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 appellants appealed from a judicial review decision that upheld a tribunal finding that because a worker’s claim was not compensable under the legislation, the claim did not arise out of and in the course of employment. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the tribunal’s interpretation imposed a construction that was contrary to the legislative intent and at odds with the factual realities of the situation. The court substituted its own determination on the substance of the claim.

27. November 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Workers Compensation – Benefits – In and out of the course of employment – Statutory provisions – Psychological injury – Stress claims – Validity and application of policies and guidelines – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Legislative intent – Standard of ...

The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal’s (“WCAT”) interpretation of its policy, which resulted in a decision not to use class average wages to calculate the appellant worker’s permanent disability pension benefits, was found by the Court of Appeal not to be patently unreasonable. There was nothing in the WCAT reasons to suggest that the policy could never apply to migrants from other provinces or to workers whose recent actual earnings reflected their choices about where to work or what kind of job to take. Rather, the reasons disclosed a finding that the policy did not apply to the appellant given the particular facts before the WCAT. Interpretation of Board policy fell within WCAT’s exclusive jurisdiction and lay at the heart of the WCAT’s specialized function and expertise on appeal. Courts in judicial review proceedings are required to show deference and interfere only when an interpretation is patently unreasonable. In this case, WCAT’s interpretation of the policy turned on recognizing the purpose of the policy to protect against inequitable use of actual earnings where those earnings are not sufficient to allow a determination of what best represents the worker’s long-term loss of earnings in circumstances where there was an element of unfairness in using past earnings rather than a class average, i.e. where a worker’s income would be almost certain to increase substantially. Such an interpretation was not “clearly irrational” nor did it fail to accord with reason or border on the absurd. As a result, this ground of appeal was dismissed.

25. September 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Workers Compensation – Benefits – Average earnings – method of calculation – Policies – Validity and application of policies and guidelines – Judicial review – Evidence – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Phillips v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal), [2012] B.C.J. ...

A man who worked in mining operations of Xstrata Canada Corporation (“Xstrata”) between 1979 and 1996 (“LeBlanc”) was successful on appeal from a decision of the Appeal Tribunal of the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission (“Appeals Tribunal”) for reimbursement of medical treatment related to heavy metals detected in his blood

24. July 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Policies – Workers Compensation – Benefits – Hearings – Fairness  – Conduct of hearings – Independent expert – Judicial review – Witnesses – Evidence – Procedural requirements and fairness LeBlanc v. New Brunswick (Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission), [2012] N.B.J. No. 199, 2012 NBCA 49, New Brunswick Court of ...

The Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal (WCAT) appealed a decision, which allowed the Respondent’s application for a judicial review of compensation entitlement and invalidating a policy. The respondent cross-appealed the judicial review decision on the basis of the invalidation of policy.

26. June 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Workers compensation – Benefits – Policies – Validity and application of policies and guidelines – Statutory provisions – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Jurisdiction of court Jozipovic v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal), [2012] B.C.J. No. 801, 2012 BCCA 174, ...

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal of the Worker’s Compensation Board and restored its decision to compensate an injured worker based on calculations made under a new policy implemented under the Workers’ Compensation Act

27. March 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Workers Compensation – Benefits – Statutory provisions – Policies – Validity and application of policies and guidelines – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Mellor v. Saskatchewan (Workers’ Compensation Board), [2012] S.J. No. 57, 2012 SKCA ...

This case concerned an employee who sustained a workplace injury and was granted a 5% permanent medical impairment as a result. Over twenty years later, additional medical information indicated that the employee’s injuries were more severe than originally appreciated. The employee thus sought a reconsideration of his original claim and an increase to his permanent medical impairment. The tribunal would not reconsider the original claim. The Court remitted the decision back to the tribunal for reconsideration. The Court found that the tribunal erred in its consideration of the criteria for new evidence, for reconsideration purposes, and summarized the appropriate test for the introduction of new evidence for reconsideration purposes.

28. February 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Benefits – Judicial review –  Evidence – Fresh evidence – admissibility Drake v. Nova Scotia (Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal), [2012] N.S.J. No. 25, 2012 NSCA 6, Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, January 23, 2012, J.E. Fichaud, D.R. Beveridge and D.P.S. Farrar JJ.A. The ...

The appellant ship captain was unsuccessful in his appeal of a decision by the Worker’s Compensation Appeal Tribunal which upheld the respondent’s decision to dismiss the appellant following the sinking of his ship

27. December 2011 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Employment law – Termination of employment – Discrimination – Judicial review – Application – Evidence Henthorne v. British Columbia Ferry Services Inc., [2011] B.C.J. No. 2228, 2011 BCCA 476, British Columbia Court of Appeal, November 24, 2011, M.V. Newbury, H. Groberman and N.J. ...

The Supreme Court of Canada set aside a Human Rights Tribunal decision on the basis that the doctrines of issue estoppel, collateral attack, res judicata and abuse of process applied to prevent the Tribunal from considering complaints that had already been dealt with by the Workers’ Compensation Board review division

22. November 2011 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Benefits – Human Rights Tribunal – Discrimination – Judicial review – Administrative tribunals – Compliance with legislation – Estoppel and res judicata British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Figliola, [2011] S.C.J. No. 52, Supreme Court of Canada, October 27, 2011, McLachlin C.J. and ...

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, ...