Brown v. Workers' Compensation Board (Sask.), (1999) 176 Sask.R. 72 (QB)

• Judge: Gerein, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: March 19, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1999), 176 Sask.R. 72 (QB)

Brown v. WCB (1999), 176 Sask.R. 72 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] Sask.R. TBEd. MR.046

Shelley Brown (applicant) v. Worker's Compensation Board (respondent)

(1998 Q.B.G. No. 3343)

Indexed As: Brown v. Workers' Compensation Board (Sask.)

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Regina

Gerein, J.

March 19, 1999.

Summary:

The applicant's benefits were terminated. On appeal the termination was affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. The Board refused to include phy­siatrists in its list of specialists who served on the medical review panel. The applicant sought judicial review.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that physiatrists should be included on the list of specialists for the review panel.

Administrative Law - Topic 3202

Judicial review - General - Scope of review - [See Administrative Law - Topic 9102 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 9102

Boards and tribunals - Judicial review - Standard of review - The applicant's ben­efits were terminated - On appeal the Workers' Com­pensation Board affirmed the decision - The Board refused to include phy­siatrists on its list of specialists who served on a medical review panel - The applicant applied for judicial review, seek­ing to quash the Board's decision and compel the Board to include physiatrists in its list of specialists - At issue, inter alia, was the applicable standard of review - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the applicable standard of review was patently unreasonable - The Board was acting within its jurisdiction - In consider­ing the privative clause, the exper­tise of the Board, the purpose of the Workers' Com­pensation Act and the nature of the prob­lem, a great degree of deference should be accorded the Board's decision - See para­graphs 7 to 15.

Workers' Compensation - Topic 62

General principles - Interpretation - Par­ticular provisions - [See Workers' Com­pensation - Topic 6887 ].

Workers' Compensation - Topic 6887

Practice - Medical exam - Medical review panel - Constitution of - The applicant, who suffered a work related injury, sprained her cervical spine and received compensation - Her benefits were termin­ated - On appeal the Workers' Compensa­tion Board affirmed the termination - The Board held that physiatrists could not be included in a list of specialists who served on the medical review panel pursuant to s. 62 of the Workers' Compensation Act - The appli­cant applied for judicial review, arguing that the physiatrists should be included in the list of specialists - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that physi­atrists should be included as specialists on the panel list pursuant to s. 62 of the Act - Physi­atrists were one of a number of proper spec­ialists to treat the applicant's musculoskeletal disabil­ity - See para­graphs 16 to 24.

Workers' Compensation - Topic 7124

Practice - Judicial review - Standard of review - [See Administrative Law - Topic 9102 ].

Cases Noticed:

Novak v. Workers' Compensation Board (Sask.) (1991), 89 Sask.R. 174 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 8].

Lyne v. Workers' Compensation Board (Sask.) (1997), 155 Sask.R. 309 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 8].

Syndicat national des employés de la com­mission scolaire régionale de l'Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1048; 95 N.R. 161; 24 Q.A.C. 244; 35 Admin. L.R. 153, refd to. [para. 10].

U.E.S. Local 298 v. Bibeault - see Syndi­cat na­tional des employés de la commis­sion scolaire régionale de l'Ou­taouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ).

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citi­zenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982; 226 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 10].

Pasiechnyk et al. v. Procrane Inc. et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 890; 216 N.R. 1; 158 Sask.R. 81; 153 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 12].

Pasiechnyk v. Saskatchewan (Workers' Compensation Board) - see Pasiechnyk et al. v. Procrane Inc. et al.

Canada (Attorney General) v. Public Ser­vice Alliance of Canada, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 941; 150 N.R. 161; 101 D.L.R.(4th) 673; 93 C.L.L.C. 14,022, refd to. [para. 15].

Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act v. Southam Inc. et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748; 209 N.R. 20; 144 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 15].

Statutes Noticed:

Workers' Compensation Act, R.S.S. 1979, c. W-17.1, sect. 60, sect. 62, sect. 64 [para. 6].

Counsel:

K.A. Clarke, for the applicant;

R.G. Richards, Q.C., for the respondent.

This application was heard by Gerein, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, who delivered the following decision on March 19, 1999.