Accident on the way to employment related retreat did not arise “out of and in the course of employment”

27. September 2016 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Workers compensation – Worker, definition – In and out of the course of employment – Judicial review – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Northern Thunderbird Air Inc. v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal), [2016] B.C.J. No. 1399, 2016 BCSC 1216, British ...

The appeal by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (“CBC”) from a decision dismissing the CBC’s application for judicial review of a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal (“WCAT”) was dismissed where the Court found that the British Columbia Workers’ Compensation Board (“WCB”) was the appropriate body to determine whether a person engaged by the CBC was an “employee” within the meaning of the Governments Employees Compensation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. G-5

25. August 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Government agencies – Government employees – Workers compensation – Federal and provincial legislation – Worker – definition – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Jurisdiction of tribunal – Standard of review – Correctness Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Luo, [2009] B.C.J. No. 1559, British Columbia Court of ...

The standard of review of an adjudicator’s decision made pursuant to the Occupational Health and Safety Act, 1993, S.S. 1993, c. O-1.1, on a point of law, is correctness. Section 27 of the Act which prohibits an employer from taking discriminatory action against a worker applies only as between the employer and the employer’s worker. The section does not apply as between an employer and a person who is a worker on the employer’s worksite but is not employed by the employer but by some other entity.

26. May 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Occupational Health and Safety Officer – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness – Compliance with legislation – Discrimination – Labour relations – Working conditions – Workers compensation – Worker – definition – Employer – definition Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan Inc. v. Oppenlander, [2009] S.J. No. ...

The Court of Appeal allowed an Appeal of a decision of the B.C. Supreme Court, which had found that a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal, that the Appellant was injured in the course of his employment, was patently unreasonable. In making its finding, the Court of Appeal found that the B.C. Legislature had not, by enacting sections 58 and 59 of the Administrative Tribunal’s Act, stepped outside its legislative competence and infringed on a constitutional guarantee of judicial review for the superior courts. Moreover, the effect of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick was not to change the meaning of patently unreasonable. The application judge, while referring to the correct approach to factual issues, impermissibly weighed the evidence and moved outside the definition of patently unreasonable.

28. April 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Workers Compensation – Worker – definition – Legislation – Constitutional issues – Ultra vires – Judicial review – Jurisdiction of court – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness – Evidence Manz v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal), [2009] B.C.J. No. 464, British ...

The Petitioners sought judicial review of a decision made by the Worker’s Compensation Appeal Tribunal (the “WCAT”). In the context of that hearing, the Petitioners objected to the submissions entered by the WCAT. The Court upheld the WCAT’s standing to appear and make the submissions it made in the context of the Petition.

28. April 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Practice and procedure – Judicial review application – Standing in judicial review – Workers Compensation – Worker – definition Buttar v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal), [2009] B.C.J. No. 548, British Columbia Supreme Court, January 13, 2009, K.M. Ker J. The Petitioner, ...

The appeal by Chauvet from the dismissal of his application for judicial review of the decision of the Appeals Commission of the Workers’ Compensation Board was dismissed where the Court found that the Appeals Commission’s conclusion that Chauvet was working as a director and not a worker at the time of the accident was not patently unreasonable

26. June 2008 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Worker – definition – Judicial review – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Chauvet v. Alberta (Workers’ Compensation Board, Appeals Commission), [2007] A.J. No. 493, Alberta Court of Appeal, May 7, 2007, E. McFadyen, R. Berger and K. Ritter JJ.A. Chauvet was sole owner and ...

When assessing WCB spousal survivorship pension entitlement, the Workers’ Compensation Board has jurisdiction to determine whether a person was an “employee” under the Government Employees Compensation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. G-5 (the “GECA”)

28. August 2007 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Workers compensation – Benefits – Worker – definition – Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Compliance with legislation – Privative clauses – Standard of review – Correctness Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Luo, [2007] B.C.J. No. 1478, British Columbia Supreme Court, July 4, 2007, Meiklem J. An ...

The Workers’ Compensation Board appealed the decision of the Appeals Commission (the “AC”) which determined that while the deceased was a director of the lumber corporation at the time of the accident, at the time of his death he was engaged in the activities of a “worker”. The court confirmed the AC’s decision and dismissed the appeal.

27. September 2005 0
Administrative law – Workers compensation – Benefits – Worker – Definition – Director of corporation – Interpretation of legislation – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Appeals – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Alberta (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Alberta (Workers’ Compensation Board, Appeals Commission), [2005] A.J. No. 894, Alberta Court of ...

A petition seeking an order quashing the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal (the “WCAT”) and a declaration that the petitioner was not a “worker” was dismissed by the Court as the Court found that the WCAT did not act beyond its jurisdiction and its decision was not patently unreasonable

25. January 2005 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Validity and application of policies – Worker – definition – Statutory provisions – Jurisdiction – Judicial review – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Harris v. 149925 Canada Ltd., [2004] B.C.J. No. 2542, British Columbia Supreme Court, December 6, 2004, Boyd J. The petitioner sought ...

The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench concluded that the Appeals Commission of the WCB (the “Appeals Commission”) made no reviewable error in concluding that the Respondent was an insured worker acting in the course of his employment when he was involved in a motor vehicle accident with the Applicant who was similarly subject to the operation of the Workers Compensation Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. W-15 (the “Act”). In the result, the Applicant was barred by operation of s. 23(1) of the Act from pursuing a civil action commenced against the Respondent for losses occasioned in the accident.

23. December 2003 0
Administrative law – Workers compensation – Statutory provisions – Worker – Definition – Immunity from civil actions – Judicial review application – Administrative decisions Barker v. Sowa, [2003] A.J. No. 1276, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, October 16, 2003, Bielby J. The Applicant applied for judicial review of the decision of the Appeals Commission dated August 7, ...