On July 10, 2012, two Yukon Government employees were being
transported by helicopter during a project involving the collection
of grizzly bear hair samples. Regrettably, the employees were
injured during an attempted landing. As a result of the accident,
they commenced a lawsuit against Horizon Helicopters, the owner and
operator of the helicopter.
In many jurisdictions across Canada, Workers' Compensation
legislation provides a "statutory bar", which prevents
one worker from pursuing a lawsuit against another worker or
against an employer when he or she is injured while in the course
and scope of employment (i.e. while working). Instead, the worker
must apply for WCB benefits. Under Yukon legislation, a worker may
choose whether to apply for WCB benefits or pursue a lawsuit if the
work-related injury arose from the use and operation of a vehicle.
A vehicle is defined as being any mode of transportation (such as a
helicopter), the operation of which is protected by liability
insurance. As required by Federal regulations, Horizon's
helicopter was insured by a liability insurance policy. Therefore,
the Yukon Government employees were permitted to pursue a lawsuit
against Horizon for damages.
In responding to the claim, Horizon asked the court to rule that
the Yukon Workers' Compensation Act (the
"Act") only allowed the Plaintiffs to recover an amount
equal to the limit of Horizon's insurance policy.
On a first review of the issue, a Yukon Judge found that there
was no ambiguity in the wording of the Act. The court refused to
interpret the legislation in the manner suggested by Horizon.
Unlike a similar provision in the Northwest Territories (and
Nunavut), there was no specific language limiting recovery to the
employer's insurance policy limit, and therefore the Judge
found that the Act does not limit the maximum liability of an
employer or worker. On appeal, the Yukon Court of Appeal
unanimously agreed (click here for decision).
This decision makes it clear that Yukon operators of fixed-wing
and rotary aircraft may themselves be exposed to claims for damages
which exceed their policy limits in circumstances where one or more
"workers", other than their own employees, are injured or
killed as a result of an accident involving the use or operation of
their aircraft. Depending upon the size and use of aircraft,
operators should carefully consider the amount of coverage they
have and consider the need to increase policy limits. Whereas in
most jurisdictions of Canada, operators will be protected against
claims being brought against them by "workers" by reason
of a WCB statutory bar, Yukon does not provide the same
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.
Business and technology law lawyer, Ben Bloom, was quoted in autofocus on the legalities of installing a dash cam in your car in "Everything you need to know about using a dash cam in Canada" published February 28, 2017.
In two unanimous decisions released October 19, 2007, the Supreme Court has reversed the majority position of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Herbison and Vytlingam and concluded that the use of the words directly or indirectly; in section 239 (1) of the Insurance Act and the Family Protection Endorsement OPCF 44R does not eliminate the requirement of an unbroken chain of causation.
On October 31, 2016, one day after the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with Europe was signed, the Canadian government introduced Bill C-30 for first reading in the House of Commons in Parliament.
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).