- In the course of employment (employer's premises)
- In the course of employment (personal activity)
- Right to sue (gross negligence)
This right to sue application by the defendants concerned an accident that occurred in an elevator on February 27, 2015.
The application was granted. The defendants were all Schedule 1 employers. The plaintiff was a worker of a Schedule 1 employer, and in the course of his employment at the time of the accident. The plaintiff's right to sue was taken away pursuant to the WSIA. On February 27, 2015, the plaintiff met with the defendant's employees at the construction worksite on the roof. They left the roof and made their way to the 12th floor, which was about one floor down from the roof, and the closest elevator location. The plaintiff got on the elevator. The elevator dropped suddenly and then stopped abruptly between the 9th and 8th floors. When the elevator stopped, the plaintiff struck his hip. The plaintiff submitted that he had left his worksite when he left the roof where the construction project was located. OPM Document No. 15-03-03, "On/Off Employers' Premises", specifically includes elevators as part an employer's defined premises. Accessing and departing the roof where the work was being done necessitated the use of the elevator to maneuver through the building. Thus, using the elevator was a normal and necessary part of the plaintiff's job on behalf of the defendant. The Vice-Chair found that the defendant's worksite included the elevator.In addition, the plaintiff testified that when he got in the elevator that day, he had intended to go to the reception area to ask about getting assistance for a personal matter. He submitted that this intended personal errand meant he had departed work. There is established Tribunal case law that when a worker does a personal activity on their worksite, it is considered reasonably incidental to employment. A worker doing a personal errand in the same building as their work location, within minutes of being done work tasks, would still be a close temporal connection (see Decision No. 476/04). The Vice-Chair stated that a mere intention to do something after work, is not the same as that something actually occurring. People leaving work may think about the personal things they intend to do next; however, the mere thought of non-work things is not enough to remove a person from the course of their employment.