The Appellant (the Workers’ Compensation Board) successfully appealed a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal (“WCAT”). The WCAT had allowed a claim for compensation made by the Respondent (Ms. Cormier) but its decision was found to disclose a reasonable apprehension of bias.

22. February 2011 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Workers Compensation – Benefits – Judicial review – Bias – Evidence – Standard of review – Correctness Prince Edward Island (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Cormier, [2011] P.E.I.J. No. 2, 2011 PECA 1, Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal, January 7, 2011, D.H. Jenkins ...

The proper approach to statutory interpretation is that the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament. The decision that the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission (the “Commission”) made in this case was unreasonable on the basis that Commission, through the decision of the Internal Review Specialist, sought to discover the intention of the Commission, as opposed to the Legislature.

28. September 2010 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Workers Compensation – Benefits – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Statutory interpretation – Legislation – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Warford v. Weir’s Construction Ltd., [2010] N.J. No. 249, 2010 NLTD(G) 130, Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, August 9, 2010, ...

Refusing to grant an injured worker (“Johnson”) the opportunity to cross-examine medical witnesses on a Workers’ Compensation Board (“WCB”) disability benefits determination was held to be a denial of procedural fairness and natural justice

27. July 2010 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Workers Compensation – Benefits – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice – Witnesses Johnson v. Alberta (Appeals Commission for Alberta Workers’ Compensation), [2010] A.J. No. 663, 2010 ABQB 393, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, June 9, 2010, K. G. ...

The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal does not have the residual discretion to reject applications for an extension of time under s. 243(3) of the Workers Compensation Act once the two statutory criteria set out in that provision are met

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers compensation – Extention of time – Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Statutory provisions – Standard of review – Correctness – Compliance with legislation Kerton v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal), 2010 B.C.J. No. 830, 2010 BCSC 644, British Columbia Supreme Court, May 5, 2010, E. ...

The Dispute Resolution and Decision Review Body, an internal review board of the Workers’ Compensation Board, does not have the jurisdiction to reconsider its own decision. Likewise, the Board’s Appeals Commission does not have the jurisdiction to consider issues that are not under appeal.

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers compensation – Tribunal’s power to consider its own decisions – Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Statutory provisions – Standard of review – Correctness – Compliance with legislation Watson v. Alberta (Workers’ Compensation Board), [2010] A.J. No. 485, 2010 ABQB 280, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, April ...

The court upheld a decision of the Appeals Commission of the Alberta Workers’ Compensation Board that an equipment operator who answered a personal call from his daughter after her car went off the road was acting in the course of his employment

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Workers Compensation – Worker, defined – In and out of the course of employment – Personal time – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Pontes Estate v. Alberta (Appeals Commission for Alberta Workers’ Compensation), [2010] A.J. No. 487, 2010 ABQB ...

The appeal by workers from a decision quashing a Human Rights Tribunal’s decision to proceed with their human rights complaint was allowed where the Court held that the Tribunal’s decision to proceed was discretionary and was not patently unreasonable

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Workers Compensation Boards – Discretion of tribunal – Workers compensation – Benefits – Policies – Validity and application of policies – Human rights complaints – Disability – Discrimination – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Jurisdiction of tribunal – Standard of review ...

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 Applicant, Schroder, successfully sought judicial review of the Respondent Board’s decision to discontinue his disability benefits

24. November 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Workers Compensation – Benefits – Policies – Judicial review – Evidence – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Schroder v. Alberta (Workers’ Compensation Board), [2009] A.J. No. 1109, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, October 9, 2009, M.T. Moreau J. The Applicant Worker injured ...

The Court of Appeal set aside a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission, which had denied the appellant pension benefits, following her estranged husband’s death in a work-related accident, on the basis that the appellant and her child were not “dependants”. The Court of Appeal found that the Commission had failed to apply the correct test with respect to whether the appellant and her child were “dependents”.

27. October 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Workers Compensation – Benefits – Dependant – definition – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter – Interpretation of legislation – Evidence – Test Elgie v. Alberta (Workers’ Compensation Appeals Commission), [2009] A.J. No. 899, Alberta Court of Appeal, ...