BC is the only province in Canada where employers are not required to provide any sick leave. While various other forms of leave are required by the Employment Standards Act, including unpaid leave to care for seriously ill or injured family members, sick leave is not required.
Various other recent amendments to the Employment Standards Act are discussed along with a report assessing the desirability of requiring sick leave, either paid or unpaid.\xa0
Those opposed to mandatory sick leave point to Statistics Canada data that show the federal government employees, who are entitled to paid sick leave, take 13.5 sick days a year, compared to 8.4 days for private-sector employees. A culture of \u201ctaking a sick day\u201d can undermine productivity, while the alternative of having sick employees attend work, to avoid losing pay, can also be very undesirable.\xa0
In the context of the current concerns over COVID-19, it would make sense for the government to, at least temporarily, amend the Employment Standards Act to require sick leave, and time off for employees who are quarantined. Such an amendment would facilitate the federal government\u2019s decision to permit UI payments, in such circumstances, with no waiting period.\xa0
Also discussed is a case involving a home inspection of a house in Parksville. The purchasers of the home hired a home inspector who delivered a positive report. A few months after completing the home purchase, water was discovered to be running into the house from a sundeck. The cost of repairs was in excess of $350,000.\xa0
The inspection contract had a clause that limited liability to the cost of doing the inspection: $551.25.
The trial judge, and Court of Appeal, upheld the limit on liability finding that there had been no gross negligence, and the contract wasn\u2019t unconscionable. The takeaway advise is that home inspection contracts, with limits on liability, don\u2019t afford insurance for problems not noticed by the inspector.\xa0
Finally, a case involving a woman who slipped on a patch of back ice in a parking lot operated by the Town of Sidney is discussed. The claim was dismissed because municipalities are not liable for policy decisions not to clear snow and ice. Governments are only responsible if they make a policy decision to do something, and the policy is implemented in a negligent way. Here the decision to make the clearing of ice in the parking lot a low priority was found to be a legitimate policy decision.
Follow this link for a transcript fo the show and links to the cases and legislation discussed.\xa0