Bill 218: Supporting Ontario’s Recovery Act, 2020

by Valerie Wise October 23, 2020 3 min read

On October 20, 2020, the Ontario government introduced legislation to provide protection from liability for workers, volunteers and organizations who make “good faith efforts” to comply with federal, provincial or municipal law and public health guidance relating to COVID-19.   

Proposed Act Relates to Claims for Infection or Exposure to COVID-19

The proposed Act would bar claims arising from infection or exposure to COVID-19 on or after March 17, 2020, as long as the individual or organization made “a good faith effort” to act in accordance with the law and public health guidance relating to COVID-19 and was not grossly negligent.

In announcing the Bill, Attorney General Doug Downey said that the legislation was intended to provide protection for men and women who are making essential contributions to our communities during the pandemic (e.g., healthcare workers and institutions; workers in grocery stores; and volunteers at local food banks).  British Columbia and Nova Scotia have similar legislation in place.

“Good faith effort” is defined in the proposed Act as “including” an “honest effort, whether or not that effort is reasonable”.  The proposed Act would still permit legal action against those acting in bad faith or with gross negligence.

The Scope of “Public Health Guidance” is Murky and Seemingly Broad

The legal requirements with which individuals and organizations must comply is broadly defined but at least can be determined:  “a statute or any regulation, order, by-law or other instrument made under a statute”.

The scope of the “public health guidance” with which individuals and organizations must comply is a bit murkier because while it includes some obvious sources of directives, it also includes “employees” of boards of health, government agencies, municipalities, or regulatory bodies; and the “public health guidance” can be communicated in  any way (“regardless of the form or manner of their communication”).

Significantly, the proposed Act also states that the protection applies “regardless of any conflict or inconsistency in the public health guidance or laws applicable to the person” – which is important given the uncertainty and conflict in messaging at least early in the pandemic.

Retroactive Effect

The proposed Act would have retroactive effect and any proceeding commenced before the Act comes into force would be deemed to have been dismissed, without costs, on the day the Act comes into force. The proposed Act also states that no one is entitled to any compensation for the extinguishment or termination of rights under the Act.

Exceptions

The proposed Act would not apply to businesses or aspects of businesses that were required by law to be closed at the material time.  There are also exceptions for certain claims by employees.

Conclusion

Bill 218 is through First Reading and was debated (Second Reading) on October 22, 2020.  If passed, it will have a significant impact not only on litigation in the future, but on some claims that have already been issued.  It is a welcome relief for frontline workers and organizations navigating the challenges of COVID-19 in the midst of ever-changing and sometimes conflicting directives and expectations from government and public health.

Disclaimer:  Our blog is not legal advice and is never a substitute for legal advice specific to your situation.  At the time of this posting, Bill 218 is draft legislation and is not in force.



Also in Blog

Pandemic Exemptions for CPSO Registration

by Mina Karabit March 11, 2021 3 min read

It is no surprise that the COVID-19 pandemic continues to affect the delivery of health services and the regulation of various health professions.

In a welcomed move, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) Council recently approved a new registration policy allowing the Registration Committee to issue a Certificate of Registration authorizing Independent Practice to applicants who have not completed Part II of the Medical Council of Canada Qualifying Examination (MCCQE).

Supreme Court of Canada Confirms Test for Standard of Care

by Rozmin Mediratta February 08, 2021 4 min read

The test for the standard of care in medical negligence cases has remained untouched since the Supreme Court of Canada’s 1995 decision in ter Neuzen v. Korn.

On January 18, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada heard the appeal in Armstrong v. Ward. Their unanimous decision maintains the status quo with respect to the standard of care in medical negligence cases.

Expanding the Pharmaceutical Scope of Practice (Again)

by Mina Karabit January 19, 2021 2 min read

Like other professionals, pharmacists have been adjusting to an expanded scope of practice as all health professionals work to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. We wrote about some of these changes in our previous blog posts.

Last week, the Minister of Health made additional changes to the Regulated Health Professions Act relevant to pharmacy professionals. Now, members of the Ontario College of Pharmacists — including pharmacists, interns, registered pharmacy students, or pharmacy technicians — can administer coronavirus vaccines by injection. These individuals must be certified to administer vaccines and must do so while being engaged by an organization that has an agreement with the Minister governing the administration of the vaccine (e.g., a hospital).