A woman working remotely in Ontario faced an unexpected issue — she was denied OHIP coverage because her employer does not have offices in the province. This tribunal decision may affect other temporary foreign workers in similar situations.
Since October 2021, she had been working for Fieldcore Services Solutions Co., a subsidiary of GE, as a project management consultant in Ontario. However, the employer's offices are only located in Nova Scotia and Quebec. The woman received OHIP and even managed to renew her insurance before being informed that the OHIP had been issued "by mistake" because her employer was not based in Ontario, as required by the program's rules.
Despite the fact that she and her family live in Ontario, and her tax documents list the province as her place of work, the tribunal confirmed that to qualify for OHIP, the employer must be based in Ontario. OHIP was designed to attract skilled workers to meet the needs of the local labor market, which means the employer must have an office in the province.
This case highlights the flaws in the OHIP system, especially as more people are working remotely. The tribunal acknowledged that the requirement for the employer to be physically located in Ontario may seem outdated in the era of remote work. University of Ottawa law professor Yin-Yuan Chen noted that although the tribunal's decision is legally justified, it seems unfair, given that all Ontario residents pay taxes, part of which goes toward healthcare.
The woman tried to challenge the decision, pointing to the special circumstances of remote work, especially for large companies. However, the Ministry of Health responded that the rules do not allow for exceptions. The tribunal ruled that the requirement to "work for an employer in Ontario" means the employer must be physically located in the province for its employees to qualify for OHIP. Chen emphasized that the law is unclear on what "working for an employer in Ontario" exactly means, and if the case goes to appeal, the court might offer a different interpretation.
The Ministry of Health declined to comment on the specific case, noting only that the applicant has the option to appeal the decision.
