in writing the conditions of use and restrictions based on the identified risks.
Facilities and equipment provided by Employer outside working hours
Some employers make facilities and equipment available to their employees outside working hours, such as furnished housing or vehicles. This practice is especially common among employers who hire temporary foreign workers (e.g., agricultural[8] or low-wage workers) or employees temporarily assigned to remote areas. As a result, these employers must be particularly mindful of the risks associated with providing such facilities or equipment.