Quebec Court of Appeal Reaffirms Broad Interpretation of “In the Course of Work” in Work-Accident Case Involving a Temporary Foreign Worker

Even outside normal working hours, an accident may be recognized as a work accident within the meaning of section 2 of Quebec’s Act respecting industrial accidents and occupational diseases (AIAOD). This interpretation has traditionally been observed in contexts including social events organized or encouraged by the employer. That said, what happens when such an accident results, a priori, from a task the worker initiates without any specific instruction from the employer? Would it constitute a sudden and unforeseen event having indeed occurred “in the course of work” as contemplated by section 2 of the AIAOD? This is the factual premise upon which the Quebec Court of Appeal recently ruled in Succession de Batzibal c. Cultures Fortin inc. (available in French only). The decision addresses the scope of “in the course of work” in circumstances where the particular facts involved a temporary foreign worker.

Background

A seasonal agricultural worker was authorized by his employer to use a work vehicle daily, both for the performance of his duties and for occasional personal use. On July 18, 2021, upon noticing that one of the vehicle’s tires had gone flat while transporting his co-workers to a soccer game, the worker returned to the workplace to replace the flat tire without authorization or any instruction from the employer. During the manoeuvre, which took place outside regular working hours, a defective jack belonging to the employer collapsed under the weight of the vehicle, leading to the worker’s death.

The worker’s estate brought a claim before Quebec’s Commission des normes, de l’équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (CNESST). The CNESST denied the claim, as the event had not occurred “in the course of work” and therefore did not constitute a workplace accident within the meaning of the AIAOD.

The Administrative Labour Tribunal (ALT) and the Superior Court of Quebec both subsequently upheld that decision. The estate brought the matter before the Court of Appeal of Quebec.

The Court of Appeal’s Ruling

Section 2 of the AIAOD provides that an “industrial accident” is any sudden event “arising out of or in the course of [a person’s] work.” Moreover, according to established case law, an accident should be considered as having occurred “in the course of work” where it results from “an act connected to work and more or less useful to its accomplishment” (our translation; see Montreal Tramways Co. v. Girard, page 24), even if that act is not directly required by the employee’s duties. Along the same lines, the Court of Appeal reiterated in its decision that the remedial purpose of the AIAOD calls for a fair, generous and victim-protective interpretation of the legislation.

Turning specifically to the narrative under consideration, the Court of Appeal did not align itself with the position of the CNESST, the ALT and the Superior Court that the worker had acted in a personal capacity. Indeed, according to the Court of Appeal, such an approach erroneously required a direct link between the accident and the duties performed, contradicting the broad and liberal interpretation mandated by the AIAOD.

The Court of Appeal found that, in reality, several elements demonstrated that the worker’s activity fell within his professional sphere and therefore occurred “in the course of work”:

• He had been a designated driver for several seasons
• The vehicle was used for his work duties
• He had used that same vehicle earlier in the day for his professional activities
• The workers occasionally participated in repairs on the employer's vehicles and even received minimal training in that regard

The Court of Appeal then highlighted other particular facts of this case, noting that the worker resided near the workplace in housing provided by the employer. This arrangement gave the employer a certain degree of control over several aspects of the worker’s private life, incidentally reinforcing the connection between the incident and the performance of the worker’s duties. Furthermore, with respect to the criterion of the activity’s purpose and relative usefulness to the employer, the Court of Appeal concluded that the worker could reasonably have wanted to ensure that the vehicle would be ready for his work activities the following day, and noted that the repair was useful and beneficial to the operation of the employer’s business. The facts therefore demonstrated a sufficient connection between the accident and the worker’s employment. The fatal accident did indeed occur in the course of work.

Key Takeaways

This decision, which concerns particularly unfortunate and unusual circumstances, reaffirms the broad, liberal interpretation of the AIAOD that the CNESST and the courts will commonly adopt when examining a work accident claim.

Second, employers of temporary foreign workers must take into account the particularities of the employment relationship in developing their labour practices and risk-management strategies. Indeed, the boundary between these workers’ professional and personal lives may become blurred or even ambiguous at times, making it possible for the courts to find a sufficient connection between the activity carried out by the foreign worker and his work — a connection that might not be recognized in a more traditional employment context.

For more information, please contact the authors or any other member of our Employment & Labour group.

The authors of this bulletin would like to acknowledge the valuable contribution of Claudia Ragi, student-at-law.