A recent ruling from the B.C. Court of Appeal confirmed that two employees were not acting in the scope of employment when they attended an after party following a work event hosted by their employer. The decision in Poole v. Lombard General Insurance Company of Canada, 2012 BCCA 4341, is the latest in a series of claims arising from an incident in which an articling student was injured while dancing with colleagues at a nightclub following a firm-sponsored dinner.
The events giving rise to the accident began with a dinner which the defendant law firm hosted for its students and associates. After dinner, a number of employees, including Ms. Danicek and Mr. Poole, decided to go dancing at a nearby nightclub. While on the dance floor, Mr. Poole accidentally struck Ms. Danicek and knocked her to the ground. Ms. Danicek suffered a mild traumatic brain injury and, subsequently, a disabling headache disorder. She sued her employer and Mr. Poole. During the first phase of the trial, the court found that Ms. Danicek's injuries were caused by Mr. Poole, and awarded her damages in the amount of $5,913,7832.
In a related proceeding, Mr. Poole sought a determination that Ms. Danicek's injury had arisen in the course of her employment, such that her claim was barred under the B.C. Workers' Compensation Act. The Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal (WCAT) rejected that argument. The Tribunal accepted that the employees' attendance at the dinner provided some benefit to the employer and therefore may have had some connection to employment. However, it went on to find that the subsequent attendance at the night club did not benefit the employer. Accordingly, the injuries sustained at the nightclub did not arise "out of and in the course of employment" so as to be compensable under workers compensation legislation.
Following the WCAT decision, Ms. Danicek settled her claim against Mr. Poole. Mr. Poole then brought an action seeking a declaration that his liability was covered under his employer's insurance policy3. In that action, the trial judge found that Mr. Poole was not covered by the employer's insurance because his conduct did not fall within the scope of his employment. The trial judge accepted that Mr. Poole's attendance at the dinner did have a connection to his employment, however, that connection became tenuous when he attended the nightclub. In reaching this conclusion, the trial judge noted that the employer did not require employees to attend the nightclub nor was that outing sponsored by the employer, even though it reimbursed employees for nominal expenses incurred during that portion of the evening. Although WCAT's conclusion on the issue was not determinative, the trial judge agreed with its conclusion that the employer received no benefit from the employees' attendance at the nightclub.
Mr. Poole appealed the decision arguing that his conduct arose with respect to his employment and, therefore, was covered under the employer's policy of insurance. In advancing this argument, Mr. Poole suggested that the insurance policy should be interpreted broadly to provide comprehensive coverage to law firm employees engaged in firm-related social activities that did not strictly fall within the scope of employment. Mr. Poole maintained that the attendance at the nightclub was an extension of the associate dinner and that his attendance there had "some connection" to employment, which was sufficient to bring him within the scope of coverage under the insurance policy. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, upholding the trial judge's conclusion that Mr. Poole's conduct was not covered under the employer's policy of insurance. As the Court of Appeal explained, the social aspects of the attendance at the nightclub far outweighed the very tenuous connection it had to employment.
Footnotes
1 Poole v. Lombard General Insurance Company of Canada, 2012 BCCA 434
2 Danicek v. Alexander Holburn Beaudin & Lang,
3 Danicek v. Alexander Holburn Beaudin & Lang, 2011 BCSC 65 2010 BCSC 1111
About BLGThe content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.