Good morning, and welcome to this morning's webinar on Making Sense of Government Shutdown Orders in Canada. Our speakers today are Rob LaForte from IMPACT, and our guest speaker, Scott Thoreau, attorney from Ottawa, Ontario, who works with associations in Canada. Before I turn it over to Brian McGuire, President and CEO of AED, I'd like to let those of you who are live with us now know that you may submit questions during the webinar via the chat box in the lower left side of your screen. The slide deck from today's presentation is available as a PDF in the handout tab on the webinar homepage. This webinar will also be recorded so that you may watch or re-watch on demand at your convenience. With that, I will turn it over to Brian McGuire, President and CEO of AED. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us. We wish we were bringing you together for a much better subject, but nonetheless, we do believe that this is an important topic, one that the association wants to make sure all of our members have the most up-to-date information, and more importantly, an understanding of how to comply with the emergency measures that are being enacted in Canada. Special thanks to Rob and Scott for participating today and helping us through this, and as Michael said, please feel free to submit your questions in the chat box as well as, as this continues to unfold, we will continue to provide updates like this through webinars and through the email, so please think of your association when you have questions. With that, I will pass it off to Rob. Rob? Thank you very much, Brian, and thank you to all of you for joining us. Over the last couple of days, days that certainly feel like weeks or months, AED has taken a lot of decisive action here in Ottawa and at provincial capitals from coast to coast. Over the last couple of weeks, the first step that was taken was the decision that had to be made when Parliament shut down in order to cancel AED's Ottawa fly-in. Disappointing, but something that made a lot of sense in that context, and since then, AED staff, us here in Ottawa, have been working very closely with various federal departments in order to make sure that we're making sense of the situation and that information was being distributed to members as quickly as possible. In the early stages, we had direct contact with political staff in Deputy Prime Minister Freeland's office. She's spearheading the activities in the special cabinet committee on COVID-19 response. We've engaged Employment and Social Development Canada, Infrastructure Canada, the Prime Minister's office, Department of Health, Small Business, and Public Safety, all of which are playing key roles in decisions related to the supply chains and the sectors that are going to be most hard hit by not just COVID-19, but also the corresponding economic downturn. In light of the immediate information we had, one of the first things that became clear is that the provincial governments will be playing a significant role in this response, particularly on decisions related to what activities could and couldn't proceed. In provinces like Ontario and Quebec, we had staff directly engaging with Premier's offices on construction to ensure that construction is included as an essential activity, and in both cases, construction service was included. The supply chain is also implied in this. When governments deem something essential, they also deem essential the instruments, equipment, and service people who are required to make sure that that continues too. That's what we've seen so far. Yesterday, Saskatchewan also released its list of essential services, and we'll get more into that a bit later on. In addition to that, one thing that's very clear in an overarching sense is that the federal government is going to be holding all the fiscal firepower here. This first wave of funding that was passed by the House of Commons and the Senate yesterday, $107 billion in aid, is very much that. It's a first step. They anticipate that there will be more funding coming soon, and our office is working quite closely. Our President, Hugh Williams, here at IMPACT, is working with Finance Canada on credit measures and other relief. Details are limited right now, but there is progress moving forward. Information that you folks share later on in the call will be used, certainly, to ensure that that message about business concerns is being delivered. Lastly, what I would add is that in terms of next steps, we know that the government is aiming to keep things rolling. They want to make sure that the machinery government persists while they're focused on addressing the COVID-19 pandemic. We do anticipate that over the weeks and months ahead, more attention will be coming back to engaging directly with Member of Parliament offices, through video conference, through letter writing. But as things change, we know that that can change as well. So I will now introduce you to Scott Thurlow. Scott is a lawyer based in Ottawa, who has extensive experience in the natural resources sector, working with construction groups, and serving a wide array of Canadian associations. Many of your clients would probably also be clients of his, particularly if you work in supporting large infrastructures related to chemistry, related to natural resources, especially in the oil and gas sector. Scott is going to share some information with all of you about the legal implications and the challenges that you might be facing regarding these essential workplace orders. So with that, I will turn it over to Scott. Thank you very much for that, Rob. And again, I think I should get you to call my mother and tell her how great I am. I never like hearing my own bio. So for all of your members, I imagine that you have the same feeling of angst about not understanding what's coming out of the government and the pace with which it is coming out is also significant. And so before I get into the nuts and bolts of the specific presentations, there's a couple caveats that I want to share. First one, and I'm sure you've heard a lawyer say this before. This is legal information. This should not be construed as legal advice. In the event that there is a very specific question that is important to your business, I highly recommend you consult a lawyer. And I will repeat that part when we talk about employment issues, because across the country, employment rules are diverse and employees are litigious and they have a lot of protections in Canada. And the other thing that I'm going to say is the information that is going to be presented to you is the status as of today. I am willing to bet a sizable amount of capital that I will have to get from the federal government in the near future that these are going to change. In some provinces, they're going to get much more restrictive. I think we can turn to New York and Italy and look at examples of where things got out of control, some of the more draconian measures that people were willing to take. So and just also before I get into Ontario specifically, you may know, and again, I don't know, again, how up to date we all are. But yesterday, Royal Assent was given to changes to the Quarantines Act. And so there are new requirements under the Quarantines Act that says that if you are coming from away, you have to self-isolate for 14 days. And while there is an exception that are given to people who normally cross the borders, it's very clear that all individuals permitted to enter Canada are subject to the order. And if there are any symptoms, they will use the authority that's found in the Quarantines Act. And so even the individuals who are exempt from the order will still need to practice social distancing and self-monitoring and then contact local authorities if they do feel unwell. Now, the other thing that happened yesterday was New Brunswick closed its border, again, with all of the same caveats on local exemptions. Nova Scotia did something similar last week. Prince Edward Island, it's way easier for them to close their border. They just put a guy in the middle of the bridge with a stop sign. But the truth is, is that the provinces are starting to take restrictive actions on their own to ensure that the spread of the pandemic does not continue or is minimized as much as it can be. So in Ontario, we saw what I'm going to call a very broad classification of what is or is not essential. And the first thing that I'm going to say is that in its announcement, Ontario noted that essential businesses include those whose operations maintain supply chains and ensure that the people of Ontario have access to medicines, groceries, and other essential products. And Rob did highlight that off the top. And it's important when you're looking at the classifications that the province has taken. So, for example, on the screen, you see a very broad description of supply chain, a very broad description of retail and wholesale. And an understanding that the key mantra of the government here, they want to keep the economy moving, but also ensure that people are remaining safe. My understanding of your membership, as well as the explanation that I got right before this call, is that your members should be sufficiently protected by the clauses that were used in Ontario. And then the other one, this is number 19 and 20, extremely broad protections for manufacturing and production. So, these types of exceptions to the close down order are going to be used by your members. I will point out anecdotally that yesterday, the Premier did make very specific comments about the construction sector. He had said that there were 12 live construction sites that had been closed down. They were closed down because it was deemed that there was a hazard at those sites specifically. It wasn't based on the sector writ large. It was about those individual sites. Those are the type of actions that I can see this government in Ontario taking in the immediate near term. Those are deliberate and pointed and risk-based approaches to unsafety prevention. Risk-based approaches to unsafe workplaces. We will get a little bit more into the details on employment law obligations in a second. But in Ontario, I think your members are currently covered, but it is imperative that you stay very close to the people in the Premier's office. I honestly believe, particularly in Toronto, that you're going to see new restrictive measures. Another example, the mayors, Toronto and Ottawa, have also declared emergencies and are taking their own initiatives. Unlike other regulatory initiatives, I don't see this as they're competing with each other to see who can be the safest. Quite the opposite. I think they are hearing from individual citizens and those mayors are taking actions that they think are important in their community. Yesterday, by way of example, the mayor of Ottawa and the mayor of Gatineau said, if you don't have to cross these bridges, don't cross these bridges. So there's another example of a provincial isolation in order to help quarantine people a little bit. Ontario is clearly the broadest, and we're going to get into the narrower ones in a second. But is there any questions about Ontario before I move on? Hearing none, I will move on to... Sorry, there was one last slide for Ontario. Sorry, that was the construction piece that I just referenced. So in Quebec, things are, unfortunately for the people of Quebec, moving very quickly. So there's a general test, and that is, in Quebec, if your business conducts an activity that is not listed above, but you consider it essential, they actually have a portal that they've set up that allows you to contact the government and say, is my business essential, yes or no? And so I was actually involved in a couple of discussions yesterday where intermediaries to the chemical supply chain were not included in the general manufacturing exemption, and so we needed them. And in this case, it was for sulfuric acid, which, as you may or may not know, is pretty important in terms of the construction and creation of medical devices. And it actually is a good lesson, because the government, they're not going to get it right on the first time. They are learning as quickly as we are. There's a lot of lessons here to be learned from the Department of Homeland Security that have this existing list. My understanding is that Canada is looking to replicate a similar list right now. Stay tuned on whether or not that list is going to be released in the near future. But the one caveat also for Quebec that I would have is that they do go out of their way to say, if you're practicing good self-isolation techniques, you can maintain a minimal business presence. And the way that they say it is they want you to keep that presence going in the province of Quebec to make sure that when it's time to resume business, that you can do so quickly with the least irritants possible. Again, you see very broad language here for the maintenance of operations of strategic infrastructure. The construction sector very specifically are limited in the things that they're supposed to be doing. But again, that's a determination for them, not for you. In your business, you are part of the value chain. and so the value chain is what's more important from our perspective. I mean, are you providing the equipment that is needed to maintain and support these otherwise essential parts of the economy? And I think the answer is very clearly yes. It's going to be up to your clients to determine whether or not they themselves are part of that essential services umbrella. So we saw Craig, Craig Drury said, do you think telecom would be considered strategic infrastructure? Saskatchewan very clearly included telecom in the announcement that they made yesterday. I can't remember off the top of my head as to whether or not telecom was included in the Ontario order, but I would say that telecom is very specifically included as part of the essential services for hospitals. Like hospitals would not be able to function and doctors would not be able to provide the care that they need to without telecommunications. So that's a good question. Thank you for that question. So I mean, Quebec is a little more difficult than Ontario. It's a little bit narrower, but they are receiving and updating their list on a day-to-day basis. So if you have a client that is worried about whether or not they are allowed to operate, I mean checking with Quebec on a regular basis is a good idea. Before I move on to Saskatchewan, which we don't have a slide for because it is so up to the minute, are there any questions based on Quebec? So in Saskatchewan they released their list in the middle of the afternoon yesterday and they have very very clear exemptions for businesses that are in the two-way movement of essential goods and support the integrated North American and global supply chain. Now that is language that they clearly took from Ontario. So this is another really good example of how provinces borrow from one another when it comes to creating regulatory instruments. But then they also get very detailed into construction and they say services performed by the trades, residential and commercial installation services, landscaping services. I mean please for the love of God don't tell my wife that landscaping is now an essential service because it means I have to do a lot more gardening. But the seriousness of it is in Saskatchewan that's a pretty big part of their local economy. So and again I assume that these these landscapers are the same ones who are going to be buying some of the smaller equipment manufactured by your members. So the other two provinces where there are some pretty big questions right now are Alberta and British Columbia. I have had more than one memorable experience with WorkSafe British Columbia. They are in the orbit of Seattle which is one of the outbreak zones. Vancouver does have a very dense population so there is the possibility for there to be a massive spread there. WorkSafe British Columbia has not put out a list of this type at this point. The Premier has not signaled his intention to do so but I would stay tuned and I would think that it will likely be the most restrictive of all of them. Alberta on the other hand yesterday put out a consultation survey possibly the least sophisticated survey that I've ever seen but it's very simple and it asks employers to tell the government why the feedstocks they produce or the materials that they need are essential and they do trace back to core parts of the Alberta economy. It doesn't surprise anyone that a lot of parts of the Alberta economy right now are stalled for completely different reasons. The price of oil being a key driver there but they want to make sure that the Alberta economy has the tools that they need to get things going very quickly in the event that there is an issue. So I will pause very quickly there. Is there another question? Someone has inserted the language for Ontario that includes IT in the chat so that's very helpful. Thank you very much. I am not able to remember everything. So that said employment issues and there's two different things that I want to talk about here on employment implications. The one is you know how this is going to affect your customers but also how it's going to affect you directly. Just by way of example in Ontario there have been 47 documented examples of work refusals so far. Now across Canada as I said before there are going to be lots of different tests that are applied. There's a completely unique situation in Quebec because of the Civil Code but the high-level test that people should be thinking of here is evidence of danger. Is there evidence on a case-by-case basis that they are in you know proximate danger? Not a theoretical danger, not a I think I am going to be you know exposed in a way that's unsafe. It's is there evidence that there is going to be danger. So I'll start with Ontario because that is the province where I am licensed to practice law but there are a lot of similarities across the provinces and I'm not going to delve into a lot of detail. But the first and most important thing that you have to remember is that all of the other employment rules are still in place. It's not like occupational health and safety rules are foregone in this scenario. The government is suspending other occupational health and safety rules. For example, the Federal Department of Health has suspended all labeling requirements on hand sanitizers so that we can import more from other jurisdictions even though they don't meet Canadian regs. There's an example of how some of the rules can be suspended very quickly. So they already have refusal provisions built into them and in Ontario is it dangerous or unduly hazardous. Okay and if the workplace refusal is one that you agree with, you can just agree and you can have someone declare them to be cells on sick leave, on special leave, agreed to separation. These are all things that are governed by the contracts between the employee and the employer. Now the obligation starts here where the employer has to understand that he or she on reasonable grounds has to ensure that their employees aren't exposed to danger and there are two incredibly important exceptions here. The first one is that a work stoppage that the work refusal that endangers someone else has to be refused. So you can't say I'm not doing it and then the person standing right next to you as a result is in danger. Okay and then the second one is if it's the ordinary conditions of the job. So if you are in a particular type of off-rig where there is a risk associated with that workplace environment, if you show up to work today and say oh I don't want to do my job today I am worried about it, there has to be some kind of a material change that occurred that creates this new condition. So if it's the ordinary condition it's not appropriate and the test in this very specific scenario is whether or not it's a reasonable person would see the same scenario. So it's not a conspiracy theorist who thinks that everyone in industry is bad and as a result these workplaces are unsafe. It's the ordinary person you know taking all the factors into consideration based on the perspective of the person making the election. Okay so if that individual is themselves a vulnerable person that has to be weighed into the decision-making matrix. Okay so an example a crowded workplace where social distancing may be a little bit more difficult if that person has asthma as a pre-existing condition their risk is higher because of the asthma that they have. Okay now the other the other word that's incredibly important here is the danger. Okay it isn't the same of risk it has sorry it isn't the same of risk it's the materialization of that risk. It's probable that the risk will come to fruition as a result of the new circumstance. Okay so that's a very high level review of how employees can can say whether or not they want to or not want to work. Again with British Columbia they do have a another term that they use which is called undo hazard. So it's not necessarily the same as danger but again it has to be over and above the risk that an ordinary person has in the general public. So if you're in a dangerous workplace and that risk increases beyond that of what anyone walking down the street would have that is an ability of an employee to invoke a work refusal. Okay so in the new COVID-19 universe a public facing retail salesperson would be treated differently than say a trucker. Okay because an ordinary person in society does not face as many people as a public facing retail salesperson and a trucker they could stay in their cab right they have to sign papers and whatnot but they are somewhat isolated in the role that they have. Okay I mean ultimately any employee can refuse dangerous work but they can't refuse all work. Okay so if their job is widgets and widgets is a term that lawyers use all the time in their examples and they're worried about one particular aspect of the job that they've been assigned a new job. Okay you know you're now going to go count widgets that's not dangerous. Okay now they can then have their previous task reassigned to them but in all the common-law jurisdictions in Canada you have to give notice to the new employee saying we have we are giving you this opportunity because someone else has refused to do this work. Now can employers take steps to prevent these new risks? Absolutely they can clean and clean and clean and clean and again if there's evidence of that around here I can see it firsthand there are people that are going like crazy trying to keep all of their their workplaces as clean as possible. That does not 100% mitigate the perceived danger that an employee may have. Okay now the the next question is you know what are the questions that employers can ask to determine whether or not the refusal to work is appropriate and I'm going to give you a perfect and conspicuous example. Okay the Prime Minister goes on national television and says stay home unless you have to. That is a very qualitative statement but in the employment context in Ontario it's completely irrelevant. The employer will say well we took steps to protect you. Unfortunately as we like to say in the legal world this is not an area where we have any judicial certainty. We are in very uncharted waters about what is a workplace and where the risk will accrue. In this particular case the risk may not be in the workplace the risk may be getting to the workplace. Okay so it's getting to and from your widget factory where you are at risk of being exposed to the coronavirus. So it's not actually related directly to the work that you're doing but you can refuse the work by saying I can't safely get to work. Okay unfortunately we have no appellate jurisdiction from any province that has talked about this issue. Now bottom line if an employee refuses to come to work they can be reassigned, they can go home without pay. Okay if they think that there is a danger or that they are a danger to others you have to take the best steps to protect both the health and safety of your employees and understand that the actions that you take will come back to haunt you if an employee says well Jim said he wasn't feeling well but came to work anyway. Turns out Jim had coronavirus and now I have it. Okay that logical change absolutely if the worker asked to be relieved from their position and they were not relieved from their position that is going to come back on the employer. Now very very quickly what happens if you can't employ your employees anymore? Okay the first thing I would say if your sales are down and you've got you know 50 employees or 100 employees please look into what the federal and provincial governments are doing to keep those people in place. There are very generous programs they're not perfect but their goal is to make sure that people can quickly go back to work without a lot of legal barriers. So they want to maintain employee relationships as best as they can. That having been said there are ordinary rules for layoffs which are still in place. You still have obligations under the employment agreements or the governing law in your provinces. You can do balancing that's legal under most contracts and collective agreements where you see reductions in hours you see spacing in hours. You can say you are still working but I'm going to ask you to do these training modules. That is completely legitimate but I mean ultimately if you have a creative solution for how you want to keep your employees going during these difficult times please run it by someone with some employment law or labor law expertise. It's always these novel solutions that end up into litigation because they aren't specifically considered by contracts or collective bargaining agreements or the Employment Standards Act in your in your provinces. So one other thing I would say that a leave of absence has a very different legal status than a layoff or a temporary work stoppage. It's going to be different in every province but these are the types of tools that are at your disposal as an employer that you can offer to your employees who are you know in a position where they have to stay at home and that's another question. There has been statutes passed by various provinces that say you cannot fire someone who is staying at home to take care of their children. That was very quickly passed through the Ontario Legislature. There is virtually endless permutations on what that could mean. Okay. So, I'm just going to quickly check the comments bar. So, the first question I see here is about the U.S. application. I don't know whether or not that would apply in the U.S. I can't recall whether or not the Department of Homeland Security used telecom in the United States as their essential services, but I mean, I think we can look into it. So, here the question is, would unpaid leave be considered a reprisal in Ontario? That is a good question. I think in that case, it is going to have to be based on the specifics. I mean, a layoff has a different legal position in it in that you have to have compliance with the Employment Standards Act. Again, I think the question that you're asking is whether or not an employee can ask to be put on unpaid leave, and in this environment, I would imagine that it does not in that case. But if you're asking from the employer's perspective, again, I think it has to be looked at from a case-by-case perspective. I think if there's no business, I mean, a layoff shouldn't be considered a reprisal. Now, there is going to be an issue as to whether or not the layoff is fair. If you have five employees and you tell three of them that they are gone and two of them remain, you may want to look at other ways of operating. The collective bargaining agreement in a unionized workplace will be what governs in this particular case. So again, when you say case-by-case basis, like it's probably not a sufficient answer. I highly recommend that you look at the individual circumstances and come to the determination that it's going to keep the employment relationship. This is an important point because, and I'm going to get to this a little bit later under force majeure. In some cases, you want to maintain a good relationship with the people that you're doing business with. In other cases, you may not care. So you want to do your very best to ensure that the people who are being affected by the business decision that you are making are felt to be comfortable, are made as whole as possible. Okay? So I'm looking, I'm also looking at the clock here, a little bit behind schedule. Force majeure. So this is a term that's in every contract that you have. You just don't know it. It's somewhere way in the back. There are two very different types of force majeure contracts. One of them is what's called an enumerated force majeure contract. And the other one is a general force majeure contract. So an enumerated force majeure contract, it's when it stipulates what an act of God really means. It's a flood. It's a volcano. It's an earthquake. It's a plague. And in those cases, they are limited based on what's in the contract. I have seen a force majeure contract that actually referred to the biblical plagues. Okay? These are narrow. They are designed to protect the beneficiary under the contract. The broader force majeure clauses are ones that have impossible to do the work or makes it very difficult to do the work, something that substantially hinders the performance. Okay? So much broader. In that case, and most of the jurisprudence is on cases like that because they aren't black letter, it basically lets the party off the hook, and those are the words of former Chief Justice Brian Dixon, to something that was not expected or in their control. So the first thing I would tell you to do is read your force majeure clauses, because they're all different, and say, and determine what protections they give you. If it says an act of God is the following and pandemics are not listed, you are in a much more difficult legal position than a broader one. Okay? The other thing that I will point out is that these clauses normally have arbitration provisions where you come to a mutually agreed settlement that allows the parties to be made as whole as they possibly can. Force majeure clauses are used to give you an excuse when you can't perform your obligations under a contract. So in this case, if you are a widget manufacturer and you can't deliver widgets, it is your way of telling your customer that I can't meet my terms. It doesn't mean the contract's broken. It's your way of saying, I need you to work with me to find a resolution here. It is also, in many cases, a defense against liability in a chain of events. So if you've got four parties to a contract and one of the parties in the middle of the contract is frustrated and the person at the very end of that contract can't meet their obligations, you can use a force majeure clause as a defense against liability. And those force majeure clauses are also a shield that can be used to defend against other people that have privity to that contract. So if I rely on my contract with Rob, you may not be able to rely on it unless you have a similar contract with Rob that grants you access to Rob's contract. This is not going to be a surprise to many of you who have complicated value chains. But again, it's going to depend on the language of the force majeure. Now you can use it, but it can also be used against you. And fighting a force majeure provision is very difficult and it has a very high threshold. Judges, especially in the times that we're living in, are going to give a lot of deference to people who are acting in the needs of public safety. Your contractors, as I said before, are also your friends and people that you've had 10, 15, 20-year business relationships with. So you need to think about how you want to preserve that relationship. Now if there's an earthquake and it's very clear in your contract that an earthquake lets you off the hook, you should absolutely be looking at those force majeure clauses. Now a slightly different issue here is the issue of intentional breach. So we're not talking about your inability to meet your contractual obligations, but you are worried that meeting your obligations is going to cost you way more money than it would before. And there is a common law doctrine called efficient breach. So if you can pay damages to your contracting parties to relieve the obligation in a way that will still make them whole, but is going to be cheaper for you in the long run, that is something that courts look very favorably at. So in a force majeure situation, it may be better for you to pay damages than it is to try and perform a contract that you can still legally perform. Now that doesn't necessarily save you from the privity of contract issue that I brought up earlier where a third party might look through the contract and look at the ramifications of the breach. Because if you're doing it deliberately and it costs Rob $1, but it costs Dennis $1 million, you might not be thinking about the impacts on Dennis, you're thinking about the impacts on Rob. So if you're considering an efficient breach, you have to look at the entire chessboard as it were. And again, if you want to deliver those widgets, the bulldozers of law as it were, you can only do so for the things that are within your power. That will allow your customers to perform their duties to their other partners. And so you have to look down the supply chain to make sure that an efficient breach doesn't lead to some unforeseen circumstance. Now the last thing I'll say about efficient breach and force majeures is that when a legal tool is invoked, parties have an obligation to mitigate their damages. So if I tell Rob, Rob, I can't meet the terms of my contract, I'm letting you off the hook. Rob then has to turn around and try to find somebody else that can do that work or he has to take steps to mitigate the damages. He can't just sit there with his arms folded and say, well, I'm just going to let my damages accrue. So when I sue you for breach of contract, there's going to be a much bigger settlement at the end. That's not how the common law works. So once someone is aware of a situation, they have to take steps to protect themselves. And here's the very last and most important point about force majeure. It has to be truly unforeseen. It can't be a recession. It can't be a blockade on a bridge because those things happen quite a bit. But a contract that was signed in 2019 that didn't know what COVID-19 was, absolutely if it has a broad enough force majeure clause and the damage to the business is significant, they could invoke that clause. But if you sign a contract today, you can't enjoy the protection of force majeure on a COVID-19 issue because it is reasonably contemplated that you would know what's going on. So I guarantee to you in 18 to 24 months, we are going to see a lot of litigation on force majeure. We haven't seen a lot of litigation in the last while because we haven't had very many instances that would really demand that type of delegation under a contract. So any questions about force majeure before I go to the last and least defined aspect of my presentation here today, which is the federal emergency powers? Oh, sorry, I went too far. So the good news is that every lawyer in the country has read the Emergencies Act. The bad news is that no one has read it in the last 20 years. It just is not something that has been contemplated all that much. For historians, you will know that the last time that the Emergencies Act was used was the declaration of the War Measures Act in parts of Quebec and Ottawa in 1970. And that's a really good example because while the emergency was declared across the country, it was only very specifically enforced in parts of the country. The people of Wawa, for example, were not affected by the declaration of the War Measures Act. So this is the broadest possible imaginable power in the history of that the federal government has. They can use the Emergencies Act to very directly suspend civil liberties. To be clear, the iteration of the act that we have now that was amended in 1988 has never been used. And so none of it has been judicially tested. So, again, like if you thought we were flying blind on some of the employment issues, we are absolutely flying blind on what the Emergencies Act covers. But the most important part of the Emergencies Act, the new updated one, is that they have what's called a beyond other laws threshold. And what that means is the Emergencies Act is really only supposed to be used to deal with an emergency that are beyond the reach of any of the other laws of Canada. Now, I could probably argue that the failure to use the other laws is an emergency that could be justified to invoke the act. But, for example, I mean, we need to start with the Quarantines Act before we go into other parts of the Emergencies Act. If the issue is in Nova Scotia specifically, we have to look at the Nova Scotia laws to know what the current state of the laws are before we can be justified in declaring a federal emergency. And so, I mean, this is a significant obstacle to proclaiming a national emergency. And that includes a public welfare emergency, which I'll get to in a minute. And there's also two ways for an emergency to be declared. One is by the federal cabinet. So they will meet and use the extraordinary powers that they have if they believe that there's no basis in any existing law or regulation to take the steps that that cabinet needs to be deemed to be necessary to address the crisis effectively. And then considering the breadth of the federal powers that are available under other pieces of federal legislation, that is going to be a very high test to meet as well. The other thing that's very important here is that there is a way for Parliament to declare these emergencies as well. And as you know, yesterday, Parliament did not invoke the Emergencies Act. They very specifically did not do this. And in the event that cabinet does declare an emergency under the Emergencies Act, they will have to recall Parliament to ratify it. OK, so procedurally, the cabinet must present the proclamation to Parliament within seven sitting days. And if Parliament stands adjourned, as it is right now, then both houses have to be subbed back into session within seven days. OK, so that's technically a 14 day window. You have seven days to call it back and then seven days by the time it sits. The House and the Senate must each debate and vote and vote on the motion. So, I mean, that may not be the answer you're looking for, for what can Parliament do with the Emergencies Act? They can pretty much do anything. They can suspend habeas corpus. They can suspend other constitutional rights. It very specifically gives them that power. I would say that a judge in looking at a matter that was brought before it would just charge this responsibility by applying the principles of administrative law in any judicial review proceeding. Parliament is presumed to pass constitutional statutes. So in this case, any action taken under the Emergencies Act would be subject to a reasonable limit qualification under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I can pretty much guarantee you, though, in the circumstances that we live in right now, the reasonable limits doctrine that was established by the Supreme Court of Canada would absolutely be met because we're talking very specifically about a stated emergency. The title of the bill contemplates when it was supposed to be used. So if that doesn't justify a reasonable limit on charter rights, I'm not sure what would. Anyway, I've been talking for a long time. I would be welcome to hear any questions that you might have. Do I have to turn off my access? I don't think so. I am not sure how to relinquish control. Scott? Yep, thanks. Mike Dexter, there's a question there from Craig Drury. So absolutely, Craig. I think we've got examples already in the public domain where mayors are using their bylaw authority to do exactly that. I mean, in Montreal, for example, the mayor of Montreal suspended service in certain bars and restaurants. I mean, Mayor Watson has considered closing the bridges that lead to Gatineau. They are one additional level of government that can do that. The one thing I will say, though, is the province, especially the province of Ontario, has been very skeptical of mayors who have tried to take on provincial roles. I don't think I have to explain to anyone the battles that Premier Ford had with the City of Toronto and the surrounding cities in the 905 area in the last, we'll call it crisis, but in the last time that he wanted to limit authority in the middle of municipal elections. Be very, very careful that if you're relying on a municipal ordinance that it is not in some way otherwise encumbered by recent changes to a provincial statute. That is the key piece of advice I would give you there. It's interesting, in Mississippi, and I know this is not Canada, but I saw that a bunch of mayors in Mississippi put in emergency measures and then the governor overturned them. So in the opposite of what you would think would be the right thing to do. Okay, if there's no other questions, we'll just leave it for another 30 seconds to see if there's another question, Scott. Well, Scott, it looks like that's it. Thank you very much. Everybody, thank you all for being on this webinar. I hope it's an informational that you needed. Please feel free to reach out to us at any time for any other details that you need or any other questions. Thank you all very much and have a great and safe day.

government shutdown orders

Canada

COVID-19 pandemic

emergency measures

business compliance

essential services list

federal government

employment issues

force majeure