The Court of Appeal dismissed the Workers’ Compensation Board’s appeal of a reviewing judge’s decision to uphold a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Commission regarding a Claimant’s entitlement to benefits. The WCB had appealed on the basis that the reviewing judge had failed to apply the correct standard of review.

23. August 2005 0
Administrative law – Workers compensation – Benefits – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Judicial review – Privative clauses – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness – Reasonableness simpliciter Alberta (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Alberta (Workers’ Compensation Appeals Commission), [2005] A.J. No. 825, Alberta Court of Appeal, July 8, 2005, Hunt, Berger, Costigan JJ.A. ...

A worker in a pulp and paper mill (“Speckling”) who was allegedly injured while cleaning up a boiler house was unsuccessful in his appeal from two judicial reviews of decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board Appeal Division which rejected his claims for compensation

26. April 2005 0
Administrative law – Workers compensation – Benefits – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Judicial review – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Speckling v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board), [2005] B.C.J. No. 270, British Columbia Court of Appeal, February 16, 2005, Hall, Levine and Thackray JJ.A. Speckling became ill while at work and ...

An employer’s appeal of a decision of the Nova Scotia Workers Compensation Appeals Tribunal (“WCAT”) was dismissed when the court found there was evidence to support the WCAT’s conclusion that an intense meeting with a supervisor was a “traumatic event” such that the worker’s subsequent stress condition was an “accident” within the meaning of the Workers Compensation Act, S.N.S. 1994-95, c. 10.

26. April 2005 0
Administrative law – Workers compensation – Benefits – Statutory provisions – Accident – Definition – Traumatic event – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness – Patent unreasonableness Children’s Aid Society of Cape Breton-Victoria v. Nova Scotia (Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal), [2005] N.S.J. No. 75, Nova Scotia Court ...

The Court found that a decision of the Chief Review Commissioner of the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Committee to refuse to allow the deduction of legal fees paid by the Applicant, when determining the amount of CPP disability benefits to be offset from workers compensation benefits, was neither unreasonable nor patently unreasonable

22. March 2005 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Workers compensation – Benefits – Legal fees deductibility – Statutory provisions – Judicial review – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Williams v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission), [2004] N.J. No. 443, Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, December 23, 2004, Orsborn ...

The Court held that the Workers’ Compensation Board (“WCB”) was not entitled to withhold payment of a 1989 continuing award because of the worker’s 1991 receipt of settlement funds from his employer

25. January 2005 0
Administrative law – Workers compensation – Benefits – Statutory provisions – Statutory interpretation – Damages – Settlement monies from other jurisdictions – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness Dipersio v. Nova Scotia (Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal), [2004] N.S.J. No. 442, Nova ...

The Citizen’s Representative sought a declaration that it had jurisdiction to conduct an investigation under the Citizens’ Representative Act, 2001 S.N.L. c. C-14.1 (the “Act”) with respect to potential injustice arising from the provisions of section 65.1(1) of the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act, S.N.L., c. W-11 (the “WHSC Act”) which provided for the payment of benefits to spouses of workers killed on the job. The court found that what the Citizens’ Representative sought to investigate was the legislation itself and not a decision or recommendation relating to a matter of administration by a department or agency of government and held that the Citizens’ Representative did not have jurisdiction to conduct such an investigation.

28. September 2004 0
Administrative law – Workers compensation – Benefits – Federal and provincial legislation – Judicial review – Jurisdiction of Citizens’ Representative – Ombudsman – Jurisdiction Newfoundland (Citizens’ Representative) v. Newfoundland (Minister of Environment and Labour), [2004] N.J. No. 257, Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court – Trial Division, July 20, 2004, Russell J. The WHSC Act provided for ...

In January 1999, Staff Sergeant Marvin Taylor tendered his resignation to the Regina Police Service. He left the service due to the stress in his relationship with his superior. Over three years later, Mr. Taylor submitted a claim to the Workers’ Compensation Board (“WCB”) for compensation on the grounds that he left his employment due to stress. The stress claim was rejected at all levels of the WCB. After exhausting his internal appeals, Mr. Taylor applied to the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench. The court held that the standard of review was patent unreasonableness and that the court’s task was to address the question of whether the WCB’s decision lacked reason and/or rationality. The Court held that Mr. Taylor had not demonstrated that the decision was patently unreasonable and the application was dismissed.

22. June 2004 0
Administrative law – Workers compensation – Benefits – Stress claims – Test – Privative clauses – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Judicial review application – Quasi-judicial tribunals – Appeal process – Judicial review – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Taylor v. Workers’ Compensation Board, [2004] S.J. No. 224, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, ...

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 ...

A worker (“Jones”) successfully sought re-hearing of his petition for judicial review of a Workers’ Compensation Board (the “Board”) decision which had denied him a loss of earnings pension. Jones alleged that the reviewing judge wrongly exercised his discretion in refusing a remedy in the nature of certiorari and that the decision was wrong on its merits

27. January 2004 0
Administrative law – Workers compensation – Loss of earnings pension – Judicial review – Evidence – Jurisdiction – Remedies – Certiorari Jones v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board), [2003] B.C.J. No. 2556, British Columbia Court of Appeal, November 7, 2003, Esson, Donald and Smith JJ.A. Jones initially sought compensation for a work-related injury to his lower back ...

The Applicant worker employed in the coal mines of Cape Breton Development Corporation (“Devco”), a federal corporation, applied for workers compensation based on loss of lung function due to occupational disease. The Workers’ Compensation Board refused his claims for want of evidence of loss of lung function. In dismissing the appeals, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal held the worker to the civil standard of proof, because he was a federal employee claiming under the Government Employees Compensation Act (“GECA”). The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal held that the matter should be remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal for review of all the relevant evidence in light of the provisions of the Nova Scotia Workers’ Compensation Act.

23. December 2003 0
Administrative law – Workers compensation – Benefits – Statutory provisions – Federal and provincial legislation – Government employees – Judicial review – Administrative decisions – Compliance with legislation – Evidence – Jurisdiction McLellan v. Nova Scotia (Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal), [2003] N.S.J. No. 365, Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, October 14, 2003, Glube C.J.N.S., Freeman and ...