McLennan Ross Update for Wednesday

By McLennan Ross Labour & Employment Team

 

What we are seeing

• The Federal Government announced that the Canadian Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) is being extended by two more months. Although the Government is attempting to encourage people to look for jobs and to go back to work when possible to do so, it stated that it wanted to ensure the financial safety net of the CERB was not removed too early. The government stated that it will strengthen the attestation recipients must complete stating that they are actively seeking work. It will be necessary to monitor if they continuation of the CERB results in Alberta employers reopening their businesses and finding a shortage of available labour despite the unemployment rate of over 15%.
• The Alberta Government introduced Bill 24 (COVID-19 Pandemic Response Statutes Amendment Act, 2020) today. Among other things, this legislation extends the temporary layoff period from 120 days to 180 days. Though this legislation has just been introduced, and still must be passed, it will be effective today. 
• Alberta's state of public health emergency, which had been in place since early March, lapsed on June 15, 2020. The declaration of a state of public health emergency under the Alberta Health Act permitted the Alberta Chief Medical Officer to issue a number of public health orders to be followed by Albertans to respond to the emergency. The declaration also granted the Government of Alberta the power to suspend, modify, or temporarily replace the application or operation of all or part of an enactment. The Government used this power to pass Ministerial Orders that modified such legislation as the Employment Standards Code and Regulations.
• The Lapsing of the state of public health emergency does not result in the termination of the public health orders or the Ministerial Orders. The public health orders expressly state that they will remain in place until rescinded by the Chief Medical Officer. The power to grant the Ministerial Orders under the Alberta Health Act expressly allows the Orders to continue in effect for 60 days after the expiry of the state of public health emergency. Most of the Ministerial Orders state that they will remain in effect (unless extended by further Order) until the earlier of August 14, 2020 or 60 days from the date of the lapsing of the state of public health emergency unless expressly terminated earlier by the Government of Alberta.

What we are hearing

• British Columbia has been slightly ahead of Alberta in the reopening of its economy and is slowly moving toward Stage 3 of its plan. It may be a good indication of what Alberta will experience as it moves through Stage 2 of its own strategy.
• Key information from B.C. includes:
• The number of new cases has stayed static for the past 10 days and has remained under 20 per day. Compare this with Alberta, which is still seeing new cases between 30 and 50 per day, although it has recently dropped to around 20; 
• There have been no cases of COVID-19 connected to schools reopening on June 1, 2020;
• Group gatherings remain limited to a maximum of 50 people with room for physical distancing, and this looks to remain a reality in the months to come; and
• The next phase could be in late June or July, but will be entirely dependent on the number of new cases at that time.

What we are saying

• With the widespread impact of the pandemic on Alberta businesses, historically unusual requests for changes to how business has been conducted may now seem understandable. This state of flux appears to have created a situation where cyber criminals are attempting to benefit. 
• We have seen a proliferation of cyber fraud where criminals have hacked the email system of a supplier of goods or services. The hacker then mirrors an existing and legitimate email account and starts to send emails to clients advising that due to some issue, the company has had to change its banking information and that all future payments should be sent to a new bank account, which belongs to the hacker. The hacker also sets up a rule within the email account such that all replies to the fraudulent emails sent out by the hacker will be automatically be forwarded to the hacker and deleted from the legitimate email account. 
• In some instances, because the email is coming from a legitimate email account, the request to direct payment to the hacker's bank account is successful, causing a loss. 
• Businesses should be aware of this cyber fraud and direct employees to verify via telephone any request to change banking details. Businesses should also consult with their insurance brokers to discuss this and other new types of cyber fraud to ensure that they know the extent of existing coverage. To date, there is no case that allocates liability for a loss such as the above between the supplier whose email account was hacked and the customer who did not verify the change in banking information. 
• If you require assistance in determining the extent an existing policy provides coverage against cyber security incidents or have questions regarding the sufficiency of your policy more generally, please contact someone in the McLennan Ross LLP Insurance and Risk Management Group.

McLennan Ross Update for Monday

By McLennan Ross Labour & Employment Team

 

What we are seeing

• Although the general trend in Alberta of COVID-19 cases continues to be very positive, Alberta's Chief Medical Officer noted that the largest cohort with an increase in infections is people between the ages of 20 and 29. This may be due to processing, but likely also has some connection with this group being more likely to include front-line workers in the service industry or other similar industries with client facing positions. Likely, this group is also more social and perhaps willing to push the envelope on social distancing. 
• In order for the launch of Stage 2 to be successful, Alberta's Chief Medical Officer noted that it is important Albertans continue to heed public health measures and directions, including social distancing. There appear to be inconsistencies in how this is supposed to be applied in different situations.

What we are hearing

• The Government of Alberta has been continuing to send out guidance documents to help prepare businesses for their reopening following the implementation of Stage 2 of Alberta's relaunch strategy. With the move to Stage 2 being moved up by one week, the government website lacked a guidance document for many of the listed businesses and sectors that were reopening. That shortfall has been largely remedied with guidance documents now provided for many new areas, such as office buildings, public rallies, seniors centres and senior-serving organizations, and swimming pools and spray parks. 
• We are already anticipating the potential of litigation based on an allegation that someone contracted COVID-19 from attending a place of business. As we have stated previously, a fundamental part of any defence to such a claim is being able to objectively show knowledge of, and compliance with, the applicable guidance documents for the business in question issued by the province.

What we are saying

• Many employees understandably cancelled scheduled vacations once the state of public health emergency was declared. Similarly, those employees who continued to work have likely not taken vacation time either.
• Currently, non-essential domestic travel is still not recommended. The border with the United States is essentially closed, and anyone returning to Canada after travelling internationally must quarantine for 14 days. Even those vacation destinations that can be reached by car either remain closed or have limited capacity. 
• As such, many employees may continue to defer any vacation time and wait until later before using up accrued vacation entitlements. This may place a burden on employers who will be trying to balance many employees wanting to take vacation at the same time with business hopefully returning to normal and a desire to replace revenue lost in the second and third quarters. 
• Under the Alberta Employment Standards Code: 
• Employees employed for less than 6 completed years are entitled to 2 vacation weeks per year and after 6 completed years of service to 3 vacation weeks. Many employment agreements grant employees more vacation time than this statutory minimum.
• Employees accumulate vacation time in one year and then are expected to use that vacation time in the next year. However, the employer and employee can agree to permit the employee to use the vacation time in the year in which it is accrued. 
• It is up to the employer and the employee to agree on mutually satisfactory vacation time. If they cannot come to an agreement, section 38 of the Code gives the employer the ability to impose dates on the employee as long as the employee is provided with at least 2 weeks' written notice. Although as a matter of practice it happens often, conceptually the Code does not allow employees to carry over unused vacation time in respect to the minimum vacation entitlement. 
• An employer faced with a situation where multiple employees are refusing to use their vacation time does have some options, but it is important to note that technically, the options only related to vacation time accrued in 2019 (and perhaps earlier). Forcing employees to take vacation time will depend on employer policies. Some options include: 
• Using section 30 of the Code, create a schedule for when employees are to use vacation time. This schedule would allow the employer to ensure that each employee uses his or her 2019 vacation time while at the same time allowing the employer to be confident that it will always have enough staff in place. The legislation does not give an employee any right to dispute a vacation schedule imposed with sufficient notice;
• Provide notice to all employees that they are not required to take their statutory vacation entitlement either in the year accrued or in the following year failing which the vacation time will be scheduled for the employee using section 38 of the Code. Employees would also be advised of the limited allotment of vacation time available for use and that the employer will be forced to refuse vacation requests if they result in less than full coverage; or
• Offer an incentive, whether additional paid time off or some other enticement, to employees who take vacation time over the next 3 to 6 months. 
• Please note that the options available to employer do not include a "use it or lose it" vacation policy where any unused vacation time relating to the minimum vacation entitlement under the Code is lost. Although it can happen in practice, there are compliance issues under the Employment Standards Code. In Ontario if an employer and employee agree that the employee was prevented from taking vacation time and the employee wants the cash value, the employer and employee can enter into an agreement to that effect. This agreement must then be submitted to the Ontario Director of Employment Standards for approval. Alberta does not have the same provision in its employment standards legislation as Ontario, however, Albertan employers can have a use it or lose it policy in respect to any vacation entitlement beyond the minimum requirements of the Code.

McLennan Ross Update for Friday

By McLennan Ross Labour & Employment Team

 

What we are seeing

• Earlier this week, the Government of Alberta announced that the province is advancing to Stage 2 of its relaunch strategy today, which is a week earlier than originally expected. This will apply to the entire province, with only one region under a "watch" status but still moving to the next stage without restrictions. Stage 2 allows additional businesses and services to reopen and resume operations, however, physical distancing and public health guidelines remain in place.
• With the move to Stage 2, indoor events can now host up to 50 people and outdoor events can have up to 100 attendees. The previous caps on attending church, restaurants and bars, casinos, and bingo halls have been removed, although these facilities must still adhere to the public health measures. 
• Stage 2 also allows more flexibility with respect to expanding cohort groups - small groups whose members do not need to always stay 2 metres apart.
• Still not approved are social gatherings in excess of the above numbers, regular in-school classes, major festivals, concerts and sporting events, nightclubs, amusement parks, large conference and trade shows, and other large events. Non-essential travel outside of the province remains not recommended and will stay so until Stage 3. 
• The moving up of Stage 2 has resulted in the public health guidance that was previously provided for businesses at Stage 1 being incomplete in some cases for Stage 2, although additional guidance is being posted daily. Employers are recommended to continue to monitor the Government of Alberta's COVID-19 webpage for guidance applicable to their business.

What we are hearing

• One of the biggest issues that continues to face employers and employees is the lack of certainty around childcare. Some summer school, childcare, and day camps have been approved as part of Stage 1 and capacity restrictions will be eased to some degree at Stage 2. However, the availability of childcare will undoubtedly continue to be in short supply through the summer, and the province's direction about school and childcare options in the fall remains unclear. The Government of Alberta has signalled its preference for K-12 learning to return to the classroom in the fall, but a final decision is not expected until August 1. These continuing childcare challenges may make it difficult for employers to secure commitments from employees to return to the workplace during Stage 2.

What we are saying

• We are getting inquiries from clients who will be reopening their workplaces and are trying to best protect against liability arising from employees contracting COVID-19 at work. The nature of the inquiry is often whether an employer can ask an employee to sign a waiver before being permitted to return to work. The short answer is no.
• The most effective form of protection for an employer is to ensure the following are in place:
• Have a clear COVID-19 sick policy that reiterates the Government of Alberta's public health directions regarding travel, symptoms, or being in the proximity of someone who is subsequently diagnosed as having COVID-19.
• Follow the workplace screening, physical distancing, sanitation, and PPE requirements and guidelines issued for businesses in your industry by the Government of Alberta for Stage 1 and 2. 
• Ensure and document that these policies have been clearly communicated (signed off as being reviewed and understood by each employee) and then strictly enforced. 
• An employer cannot guarantee that an employee will not contract COVID-19, but if public health and OHS guidelines are diligently followed, this should be a full response to any claims. Employers with WCB insurance im place may also enjoy statutory immunity from civil claims made by workers who contract COVID-19 in the workplace if the infection is considered a workplace injury. 
• Even if an employee would sign a waiver and was given consideration for doing so, such a waiver would be of dubious practical benefit given that employers cannot contract out of their statutory duty to provide a safe work environment.

McLennan Ross Update for Monday

By McLennan Ross Labour & Employment Team

 

What we are seeing

• Last week, the Government of Canada announced assistance for municipalities facing a financial crisis due to COVID-19. First, the Government announced that it would accelerate $2.2 billion in annual federal infrastructure funding for communities. Funding will be delivered in one payment this month. These funds were promised to municipalities as part of last year's federal budget. The intention is to fund infrastructure projects to help restart local economies. Projects could include access to high-speed broadband internet, improvements to water and road systems, and the building of cycling and walking paths.
• Municipalities are facing budget deficits due to continuing or increased demand for public services such as local police, ambulance and fire service, local public health, municipal waste collection and social services, while experiencing decreased revenues from user fees (such as public transit fares) and deferred or lost property or business taxes. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) had already predicted a collective shortfall of at least $10 billion for its members. Despite the announcement from the Federal Government of the acceleration of funds already budgeted, that shortfall has not been reduced. 
• As the hope is that the current revenue and expense issues facing municipalities are temporary and will return to normal once the pandemic has passed, providing short-term liquidity to municipalities, which cannot otherwise run a deficit, may be a simple and cost-effective solution for the Federal Government.
• On June 5, 2020, the Federal Government also announced that it would be providing an additional $14 billion to provinces and territories to help safely restart their economies. Provinces were quick to support the concept but were critical of the details. The biggest issue appears to be that the Federal Government wants to control how the funds are spent, calling the assistance "targeted" and requiring the funds be used for programs and projects pre-approved by Ottawa. One such item is that the provinces legislate a requirement that employers provide their employees with 10 paid sick days, something we were critical of in an earlier blog post.
• The provinces were also critical of the amount of assistance being provided, including its allocation on a per capital basis, as opposed to where COVID-19 had the biggest outbreaks and economic impacts.

What we are hearing

• The Government of Alberta announced on June 5, 2020 that it was introducing legislation to prevent commercial landlords who refused to take advantage of the Canada Emergency Commercial Rent Assistance (CECRA) from evicting business tenants impacted by COVID-19. CECRA provided forgivable loans to commercial landlords if they reduced their tenants' rent by 75% for April, May, and June. As we discussed here, because the program was voluntary and placed restrictions on landlords' rights to evict tenants, some landlords elected not to participate in the program. Following in the steps of British Columbia, Alberta is attempting to further protect small businesses struggling to pay rent as a result of drastically reduced revenues. 
• Premier Kenney also announced a one-time payment of up to 15% of monthly sales revenue, with the maximum amount capped at $5,000, for employers with 500 or fewer employees forced to close or curtail their operations due to the pandemic. The intention is that employers can use this money for start-up costs like purchasing inventory, acquiring personal protective equipment, and bringing back staff.

What we are saying

• As we have been stating consistently, we envision a large volume of COVID-19 related litigation commencing in the next few months following the lifting of the state of emergency. The anticipated volume of claims will undoubtedly be increased by claims that are either spurious or may involve situations where a defendant employer may have absolute statutory immunity, such as with claims for workplace injuries that are the exclusive jurisdiction of the Workers Compensation Board.
• With the Alberta courts already struggling to determine how to provide full service while resolving the large backlog of court dates that were postponed due to the state of emergency, we will be curious how these types of frivolous cases will be dealt with, and whether the courts will assist in separating these claims from legitimate ones.

McLennan Ross Update for Friday

By McLennan Ross Labour & Employment Team

 

What we are seeing

• Premier Ford from Ontario announced that despite the recent increase in COVID-19 cases, he is focused on moving to Stage 2 of Ontario's reopening strategy, which will result in the opening of more workplaces (such as some service industries and additional office and retail workplaces), public spaces and will allow for some larger public gatherings. 
• Ontario's top criteria for further easing its semi-lockdown is a consistent decline over a two to four-week period in the daily number of new cases. Cases have not declined consistently in three weeks since the implementation of Stage 1 of Ontario's strategy.
• Ontario's health minister is less confident and has stated the public health officials want to delay moving to Stage 2 until there is a steady reduction in the number of daily new cases.
• The City of Toronto is actively encouraging the city's other major downtown employers and post-secondary institutions to follow its lead and continue to support employees, where possible, to work from home until September at the earliest. This is in part to keep pressure off of the Toronto transit system. Once large employers start to have employees return to their offices, there is an agreement that the return will be phased in gradually with staggered start times, where possible, to help maintain physical distancing.

What we are hearing

• As we have discussed previously, we anticipate pressure from the Courts for parties to litigation to settle minor issues between themselves and use non-traditional methods to try to resolve the underlying dispute without taxing the Court's limited ability to hear in person contested applications and trials. 
• On June 4, 2020, the Court formally announced that it would be scheduling and hearing non-binding judicial dispute resolutions (JDRs) in June, July, and August. The Court has stated that it will only schedule JDRs in actions where both parties are represented by legal counsel and all agree to proceed via WebEx video and audio. As either an incentive or a warning, the Court has also indicated that there may be limited availability for JDRs in the Fall of 2020, which suggest that the Court will be using its resources to schedule trials which have been forced to be adjourned since March, 2020. 
• Although we are confident that the Court will apply the same legal principles and standards of proof in contested applications, we also believe that the Court will likely inquire with counsel what steps were taken by them to resolve issues in light of the Court's announcements and warnings. We are not suggesting that any party should accept an improvident settlement, but having evidence of good faith efforts to resolve issues may be beneficial.

What we are saying

• Employers are justifiably concerned about labour costs once they are permitted to more fully reopen during Stage 2 of Alberta's relaunch strategy. It is unclear how quickly customers will return to their old habits and forecasting the appropriate staffing levels will be challenging.
• One solution is to hire casual, on-call employees who only work when needed. Two issues which have been asked about are (a) the ability of an employer to adjust casual employees' hours based on business need and what limitations there are on those adjustments, and (b) what is an employer's notice obligation to casual employees if the employer decide to terminate the employment relationship. As with most such issues, the key to protect the employer is a properly drafted employment agreement, which likely need be nothing more than a 1 to 2 page offer letter.
• An employer can hire an employee to work variable hours depending on need. The employer must still comply with the sections of the Employment Standards Code which regulates hours worked.
• Section 17(1) of the Code has historically required an employer to notify employees of their start and end time by posting a notice or some other reasonable method. Section 17(2) requires an employee to provide notice of changes to shift schedules. Prior to the temporary changes to the Code necessitated by COVID-19, an employer had to provide at least 24 hours' written notice of changes to shift times. The temporary changes to the Code, which are set to expire in mid-August, allowed an employer to change shifts schedules on less than 24 hours' notice if notice was provided as soon as reasonably possible in the circumstances. 
• For on-call workers, as long as the employee can elect to work or not to work for a temporary period, shifts do not need to be posted in advance. However, once an employee is called into work, the employee must be paid for a minimum of three hours.
• For terminating casual employees, the offer letter should contract out of requiring common law notice of termination and should state that the employee will only receive his or her entitlement under the Code. For an employee who has been employed for less than three months, or who has the option to work or not to work for a temporary period, no notice is required. For all other employees, if they are employed for longer than three months but less than two years, only one week notice or pay in lieu of notice would be required.
• Experienced employment counsel should be consulted to properly advise an employer on its hours of work requirements and to ensure the offer letter properly limits the employer's liability when terminating excess staff.

McLennan Ross Update for Wednesday

By McLennan Ross Labour & Employment Team

 

What we are seeing

• As we mentioned here on May 29, 2020, the Government of Alberta announced that the state of public health emergency under the Public Health Act, will not be renewed. In contrast, the Legislature of the Government of Ontario voted on June 2, 2020 to extend its provincial state of emergency to June 30, 2020. This decision came after there were an additional 446 cases of COVID-19 reported by the Ministry of Health. These increases are due in part to an error made in flagging positive cases by two Toronto area hospitals, leading to thousands of Torontonians ignoring social distancing guidelines and gathering in close proximity together in local parks the previous weekend.
• The extension of the state of emergency may impact the opening up of the Ontario economy, which would benefit all Canadians. Although Ontario has said it still intends to proceed with plans to implement a regional phased approach to reopening, the large cluster of cases in the Greater Toronto Area will almost certainly inhibit the ability of that area to do so.

What we are hearing

• A key part of allowing Albertans to return to work and to an effective relaunch of the economy is the ability of employees to find childcare. Stage 1 of Alberta's relaunch strategy allowed licensed daycare and out-of-school care programs to reopen as of May 14, 2020. Preschools were permitted to begin reopening as of May 28, 2020. 
• Unfortunately, the limitations placed on daycare and preschool facilities may make reopening until the fall uneconomical. According to the Province's guidance for these facilities, which can be found here, childcare can only operate in cohorts of 10 people, including staff and children. Cohorts are directed not to mix with other cohorts or be within the same room/space at the same time, including pickups and drop-offs, mealtimes, playtime, outdoor activities, staff rooms, nap time, etc. Although multiple programs can be offered in the same building, each must have separate entrances. Even if these childcare operations can figure out how to meet expenses with reduced enrolment, many have stated they could not do so in the short-term so they will not open for June. 
• As more and more employers are requesting employees return to the workplace, accommodation of childcare needs will continue to be necessary if other options are not available.

What we are saying

• The Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta made another announcement regarding its ability to hear contested interlocutory applications effective June 3, 2020:
• The Court will commence hearing regular Masters Chambers applications (with an anticipated length of 20 minutes or less) remotely via WebEx video and audio. In Calgary and Edmonton, regular Masters Chambers will be held at 10 am every Court sitting day, Tuesday through Friday. In regional centres, Masters Chambers will be available on specified sitting dates. 
• The Court will also commence hearing regular Civil Justice applications remotely via WebEx video and audio in Edmonton and Calgary. Regular Civil Chambers will continue to be held at 10 am every Court sitting day. 
• To secure a hearing date, parties are first required to view available sitting dates online. Once parties have determined an appropriate (available and alternate) sitting date, the parties contact the Clerk's Office by sending the draft Application and Form of Order, along with their proposed available and alternate date in accordance with the procedures outlined on the Court's website. 
• Although this announcement signals that interlocutory matters can be heard immediately, subject to availability, Masters Order #4 granted by the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench is still in effect. Paragraph 10 of that Order states that "[a]ll filing deadlines under the Alberta Rules of Court, including Rule 13.41(4), are suspended until June 26, 2020 with the exception of those Rules applicable to the commencement of proceedings, including originating applications.
• It therefore appears that applications that were contemplated prior to the declaration of the state of emergency and the closing of the Courts will be able to be argued, but applications to compel parties to complete steps required under the Rules or to seek relief due to a party missing a filing deadline will not yet be available.

McLennan Ross Update for Monday

By McLennan Ross Labour & Employment Team

 

What we are seeing

• The Government of Ontario enacted Ontario Regulation 228/20 on May 29, 2020 which introduced temporary changes to Ontario's employment standards legislation, the Employment Standards Act, 2000. The Regulation applies to the "COVID-19 period" which is defined as March 1, 2020 to 6 weeks after the date that the state of emergency declared in Ontario is terminated or disallowed.
• The key impact of the Regulation is that it expressly excludes a temporary reduction or elimination of an employee's hours of work by the employer for reasons related to COVID-19, or a temporary reduction in an employee's wages by the employer for reasons related to COVID-19, as the basis for a constructive dismissal claim under the Act. The Regulation further directs that any complaint filed under the Act predicated on a temporary reduction or elimination of an employee's hours of work by the employer or a temporary reduction in an employee's wages by the employer shall be deemed not to have been filed if the temporary reductions occurred during the COVID-19 period and were for reasons related to COVID-19.
• Section 6 of the Regulation also addresses "layoffs" and provides that a person who experiences a reduction or elimination in hours or reduction in wages due to COVID-19 is not considered to be on a layoff. Thus, the Act's termination deeming provisions addressing when a temporary layoff becomes a deemed termination, which would trigger entitlements under the Act, do not apply.
• It is important to note that the Regulation has no application to Alberta employees and no similar changes were made to the Alberta Employment Standards Code. However, while these changes do not supersede the common law, they suggest a general acceptance that hours reductions related to COVID-19 are a reasonable change and may not be a constructive dismissal at common law. 
• We have been consistent in our advice that it is unclear how the courts will treat reductions in hours or wages for employees due to legitimate business imperatives created by COVID-19. It is entirely possible that courts will follow the lead of the Regulation and find that an employer's decisions to implement temporary changes to hours or wages in order to survive would not trigger a constructive dismissal claim for affected employees.

What we are hearing

• In advance of the province's anticipated transition to Stage 2 of the Government of Alberta's relaunch strategy, the Government announced that Albertans could obtain a COVID-19 test without being symptomatic, with residents able to make an appointment by filling out the province's online assessment tool. 
• This expansion of testing availability may lead some employers to consider requiring employees to obtain a COVID-19 test before being permitted to return to the workplace or perhaps to be tested weekly. Whether such requirements are permissible, and whether an employee refusing the test can suffer negative consequences, has not been addressed to date as, until now, elective testing was not possible. 
• We expect, like most legal issues, that an employer's ability to force employees to obtain a COVID-19 test will be very much fact dependent. 
• The website for Alberta Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) does not address the issue. As opposed to when an employee presents with symptoms or has been in the presence of someone with COVID-19 and there is a legitimate need to test to ensure that the employer is providing a safe workplace for its employees, OHS does not provide the same direct guidance, and requirements apply more generally. 
• The website for the Alberta Human Rights Commission does contain a COVID-19 FAQ sheet, but it does not address this specific situation. The sheet generally states that employers are required to consider flexible options for employees, consider requests for accommodation in good faith, and be flexible and consider not overburdening the health care system.

What we are saying

• As we summarized on May 29, 2020, the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta reported in an open letter to members of the Law Society of Alberta and the Alberta Branch of the Canadian Bar Association that a return to normal operations would not be occurring any time soon. Although a limited number of Queen's Bench courtrooms will be equipped with new plexiglass shielding for in-person criminal trials in Edmonton, Calgary, Red Deer, and Lethbridge (with similar steps being contemplated for Provincial Court criminal courtrooms), there was no information regarding when civil trials would resume. 
• In comparison, other jurisdictions appear to be returning to normal operations at a much quicker pace:
• In British Columbia, civil trials set to begin on or after June 8, 2020 are currently scheduled to proceed as normal. Interlocutory applications that were already scheduled will be proceeding via telephone conference. The B.C. Supreme Court still does not appear to be accepting new interlocutory applications. 
• In Ontario, urgent matters can still be argued in person, with criminal matters scheduled to return to normal operations on July 6, 2020 and civil matters tentatively set to return to normal operations in September.  
• In Saskatchewan, non-urgent interlocutory applications will be heard by telephone commencing on June 1, 2020, with additional application dates added in order to address the various applications adjourned because of COVID-19.
• Although each province is dealing with its own specific circumstances, we hope that a more expedited strategy can be developed to allow civil matters in Alberta to move forward as quickly and fairly as possible.