Canada: Employer Rights And Obligations In Connection With Employee Information

Last Updated: November 14 2011
Article by Matthew Curtis and Carman Overholt

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Requesting medical information from an Employee raises innumerable legal issues related to privacy, human rights and workplace safety. Employers are legally responsible for maintaining a healthy and safe workplace while at the same time managing their business in accordance with human rights and privacy legislation. Managing a business involves dealing with Employees who are disabled and require some form of accommodation. Given the legal framework, Employers may be understandably apprehensive about requesting medical information from their Employees.

1.2 The developing body of court and arbitral jurisprudence has increased Employer obligations in the area of accommodation. As well, new legislation in some jurisdictions has increased Employers' potential liability for the unlawful conduct of their Employees. Thus Employee disclosure of personal medical information will increasingly be relevant and necessary.

2.0 Employee Privacy

2.1 Privacy laws such as the Personal Information Protection Act, S.B.C. 2003, c. 63 ("PIPA") protect a person's health information. PIPA governs the collection, use, and disclosure of Personal Information which is broadly defined as information about an identifiable individual in the private sector in British Columbia excluding those individuals working in federally regulated industries. PIPA's federal counterpart is the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, 2000 c. 5 ("PIPEDA"). Both PIPA and PIPEDA operate on a reasonableness standard with regards to the collection, use, disclosure and safeguarding of Personal Information. Under PIPA, and subject to limited exceptions, organizations are prohibited from collecting, using or disclosing Personal Information without the informed and meaningful consent of the individual. PIPA does allow the reasonable collection, use, and disclosure of Employee Personal Information without consent when the information is collected, used, or disclosed solely for the purposes of establishing, managing or terminating an employment relationship between the organization and the individual. However, the Employer must notify the Employee of its intention to collect, use, or disclose this information before it can proceed without the future consent of the Employee.

2.2 Employee medical information is generally granted a high level of protection by the Courts and the Privacy Commissioner from the unreasonable collection, use and disclosure by the Employer. Proper consent must be obtained by the Employer in the appropriate circumstances and Employers must take steps under PIPA to safeguard Employee medical information and prevent it from being used for improper purposes. Comprehensive and secure data storage mechanisms should be implemented by the Employer to reduce the risk of any inadvertent disclosure of sensitive Employee medical information.

2.3 The common law and human rights legislation recognize that Employers have a legitimate right to request medical information from Employees in appropriate circumstances. For instance, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal has stated that there is nothing inherently discriminatory for an Employer to request a doctor's note from an Employee to substantiate a request for sick leave (Stewart v. Brewers Distributor and another, 2009 BCHRT 376 at para. 48).

2.4 In Muir v. Teck Cominco, 2007 BCHRT 253, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal was confronted with a dispute between an Employee and an Employer over access and use of the Employee's personal medical information. The Employee had returned to work after sustaining a workplace injury and was placed in an accommodated position for seven years. The Workers Compensation Board collected medical information about the Employee and shared the information with the Employer and with the Employee's consent. Twelve years after the workplace accident, the Employer asked the Employee to undergo an independent medical examination and to assess whether the Employee could perform additional duties. The Employee alleged that that the Employer sent the Employee's personal medical information that it had obtained from the Workers Compensation Board and shared it with a medical doctor without the Employee's consent. The Employee did not comply with the Employer's request. However, upon realizing it may have not complied with PIPA, the Employer requested the return of the Employee's medical information from its doctor. It did not seek further medical information from the Employee.

2.5 The Tribunal acknowledged that the improper disclosure of the Employee's medical information may have constituted a breach of the PIPA, but the Tribunal accepted that the breach was not an issue that could be addressed through the Human Rights Code. The Employer had taken appropriate action and the Tribunal could not conclude that the discrimination based on a physical disability was a continuing issue that engaged the Human Rights Code in this case.

2.6 The refusal of an Employee to provide personal medical information does not engage privacy laws so as to compel the Employee to provide personal medical information. The Federal Court in Canada (Attorney General) v. Grover, 2007 FC 28, aff'd 2008 FCA 97 [Grover] held that an Employer did not have reasonable and probable grounds to request that its Employee attend a medical assessment by a physician other than the Employee's own personal physician based on a mere possibility that the Employee was ill or presented a safety risk. The Court recognized that the Employer has an important obligation to ensure a safe workplace and to know more about an Employee's medical information if there were reasonable and probable grounds to believe the Employee presented a risk to health or safety in the workplace. However, this had to be balanced with the Employee's privacy. Mr. Justice Shore wrote: 64. ...The foundational principle is that employees have a strong right to privacy with respect to their bodily integrity and a medical practitioner; therefore, a trespass is committed if an employee is examined against his or her will. Consequently, the employer cannot order an employee to submit to a medical examination by a doctor chosen by the employer unless there is some express contractual obligation or statutory authority.

2.7 A significant number of arbitrators have also addressed this issue, which has led to a relatively well‐developed body of arbitral jurisprudence. The basic principal is found in the unreported award of Victoria Times‐Colonist v. Victoria Newspaper Guild, Local 223 (12 February 1986):

there is nothing inherent in the employer-employee relationship which vests in an employer a discretionary right to compel employees to compromise their right to privacy through the disclosure of personal medical information.... An employer can only intrude upon the privacy of an employee if it has a legitimate purpose tied to the employer-employee relationship which justifies the intrusion.

2.8 This concept has been developed by a string of arbitrators, as summarized by Arbitrator Burke in the January 2010 award of ICBC v. Canadian Office and Professional Employees' Union Local 378, [2010] B.C.C.A.A.A. No. 22. This recent award involved a union grievance about a form Employees were required to complete to receive short‐term disability benefits. The union alleged that the form improperly sought medical information.

2.9 Based on a number of prior awards, Arbitrator Burke held that the goal of requesting medical information is to help management determine whether the illness or disability is bona fide and what impact it will have on the presence and attendance of the Employee. This right to access information must be balanced with the Employee's right to privacy. As a result, Employee medical information can only be requested when doing so is:

(a) "reasonably necessary" for the administration of sick leave benefits; and

(b) "consistent" with the collective agreement.

2.10 This latter requirement does not mean collecting the information need be explicitly authorized by the collective agreement; rather the Employer's entitlement to collect may arise from its right to administer sick leave provisions of the collective agreement.

2.11 Arbitrators have often considered other facts to determine the amount of information the Employer is entitled to request. The length of the Employee's absence, the complexity of the requested accommodation upon return to work, and suspicions of whether the illness or injury is bona fide may all vary the Employer's entitlement.

2.12 There is, however, an upper limit on the Employer's entitlement. Arbitral awards have established that Employers have no right to specific diagnoses of Employee medical conditions. Employers are at most entitled to information that divulges the extent to which the Employee can perform his or her job.

3.0 The Employer's Duty to Accommodate

3.1 The law places an obligation on Employers to obtain sufficient medical information from Employees with a disability or a perceived disability where there is a duty to accommodate to the point of undue hardship. The timing of this duty to investigate is after an express request has been made by an Employee seeking accommodation. The Employer's duty to accommodate may also arise absent an express request if the Employer has constructive notice of the need for accommodation.

3.2 The Employer's obligation can extend to proactively requesting personal medical information where accommodation is necessary. The Employer cannot turn a blind-eye to the Employee's physical or mental fitness when it is evident that there is a problem. Indicia such as prolonged absences from work may trigger the duty to accommodate even if the Employer has no direct knowledge of the nature of the medical issue (see: Conte v. Rogers Cablesystems Ltd. (1999), 36 C.H.R.R. D/403).

3.3 The seminal British Columbia Court of Appeal case of Oak Bay Marina Ltd. (c.o.b. Painter's Lodge) v. British Columbia (Human Rights Commission), 2002 BCCA 495, 5 B.C.L.R. (4th) 115 involved an issue of whether an Employer discriminated against an Employee who worked as a fishing guide. The Employer did not allow the guide to return to work after he had suffered from a mental illness. The Court held that the Tribunal had overlooked the Employee's mental condition which could have affected his ability to operate safely as a fishing guide. In concurring reasons for judgment, Madam Justice Saunders stated the following:

33. The Human Rights Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 210 is, as my colleague observes, applicable to both public and private employers, large and small. Some employers have considerable internal resources and some have only the business and practical acumen acquired in a life time. Given the breadth of the legislation's application and its intimate effect upon the essential operations of the workplace, it is important, in my view, to acknowledge that the legislation does not require that issues be referred to professional experts, not always readily accessible in this vast province. Where, as here, a decision may be based upon personal observation and a general understanding of attendant risks, I would not preclude the decision maker from supporting its view of the risks with after‐acquired knowledge, to the extent it may be able to do so. This necessarily means that mere failure to investigate is not, itself, a breach of the legislation, although clearly an employer who seeks more comprehensive knowledge when faced with a decision is less likely to base a decision upon unsupportable impressions.

3.4 The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal held in Kerr v. Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd., 2009 BCHRT 196, aff'd 2010 BCSC 427 and 2011 BCCA 266 that an Employer had a positive legal obligation to request medical information from an Employee who was having difficulty performing her duties due to a serious health condition. The Tribunal found that the Employer had failed to properly accommodate the Employee in light of her disability. The Employer's response was that it lacked sufficient medical information to assess the specific accommodation needs of the Employee and that there were safety issues in relation to the Employee's ability to operate a motor vehicle.

3.5 The Tribunal found that the Employer failed to take adequate steps to obtain the necessary medical information to satisfy its duty to accommodate. The Tribunal held: There is no question that an employee may need to provide medical information to the Employer in order for that employee to be accommodated. However, the Employer cannot just wait until that information is provided before taking any other steps as this would always place the burden on the employee.

3.6 Due to the failure of the Employer to make inquiries and to accommodate the Employee, the Tribunal awarded damages for lost wages, bonuses and pension, and for injury to her dignity, feelings, and self‐respect.

3.7 On a further appeal (2011 BCCA 266), the Employer sought to rely on the Employee's statements that she was unable to do the work. The British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding that:

[I]t must be implicit in the stated desire to return to work that the employee subjectively believes she has the ability to return to work. ...If [the Employer] was perplexed by its alleged ignorance of [the Employee's] ability to work, it need only have inquired.

3.8 The type of medical information that can reasonably be required by an Employer was considered by an Alberta arbitration board in Capital Health Authority (Royal Alexandra) v. United Nurses of Alberta, Local 33 (Schram Grievance), [2006] A.G.A.A. No. 60 at para. 70. The Board gave direction for future accommodation requests where medical information was needed as to what type of information could reasonably be required by the Employer:

  • the nature of the illness;
  • whether the illness is permanent or temporary and the estimated time frame for improvement to occur;
  • restrictions and limitations;
  • how the medical conclusions were reached; and
  • any treatment or medication that might impact the accommodation or the Employee's ability to perform his or her job should be disclosed.

3.9 There is also a duty for an Employee to assist in the accommodation process by providing medical evidence to demonstrate the need to be accommodated. This recognizes that the Employer does not on its own always have sufficient medical information necessary to accommodate the disability.

3.10 In a recent human rights case from Ontario, a managerial Employee alleged she had been the subject of discrimination in how she was treated by her Employer. The Employee became ill in January 2006 and began an authorized leave for medical reasons. She claimed to have been ill and completely disabled from work until at least April 2007 when she claimed that she was constructively dismissed. The Employee submitted in a timely manner a short term disability claims form to a third party insurer. The Employee did not authorize her medical information to be shared between the insurer and her Employer. Thus, all requests for information went through the Employee. Significant delays for medical information ensued and the insurer was unable to provide the medical information it requested. The Employee depended on her family physician's medical analysis. An Independent Medical Exam was scheduled but never attended by the Employee.

3.11 The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal in McMahon‐Ayerst v. Revera Long Term Care Inc., 2009 HRTO 645, dismissed the Employee's complaint because the Employee had failed to respond to the Employer's and the insurer's reasonable requests for medical information in a meaningful manner. Vice‐Chair David Muir stated at paragraph 40 of his decision,

However, the employer was also entitled to ask for medical information to support her claim to benefits and continued absence from work. The employer has an obligation to accommodate a person with a disability and can only do so if it has reliable information. Accordingly, employees will often be asked to provide further information.

3.12 Similarly in British Columbia, the Human Rights Tribunal has rejected discrimination claims from Employees who have not cooperated with their Employer's requests for information to facilitate accommodation in the workplace. In Kovacevic v. Pacific Palisades Hotel, [2006] B.C.H.R.T.D. No. 108 (QL), the failure by an Employee to respond to numerous requests by her Employer to prepare a return to work plan led to the Employee's dismissal. The Tribunal concluded that even though the complainant had a disability, it was the complainant's failure to communicate with the Employer regarding her continued absence from work which led to her dismissal.

3.13 British Columbia arbitrators have made similar findings. For example in Save‐on Foods v. United Food and Commercial Workers' Union, Local 1518, [2001] B.C.C.A.A.A. No. 156, an Employee's failure to disclose his medical condition precluded the creation of a duty to accommodate. In a similar context, the Arbitrator in Kamloops/Thompson School District No. 73 v. BCTF, [2005] B.C.C.A.A.A. No. 39 concluded at para. 57:

The Grievor was entitled to keep her disability private. Where however, the Grievor requests accommodation because of that disability those rights must be balanced with the Employer's legitimate need for information in order to fulfill its duty under Human Rights legislation. As set out in Renaud, supra, part of the obligation of the employer [sic] to facilitate a search for accommodation includes a duty to bring to the attention of the employer the facts relating to the discrimination. That includes the nature of her illness and the resulting restrictions.

3.14 Failure by an Employee to cooperate in the accommodation process may therefore lead to the termination of employment. Employment may be similarly terminated if the Employer argues that the Employee has abandoned the position, or alternatively that the contract of employment has been frustrated.

4.0 Disability and Frustration

4.1 Frustration occurs where the parties to a contract made no provision in the contract for the frustrating event and the performance of the contract becomes a thing radically different from that which was undertaken by the contract (Naylor Group Inc. v. Ellis‐Don Construction Ltd., 2001 SCC 58, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 943).

4.2 In the employment context, the doctrine of frustration can apply where an Employee is unable to work because of a disabling illness. The question for the Court is whether the disability prevents the performance of the essential functions of the Employee's job for a period of time sufficient to say that, in a practical or business sense, the object of the employment has been frustrated (Wightman Estate v. 2774046 Canada Inc., 2006 BCCA 424 at para. 21, 57 B.C.L.R. (4th) 79 [Wightman]).

4.3 In Wightman, a long term Employee suffered from health problems and stopped working in February 2002. He was on long term disability until his death in March 2004 but he was dismissed by his Employer without notice in December 2003 following a sale of the business. The Employer's defence was that the oral contract of employment had been frustrated by the Employee's serious, lengthy, and on‐going sickness. The trial judge agreed with the Employer, and dismissed the claim of wrongful dismissal.

4.4 The British Columbia Court of Appeal in Wightman stated that the correct question to be asked was whether the parties provided that the employment contract would remain despite the sickness if it should occur. This required an examination of the employment contract in order to determine whether its terms were wide enough to accommodate the Employee's permanent disability without termination. The long‐term disability insurance policy of the Employer contemplated a continuation of benefits if the Employee's employment ended because of injury or sickness. However the Court of Appeal disagreed with the appellant that the long term disability plan meant that the contract of employment could not be terminated by reason of sickness. Speaking for the Court, Mr. Justice Smith stated that law should not have that effect. Furthermore, Mr. Justice Smith stated that the Human Rights Code did not abrogate the common law duty of frustration as it applied to employment contracts. The appeal was dismissed.

4.5 The Court of Appeal acknowledged in Wightman that the law in British Columbia was unsettled as to whether the Employee's medical prognosis in a frustration case should be assessed as of the date of the dismissal, the date of the trial, or the date of dismissal but with the benefit of hindsight available at the time of trial. The parties in Wightman accepted that it was the Employee's prognosis on the date of the dismissal that was relevant. The Court of Appeal appears to have accepted that analysis while leaving the question on whether posttermination medical evidence could be used open for a future appeal.

4.6 Evidence of significant absences for medical reasons may permit the Employer to end the employment of a bargaining unit employee for non‐culpable absenteeism but the evidence will need to demonstrate that the employee is permanently disabled and unlikely to perform his or her duties in the future.

5.0 Workers Compensation Issues

5.1 Case law supports requests for independent medical examinations of Employees in appropriate circumstances including where there are bona fide safety concerns raised about the ability of the Employee to perform the responsibilities of the position and possible harm that could result to the Employee and co‐workers. Sufficient medical information is needed to analyze the level of risk involved in connection with the performance of workplace responsibilities.

5.2 Under subsection 4.19(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulations, B.C. Reg. 296/97, a worker must not be assigned to activities where a reported or observed impairment may create an undue risk to the worker or anyone else. The Regulations also create an obligation on the worker to notify the Employer of any impairment (either physical or mental) which may affect the worker's ability to safely perform assigned work.

5.3 In the arbitral context, CUPE Local 4848 v. New Brunswick, [2009] N.B.L.A.A. No. 12 recently reaffirmed the high threshold Employers must meet to be entitled to request independent medical examinations. In this case, the Employee was a paramedic who suffered from arthritis. After he dropped a patient‐carrying stretcher, his Employer refused to allow him to return to work until he obtained an independent medical examination.

5.4 Arbitrator Bladon acknowledged the competition between the Employer's obligation to provide a safe work environment, as statutorily encoded in the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and the Employee's privacy interest in his medical records. Citing Grover, Arbitrator Bladon found that the Employer must have had "reasonable and probable grounds" to believe the Employee presented a threat to the health or safety of the workplace. He indicated that meeting this requirement may still not suffice, as Grover also said such examinations are drastic and will only be required where there are exceptional and clear circumstances, and where other options have first been canvassed. Arbitrator Bladon found such circumstances did not exist, and thus allowed the union's grievance.

5.5 As exemplified by this award, an Employer's obligation to provide a safe working environment can only justify a requirement for independent medical examinations in special situations. The question is whether foregoing further or independent medical information would create undue hardship, and both the magnitude of the risk and the identity of those who bear it are relevant in making such a determination.

6.0 Conclusion

6.1 Employers have an obligation to request personal medical information of Employees if there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe the Employee presents a risk to the health or safety in the workplace. The information must be collected, used, and disclosed in a manner that is in compliance with the applicable privacy laws that protect this sensitive information. Furthermore, an Employer may request personal medical information of an Employee in the course of satisfying the Employer's duty to accommodate an Employee who has a disability. The degree to which the information is sought depends on the circumstances in each case. An Employee also has a duty to cooperate in reasonable requests by the Employer for medical information for the accommodation process to be successful. If an Employee does not participate and unreasonably refuses to comply with the Employer's requests for medical information in a timely manner, the Employer may be able to argue that the termination of employment is lawful. Any request by an Employer for the personal medical information should be done in a respectful manner given the sensitivity of the information. The Employer should also ensure that the request is reasonable and necessary for the Employer to fulfill its obligations.

About Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP (FMC)

FMC is one of Canada's leading business and litigation law firms with more than 500 lawyers in six full-service offices located in the country's key business centres. We focus on providing outstanding service and value to our clients, and we strive to excel as a workplace of choice for our people. Regardless of where you choose to do business in Canada, our strong team of professionals possess knowledge and expertise on regional, national and cross-border matters. FMC's well-earned reputation for consistently delivering the highest quality legal services and counsel to our clients is complemented by an ongoing commitment to diversity and inclusion to broaden our insight and perspective on our clients' needs. Visit: www.fmc-law.com

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Events from this Firm
23 Oct 2018, Other, Toronto, Canada

Dentons and SheEO are coming together for an evening of #radicalgenerosity on October 23, 2017. Meet Vicki Saunders, Founder of SheEO, and learn about how SheEO is changing the landscape for female entrepreneurs.

23 Oct 2018, Seminar, Montreal, Canada

Dentons is pleased to invite you to join us for a breakfast seminar as part of the Les Matinées Dentons series on issues relevant to you and your business.

24 Oct 2018, Other, Toronto, Canada

If you build it, claims may come. Join the Dentons Construction group for breakfast and an informative discussion on current topics in construction law.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
Roper Greyell LLP – Employment and Labour Lawyers
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
Roper Greyell LLP – Employment and Labour Lawyers
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions