Changes in the organization of work call into question the traditional framework of work performance and transform the expected temporal availability of the employee, which extends well beyond the period during which he performs work. This obligation of the employee to be available to respond to a possible request from the employer extends the risks related to work beyond the premises of the enterprise or the time specifically devoted to the execution of the work. The purpose of this article is to determine, through a case law analysis, whether the notion “in the course of work” included in the definition of an “industrial accident” in the Act respecting industrial accidents and occupational diseases allow the recognition of injuries of workers who are subject to an obligation of availability. Overall, the application or interpretation of the notion “in the course of work” appears to be favourable to the recognition of these workers’ injuries. However, an analysis of the content of the decisions reveals that the interpretation of these terms is not uniform. On the one hand, there are two ways of interpretation of the notion “in the course of work” in case law, which do not recognize in an equivalent way the professional nature of the injuries that occur to workers subject to similar obligations to be available. On the other hand, the administrative body responsible for the application of the law does not seem inclined to recognize that the injuries sustained by workers who are subject to an obligation of availability are occupational injuries, contrary to the decisions rendered by the tribunal.