Accidents "In The Course Of Work": Lessons From Three Recent Administrative Labour Tribunal Decisions

In Québec, determining whether an accident occurred "in the course of work" necessarily involves analyzing the boundary between a person's personal and professional spheres. Although this concept is central to the Act respecting industrial accidents and occupational diseases (the "Act"), it is not defined under the Act, leaving it to case law to clarify its limits. Three recent decisions from the Administrative Labour Tribunal (the "Tribunal" or "ALT") further illustrate that, in the absence of a statutory definition, the analysis requires a careful assessment of the specific facts of each case.

A fall on a workplace access road two hours before a shift — a work-related accident

In Bergeron and Axia services,¹ a janitor was injured after slipping on ice on a workplace access path, more than two hours before the start of his shift. While the Commission des normes, de l'équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail ("CNESST") had initially accepted the claim, an administrative review concluded otherwise based on the worker's particularly early arrival at work.

The ALT overturned this decision and found that the fall constituted a work accident within the meaning of the Act. It pointed to established case law indicating that a sudden and unforeseen event occurring on a workplace access path may qualify as a workplace accident, provided it occurs within a reasonable period before or after the start or end of a work shift. The Tribunal found that the early arrival, although two hours before the scheduled work time, was reasonable given the circumstances:

• The employer permitted the worker to arrive more than 30 minutes before his shift.
• The accident occurred on a Sunday, when public transit was operating on a reduced schedule.
• The worker's intellectual disability and anxiety were cited as factors explaining his particularly early arrival at the workplace.

The Tribunal therefore found that there was a sufficient link between the event and the professional activity. When the fall occurred, the worker was clearly acting within his professional sphere, as he was on the premises solely for the purpose of getting to work, even though he was not yet being paid.

An injury during a social activity organized by an employee committee — a work‑related accident

In Cannara Biotech (Valleyfield) inc. et Boulanger,² the Tribunal had to determine whether the fracture sustained by an employee while dancing at a summer party could be considered to have occurred "in the course of work." In contesting the CNESST's decision recognizing the claim, the employer argued that the event was not mandatory and was organized by an independent committee of employees rather than by management.

The ALT nevertheless upheld the CNESST's decision, finding that the injury occurred in the course of work. Several factors established a sufficient link between the event and the employment, namely:

• the employer's substantial financial contribution for the activity, reflected in its annual budget, as well as its payment of transportation costs;
• the fact that participation in the activity was treated as paid time, while employees who did not participate were required to use a vacation day or forgo their pay;
• the employer's changes to working hours to enable workers to attend the event; and
• the fact that the activity was held on the employer's own premises, which necessarily required its consent and entailed a certain degree of control.

The Tribunal noted that, although the specific act causing the injury, namely dancing, was personal in nature, the overall context within which the activity took place was professional. Accordingly, the decisive factor is not the nature of the act itself, but the surrounding circumstances taken as a whole.

A fight in a parking lot before starting work — a non-work‑related accident

In CISSS de Laval – Centres hospitaliers et Bleau,(sup)3(/sup) a worker was involved in a road rage incident in the parking lot next to their workplace, shortly before the start of their shift. An altercation subsequently broke out between the two drivers, resulting in serious injuries to the worker.

The ALT has recognized that an incident involving a worker in a parking lot adjacent to their workplace is considered to have occurred "in the course of work." However, in this case, the Tribunal rejected the claim on the grounds that the fight was strictly personal in nature. Several factors supported this finding, namely:

• the worker was not yet on the clock, and the employer had no authority over him at that time;
• the act that triggered the altercation, namely the worker taking the other driver's keys to stop her from leaving, served no work‑related purpose and was in no way linked to the worker's employment;
• the altercation arose from purely personal reasons concerning damage to the worker's vehicle and was unrelated to the worker's employment or working conditions; and
• any link between the worker's activity and their work was severed.

Accordingly, although the event occurred in the workplace, the purpose of the activity at the time of the incident, often a decisive factor, meant that it could not be considered a work-related accident.

In Ontario, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act rests on the dual requirement that an accident arise "out of and in the course of employment," with a simple presumption allowing one of these elements to be inferred from the other. Generally, an accident is compensable if the activity in question is reasonably incidental to the employment, particularly when it takes place on premises controlled by the employer or during social activities that it has authorized. It will be interesting to monitor developments in the law in Ontario and other Canadian provinces to see the extent to which case law aligns with or departs from recent developments in Québec.

Takeaways for Employers and HR Professionals

1. An analysis of an accident must be comprehensive and contextual.

Each situation must be assessed in light of all the circumstances, and no single factor should be considered in isolation. Factors such as compensation, the existence of a relationship of subordination, when the incident occurred, and the worker's particular characteristics may tip the balance.

2. The location is not the determining factor.

An incident on a workplace access path or in the workplace itself is not automatically covered. The key question remains: did the activity have a professional purpose or was it sufficiently connected to the employment?

3. Social and non‑mandatory activities may be covered.

Where an employer finances or organizes an activity, authorizes it during work hours, or provides benefits to participants, a social activity may be considered sufficiently connected to the employment.

4. Personal conflicts sever the link with employment.

Altercations or incidents related to strictly personal interests, even when they occur in the workplace, are generally excluded from the scope of occupational injuries, unless a clear connection to the employee's duties can be established.

5. Communicating internal policies is crucial.

Ensure that the rules governing social activities or accessing the workplace are clear, well documented, and communicated to all employees. This can help prevent misunderstandings or disputes.