Summary#
This bill would change Nova Scotia’s workers’ compensation rules for workplace violence and lawsuits involving other responsible parties. It would allow some lawsuits against employers when there was a serious, foreseeable risk of workplace violence and reasonable protections were not taken. It would also let injured workers or dependants keep receiving workers’ compensation while pursuing certain lawsuits, while preventing double payment.
- The usual protection that blocks some lawsuits against employers would not apply in qualifying workplace-violence cases.
- The bill would require the Workers’ Compensation Board and courts to avoid paying compensation twice for the same loss.
- Workers or dependants would have more time to notify the Board about a decision to pursue a third-party lawsuit.
- The notice deadline would be tied to the general limitation period for the lawsuit, rather than a fixed 180-day period.
- Workers or dependants could continue receiving workers’ compensation while pursuing a qualifying lawsuit.
- The bill is a private member’s bill at first reading. It has not become law.
What it means for you#
- Workers: If you are injured by workplace violence, this bill could allow a lawsuit against an employer in cases where the employer knew, or should have known, about a serious foreseeable risk and failed to take reasonable protective measures.
- Workers and dependants: You could continue receiving workers’ compensation while pursuing a lawsuit against a third party, such as a person or organization that is not protected from legal action under the Act.
- People considering a lawsuit: The written election to pursue a third-party action would have to reach the Workers’ Compensation Board at least one month before the lawsuit’s limitation period expires. A limitation period is the legal deadline for starting a lawsuit.
- Workers’ Compensation Board: The Board could recover amounts paid through workers’ compensation from money later received through a lawsuit, where needed to prevent double recovery.
- Employers: Employers could face civil lawsuits in qualifying workplace-violence cases, even where the workers’ compensation system would normally block such actions.
- What is unclear: The bill does not define all the facts that would show a risk was “serious” or “foreseeable,” or what protective measures would be considered reasonable. Courts may need to interpret those terms.
Expenses#
No publicly available information.
- The bill does not include a fiscal estimate for the Workers’ Compensation Board, courts, employers, or government.
- The Board may face additional administrative work from handling elections, ongoing compensation payments, and recovery of money from lawsuits.
- Employers could face legal, insurance, or settlement costs if the new exception allows claims that would otherwise be blocked.
- The bill is designed to prevent double recovery, so it does not appear intended to create two full payments for the same loss.
Proponents' View#
No statements from supporters were supplied. Possible arguments based on the bill’s text include:
- The bill could give injured workers another way to seek compensation when workplace violence was foreseeable and reasonable protections were not provided.
- Allowing workers to continue receiving workers’ compensation during a lawsuit could provide more stable financial support while the case is being resolved.
- Linking the election deadline to the general lawsuit limitation period could reduce the risk that a worker loses the right to pursue a claim because of a separate, shorter deadline.
- The rules preventing double recovery could clarify how workers’ compensation and lawsuit payments interact.
- The bill appears intended to encourage employers to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable workplace violence.
Opponents' View#
No statements from opponents were supplied. Possible concerns based on the bill’s design include:
- The exception could make it harder for employers and insurers to predict when the usual protection from lawsuits will apply.
- The terms “serious foreseeable risk” and “reasonable protective measures” are not defined in the bill. This may lead to disputes and court cases over their meaning.
- Employers could face additional legal and insurance costs, although the bill provides no estimate.
- Continuing workers’ compensation during a lawsuit may increase the Board’s short-term payments and administrative workload, even if the Board can later recover money.
- The bill does not clearly explain how recovery by the Board would work when a lawsuit settlement covers several different types of loss.
- It is unclear whether the new deadline rules would apply smoothly in every case where the general limitation period is uncertain or disputed.