The Appellant Board successfully appealed the decision of the Chambers judge, which had overturned the Board’s review decision that found the Respondent Petro-Canada was not an employer, within the meaning of the Workers’ Compensation Act, in respect of a safety investigation

27. October 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Workers Compensation – Employer – definition – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Petro-Canada v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board), [2009] B.C.J. No. 1842, British Columbia Court of Appeal, September 16, 2009, M.V. Newbury, S.D. ...

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

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 appeal by an injured worker (“Young”) from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) limiting his entitlement to extended earnings replacement benefits was dismissed where the Court found that the Tribunal had evidence upon which to conclude that Young was capable of working after his initial accident in 1997, despite later becoming unable to work because of disk herniation

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Workers compensation – Benefits – Loss of earnings – Transferable skills – Test – Judicial review – Evidence – Compliance with legislation Young v. Nova Scotia (Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal), [2009] N.S.J. No. 157, Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, April 15, 2009, J.W.S. ...

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

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 application by a widow of a deceased worker for judicial review of the Workers’ Compensation Board’s decision refusing to set aside an amount payable to the widow under s. 83(5) of the Workers’ Compensation Act was dismissed for delay

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Workers compensation – Benefits – Judicial review – Delay Holowachuk v. Saskatchewan (Workers’ Compensation Board), [2009] S.J. No. 109, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, February 12, 2009, R.C. Mills J. A widow (“Holowachuk”) applied for judicial review of the Board’s decision refusing to ...

The Appeal by an employer (“Fundy Linen”) from the decision of the Appeals Tribunal allowing an injured employee’s claim to obtain barrier-free housing was allowed due to bias and the matter was remitted to the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission (the “Commission”)

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Discretion of court – Workers compensation – Benefits – Housing – Interpretation of legislation – Judicial review – Witnesses – Member of Legislative Assembly – Bias – Waiver of claim for bias Fundy Linen Service Inc. v. New Brunswick (Workplace Health, Safety and ...

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.

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.

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 Petition by the Ministry of Competition, Science and Enterprise (the “Ministry”) for an order quashing a decision of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) was allowed in part where the Court found that the Tribunal should not have heard a portion of a complaint regarding discrimination flowing from a clause in a collective agreement

23. September 2008 0
Administrative law – Workers compensation – Benefits – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Disability – Discrimination – Labour law – Collective agreements – Arbitration – Judicial review – Estoppel and res judicata – Mootness British Columbia (Ministry of Competition, Science and Enterprise) (c.o.b. Liquor Distribution Branch) v. Matuszewski, [2008] B.C.J. No. ...