In a recent decision impacting Québec employers and workers, the Court of Appeal of Québec clarified the scope of work-relatedness necessary for an injury to be compensable under the Act respecting industrial accidents and occupational diseases (LATMP). The ruling, Succession Lares Batzibal v. Les Cultures Fortin Inc., 2025 QCCA 940, has far-reaching implications for both employers and employees, particularly regarding injuries that occur outside regular working hours or during activities that straddle the line between personal and professional life.
Quick Hits
- The Court of Appeal of Québec reversed both the Administrative Labour Tribunal (TAT) and the Superior Court decisions below it, finding that a farmworker's fatal accident had happened “in the course of work” even though it occurred outside regular working hours.
- The majority stressed that the phrase “in the course of work” under the Act respecting industrial accidents and occupational diseases must be interpreted broadly and liberally to advance the social purpose of the workers' compensation regime.
- Employers may face increased claims or higher premiums due to the broader interpretation of “in the course of work” by the Court of Appeal of Québec, which could encompass injuries sustained during activities of a seemingly personal nature, particularly when such activities support or benefit work-related equipment or operations.
Background
A seasonal agricultural worker from Guatemala was fatally injured while changing a tire on an employer-owned van after hours, on the employer's premises, and using employer tools. The van had been used for work earlier that day and was needed for the next day's operations. Although the repair was not explicitly ordered by the employer and occurred outside paid hours, the Court of Appeal ultimately found that the accident was sufficiently connected to the worker's employment to qualify as a compensable “employment injury” under the LATMP.
The Legal Issue: What Does ‘In the Course of Work' Mean?
The central legal question was whether the worker's accident occurred “in the course of work” as required by the LATMP. Both the Administrative Labour Tribunal (Tribunal administratif du travail) (TAT)) and the Superior Court had previously ruled against the worker's estate, focusing on the lack of direct instructions and the fact that the activity was not part of his formal job duties nor during regular work hours.
On appeal, the majority found the TAT and Superior Court decisions unreasonable. Central to the Court of Appeal's reasoning was the interpretation of the phrase “in the course of work” under the LATMP. The Court of Appeal reaffirmed that this term must be interpreted broadly and liberally, consistent with the social and remedial purpose of the legislation. Rather than requiring a direct or formal link to assigned job duties, the court held that an accident qualifies if it bears a “more or less close” connection to the employment context. This means that activities which are connected to, or beneficial for the employer's operations, even if not strictly within paid hours or explicit instructions, can fall within the scope of work that can give rise to compensation for injury. The majority highlighted several facts demonstrating the work-relatedness of the incident:
- The repair occurred on the employer's premises with the employer's tools.
- The vehicle had been used for work duties earlier that day, and its functionality benefitted next-day operations.
- The worker was an authorized driver routinely tasked with transporting coworkers for work, living necessities, and recreation.
The Court of Appeal concluded that the TAT erred by focusing solely on the absence of a direct instruction or formal job duty, rather than considering the broader context of the employment relationship and the benefit to the employer. By narrowly concentrating on direct job duties and the lack of a direct instruction to perform the work, while ignoring the broader context and purpose of the legislation, the TAT failed to apply the required liberal interpretation of “in the course of work.” Consequently, the court declared the death to be a compensable “employment injury” and remanded the file to the Commission des normes, de l'équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (CNESST) to assess indemnity.
Practical Implications for Employers
Employers may face heightened exposure for injuries sustained in gray areas between work and personal life. Key takeaways include:
- Premises and equipment control: Injuries occurring on employer property or involving employer equipment are more likely to be deemed work-related, even if they happen after hours or without explicit instructions.
- Broad interpretation: Courts and tribunals will look at whether the activity indirectly advances, maintains, or protects the employer's operations, not just whether it occurs during paid time or under direct supervision.
- Policy review: Employers may wish to review and update their policies to define the boundaries of work-related activities, clearly prohibiting the use of company equipment and presence on company premises after hours.
- Training and oversight: Employers may wish to consider providing training to reinforce the prohibition on performing work using employer equipment outside regular hours, and taking steps to ensure that the employer cannot be seen as encouraging or tolerating the use of its equipment outside of working hours.
- Hazard analysis and safety training: If an employer opts to allow employees to use its equipment outside of working hours, it may wish to consider training employees on the safe use of such equipment, covering not only tasks that the employee regularly uses the equipment for but also foreseeable uses of the equipment that the employee may engage in.
Conclusion: A Liberal and Remedial Approach
The Court of Appeal's decision affirms greater protection and access to compensation for injuries that occur in the gray areas between work and personal life, provided there is a meaningful connection to the employment context. The ruling underscores that the boundaries between work and personal life are not always clear-cut, especially when employer property or equipment is involved.
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.
