Canadian HR Reporter Weekly

July 4, 2018

Canadian HR Reporter Weekly is a premium service available to human resources professionals that features workplace news, best practices, employment law commentary and tools and tips for employers.

Issue link: https://digital.hrreporter.com/i/1001246

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 3 of 3

July 4, 2018 Published weekly by Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. CUSTOMER SERVICE Tel: (416) 609-3800 (Toronto) (800) 387-5164 (outside Toronto) Fax: (416) 298-5106 customersupport.legaltaxcanada@tr.com www.thomsonreuters.ca One Corporate Plaza 2075 Kennedy Road, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M1T 3V4 Director, Media Solutions, Canada: Karen Lorimer Publisher/Editor-in-Chief: Todd Humber todd.humber@thomsonreuters.com (416) 298-5196 Editor/Supervisor: Sarah Dobson sarah.dobson@thomsonreuters.com (416) 649-7896 News Editor: Marcel Vander Wier marcel.vanderwier@thomsonreuters.com (416) 649-7837 Sales Manager: Paul Burton paul.burton@thomsonreuters.com (416) 649-9928 Circulation Co-ordinator: Keith Fulford keith.fulford@thomsonreuters.com (416) 649-9585 Art Director: Dave Escuadro david.escuadro@thomsonreuters.com (416) 649-9358 ©2018 Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the written permission of the publisher (Thomson Reuters, Media Solutions, Canada). Long-term disability benefits claim allowed after employment: Court Former Ontario employee's case leads to 'remarkable' decision BY SARAH DOBSON A recent decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal raised eyebrows in stating a former employee was allowed to receive long-term disability (LTD) ben- efits for an injury he sustained through work three years before he left the company. Lenard MacIvor worked for Pitney Bowes from 1996 to 2005, ultimately becoming a division sales vice-president. In 2005, he suffered a severe back in- jury and traumatic brain injury during a company- sponsored event in Costa Rica and was off work for four months. But his work performance deteriorated after that, so his responsibilities were reduced and — in frustration — MacIvor quit his job in 2008. Within days, he found a job at Samsung, but the same performance difficulties continued and he was fired a year later. When MacIvor asked Samsung about making a long-term disability claim, he was told to apply under his policy at Pitney Bowes since the injury occurred while employed there. But MacIvor's 2010 claim was denied, so he went to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice seeking benefits in the amount of $5,834 per month, less 85 per cent of the amounts he received for workers' compensation and Canada Pension Plan benefits. In 2017, that court denied his claim, saying the Manulife policy clearly stated there was no cover- age for people who were not employed by Pitney Bowes. But the Ontario Court of Appeal disagreed. e policy stated coverage would end on the day a person ceased to be "actively employed," but citing the 2016 Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co. decision and the need for insurance policy language to be clear — "read- ing the contract as a whole" — the court said the policy meant coverage would not continue "when an employee begins working for another employer or after the employee has retired." In addition, the "termination of coverage" lan- guage relates to future claims, not claims that may have arisen during the course of the employee's employment. "In other words, if an employee's claim arises as the result of an occurrence that takes place during their employment, the policy provides coverage," said Justice Jean McFarland in her April 19 decision. "e Manulife policy does not contain the type of exclusionary language that terminates coverage for undiscovered disability claims the employee had and that originated during their employment, when their employment ceases. To so conclude would leave former employees, like (MacIvor), in the untenable position of having no disability cover- age from either their former employer or any new employer. Such a result would be contrary to the very purpose of disability insurance and the plain meaning of the coverage provision." 'Exceptional relief ' It is hard not to describe the decision as remark- able, according to Sean Bawden, a partner at Kelly Santini in Ottawa. "I think most people would be surprised just on the facts of it. Was it an attempt by the court to see an injured guy get benefits? Yeah, it may have been a bit of an ends driving means. at's not uncommon in insurance cases… and they found some analysis to get there." However, it does make sense for a policy to pro- vide coverage for an occurrence that happened dur- ing employment, he said. If not, employers might immediately terminate a worker's employment af- ter she sustained an injury. "e takeaway for employers is that simply be- cause employment has been terminated, doesn't mean one's ability to apply for LTD does necessar- ily as well," said Bawden. And employers that "self-insure" disability ben- efits should be mindful of exactly what they are insuring and for how long, he said, "because if the language is similar to that employed by Manu- life, you might have liability far beyond what you think… and a termination is not going to end that entitlement." However, few injuries would lend themselves to this kind of finding, said Lisa Armstrong, a lawyer at Strigberger Brown Armstrong in Toronto. And from an employer's point of view, the termi- nation provisions in the contract were pretty clear, but the court decided there shouldn't be this gap in coverage in cases of this type, she said. "It wasn't that the provision wasn't clear enough — that's where I think this decision is quite weak because I've never seen a case before where they ex- tended coverage beyond the term of employment." But the more concerning part is for insurers, said Armstrong, in the fact that the court used the language of the policy to extend both the proof of claim and the commencement of action provisions. "On top of that, it granted exceptional relief when it wasn't even requested so it was definitely inter- esting from the insurer's point of view whether or not they should be looking at those provisions," she said. "And what an employer may find is if the in- surers look at those provisions and they can't fix those gaps, then obviously there's more exposure for them, which might raise premiums."

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Canadian HR Reporter Weekly - July 4, 2018