bring things the employer you know could know about it and doesn't take steps to prevent it and that's sort of what happened here is that your version of complaining about it but didn't do anything to rebut well that's part of it they didn't discourage her to make that there was celebration because they allow work to celebration not every time somebody wants to sell a bit of a holiday for any reason the employer is going to be liable if somebody gives you i mean that's the perimeter you're going to be setting if it is sufficiently related to the the coworker who had left the employment obviously that's for the employer's benefit to make sure that this employee feels comfortable returning to this this environment social lation ships are part of the office environment we have to get along in order for factoring that she had so it was because of the time constraints and all the cessna stated that she had been with her this is something much yeah well i don't want to say much different but this is something that is different because this is something that is purely it's true that she did voluntarily add to her employment by bringing this this recognition of the coworkers return but again it's for the employers and if it cigarettes and that's where i think those that have worked in an office environment which share precious hughson sentiment or at least that would ask the same questions about where does it where do you draw the line you know in the summertime when someone brings are meant to be shared an office time there's no evidence that they're taking a break from their work in order to enjoy it in fact it sounds like the first person who is on every get the chance to get the first piece that they  continued with their work day so i think there is a difference ok you know the the the office worker that brings in bran muffin daily basis to share with the workers because it's heart healthy certainly that creational activity is clearly a break or something apart from the work day and the work hours the only case i could find where a actual party was discussed in the case law  the last c versus paper graphics and that's two forty eight elapsed third six twenty one and in that case how the party and the employer's premises  injured work well worker was injured didn't fall under the voluntary recreational exception under the act because all employees were invited to attend the party but not all in place of the employees were not required to attend the party so they were invited but not required to attend and they were also relieved of their duties for the day of the fifth because the employer is taking  increase the good will be employed that's why he was doing it in this particular case if you're not dealing with somebody outside the law from your dealing with a party inside a law firm now it is the law not is it i think the first question you asked me that's what i thought the first question you asked was whether or not the employer had anything to say about the practice but those are the concerns oh i understand your concerns but i do believe the law supports a finding that her accident did arise out of the employment and i'm asking the court to reverse that lower court on this  being at the job we're not talking about a positional risk we're talking about the employment duties the activities of the individuals required to do in this case she's a secretary she's not the morality editor of the office she's not the person or an ace the son or he was bringing her own breakfast so right you have one have the difference here that this benefits the staff and but we don't have a situation where these food these products were brought in to benefit clients that would be a different situation that the court could explore under different grounds but that the argument that dish attempting to make is this is some type of welcome back party there's no evidence in this record that the employer said hey we're really glad to have this employee back let's do something to celebrate this we want you to take care of this this food  acquiescence argument i think is interesting because you can acquiesce to somebody's brain in something onto the work grounds but i don't acquiesce in to every possible thing that they could do or manner or means in doing it for example i could acquiesce to my employees bringing in christmas decorations to decorate their office cubicles but if somebody is going to bring in a seven foot christmas tree and put in that in the foyer area by their office and they're trying it in fall down the stairs have i acquiesced in that because they've done something that that's a little bit strange bringing in a tree like that and i related to this case in this way obviously we don't have comparative fault but we have a situation here where we've got a landing one step in a hallway and the ladies carrying in the new device to containers she chooses to carry him knowing that ever when it's carried these things know that they slide around aviv if you do it in your own house you know these things like teaches to do it that way that we acquiesced in this condition is a dangerous way to bring it in i don't know you could make that argument just because you say hey you can bring stuff christmas tree i have a model aircraft that i've done they're very expensive and i guarantee if i'm carrying one of those in on my own a two hundred or three hundred dollars piece and it starts falling going to focus on trying to catch that and if i fall coming down the stairs carrying them all aircraft that's not roasters fault that's i know you would agree though that at some point and i'm not suggesting this is the case here but some point there could be a practice or an established institutionalized acquiesce a practice of that would allow for recovery and i'm just going to suggest something here along the lines of the baked goods that the requirement brought in let's suppose in those law those that it had been done or years where support a policy don't you agree or once you agreed i would you agree with that i would agree with that only with respect to to providing something brought in by the employees to the clients i think that's a very distinguishing fact that we do not have here and so i would not agree that that that in that situation that would apply here and it was sort of those cookies were back in the weight room and all the way for the consumption by boys that's where you would draw the line because now they're there they're not for  it boost the morale of the collegiality of the office does that make them i think we have done a terrible slope we go in that direction i think a bit of expanse we're going to have case after case after case before the court on this what the response is going to be a strict no that i would disagree with that completely i mean i would hate to see a lock him down that we would encourage people to look at it person's age and say well you know they're older and have infirmities and so therefore we have to treat them differently and that's our own area we want to go but the law here  clear i think you can get there from that the law here is clear and i think you identify the problems if we start going down the path they want to go we're going to have to qualify these cases and come up with exceptions and it's just going to be more litigation this is simply lawyer my job isn't to promote the goodwill among my employees but i certainly need to do that daily in order to see to it that my work gets done in the office i need to make sure my secretary is happier feels comfortable in her environment otherwise nothing's going to get done that day