The appellant employer successfully appealed a decision of the provincial Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission Appeals Tribunal, which had set aside a decision of the provincial Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission dismissing the respondent employee’s claim for compensation benefits for “gradual onset stress.”

26. February 2013 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Investigations – Workers compensation – Government employees – Federal and provincial legislation – Psychological injury – employment related – Test – Stress claims Robichaud v. Canada (Attorney General), [2013] N.B.J. No. 8, 2013 NBCA 1, New Brunswick Court of Appeal, January 10, 2013, ...

The Court set aside the decision of the Chambers judge which held that a WCB Medical Review Panel’s decision was unreasonable and dismissed the respondent’s petition for judicial review

25. October 2011 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Workers compensation – Benefits – Psychological injury – employment related – Hearings – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Evidence Bagri v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board), [2011] B.C.J. No. 1691, 2011 BCCA 368, British Columbia Court of Appeal, September 8, ...

The Alberta Court of Appeal overturned the chambers judge’s decision dismissing the appellant’s application for judicial review of the Respondent’s decision denying her health benefits. The court of appeal held that the Respondent’s decision did not properly explain its reasons for preferring certain medical evidence over others, and therefore lacked transparency, and intelligibility and was unreasonable.

26. April 2011 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Benefits – Psychological injury – employment related – Evidence – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Correctness Sharif v. Alberta (Appeals Commission for Alberta Workers’ Compensation), [2011] A.J. No. 206, 2011 ABCA 75, Alberta Court of Appeal, March 4, 2011, E.I. Picard, ...

The Court allowed a petition for judicial review of two decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal, which had denied compensation to the Petitioner for psychological problems he claimed were a consequence of a prior back injury. The Court found that the Appeal Tribunal had made a patently unreasonable error by applying an incorrect legal test in determining whether the Petitioner’s psychological problems were compensable.

26. January 2010 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Workers compensation – Benefits – Psychological injury – employment related – Test – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Chima v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal), [2009] B.C.J. No. 2281, 2009 BCSC 1574, British Columbia ...

The appeal by a worker (“Plesner”) from a judicial review of his claim for workers’ compensation was allowed where the Court found that provisions and policies under the Workers’ Compensation Act R.S.B.C. 1996 c.492 (the “Act”), breached his Section 15(1) Charter rights as they require a worker to meet a significantly higher causation threshold for a purely mental work-related injury than required for those who suffer purely physical workplace injuries

26. May 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Workers compensation – Benefits – Traumatic event – Psychological injury – employment related – Validity and application of policies – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Remedies – Charter relief Plesner v. British Columbia (Hydro and ...

The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Commission (“WCA”) was patently unreasonable in its finding as to when a worker’s accident ceased to be the cause of the worker’s injury. Workers’ Compensation Policy ADJ-39 is properly interpreted as to only require a disability to be the result of an emotional reaction, not that the injury be an emotional reaction. WCA’s analysis was unreasonable because it limited coverage by relying on factors that the Policy requires to be used to extend coverage.

28. August 2007 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Workers compensation – Psychological injury – employment related – Test – Benefits – Judicial review – Evidence – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness Shuchuk v. Alberta (Workers’ Compensation Board, Appeals Commission), [2007] A.J. No. 725, Alberta Court of Appeal, July 10, ...

Canada Post Corporation (“Canada Post”) successfully appealed from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal (“WCAT”) that a worker (“Myatt”) had suffered a recurrence of a 1998 compensable stress injury and should be entitled to benefits on the basis that WCAT failed to defer to the decision of the Hearing Officer who had the advantage of hearing oral testimony in the matter

25. May 2004 0
Administrative law – Workers compensation – Benefits – Psychological injury – employment related – Test – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Evidenciary issues – Judicial review – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Canada Post Corp. v. Nova Scotia Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, [2004] N.S.J. No. 105, Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, March 16, 2004, Roscoe, Chipman and ...