Brown v. Workers' Compensation Board (Sask.), (2000) 197 Sask.R. 238 (QB)

• Judge: Armstrong, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: October 02, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2000), 197 Sask.R. 238 (QB);2000 SKQB 407

Brown v. WCB (2000), 197 Sask.R. 238 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] Sask.R. TBEd. OC.077

Thomas Brown (applicant) v. Saskatchewan Workers' Compensation Board (respondent)

(2000 Q.B.G. No. 1521; 2000 SKQB 407)

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

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Regina

Armstrong, J.

October 2, 2000.

Summary:

A worker claimed under the Workers' Compensation Act that he was disabled from working because of a work related injury. The Workers' Compensation Board denied the claim. The worker applied under s. 60 of the Act to have the Board provide a medical review panel. The Board refused the request. The worker applied for judicial review, seeking: (1) an order quashing the refusal to grant him a medical review panel; (2) an order in the nature of mandamus directing the Board to convene a medical review panel; and (3) alternatively, an order quash­ing the decision denying the claim and directing the Board to pay compensation to the worker.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application.

Workers' Compensation - Topic 1084

Boards - Decisions - Reasons for deci­sion -A worker asserted that he suffered a pro­truding cervical disc from using a "pole saw" at work - He sought Worker's Com­pensation benefits - A doctor opined that the sawing might have caused the injury - In denying the claim on the basis that there had been no injury, the Worker's Compen­sation Board stated "flexing one's neck backward to perform the duties of pole­sawing, could not physically result in a posterior disc protrusion" and "the action of extending one's neck would not result in a posterior disc protrusion" - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench refused to quash the decision - Although the comments when taken out of context were patently unreasonable, the decision, when viewed in total, was not - The deci­sion effectively said that pole sawing did not cause the injury - The Board was not bound to accept the doctor's opinion - The comments were unnecessary to the deci­sion of whether the worker suffered an injury - It was wrong to question the decision on the basis of obiter dictum - See paragraphs 38 to 58.

Workers' Compensation - Topic 6886

Practice - Medical exam - Medical review panel - Establishment of - A worker claimed under the Workers' Compensation Act that he was disabled from working because of a work related injury - The Workers' Compensation Board concluded that there was no specific causative inci­dent and that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment and, accordingly, there was no injury - The worker applied under s. 60 of the Act for a medical review panel - The Saskatche­wan Court of Queen's Bench affirmed the Board's refusal to appoint a medical re­view panel - Section 22(1)(b) gave the Board exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether there was an injury - The worker lacked status to request a panel where he was found not to have suffered an injury - Additionally, s. 60(1)(a) required a deci­sion on one or more of functional impair­ment, limitation in work­ing capacity or period of compen­sation with which the worker disagreed - See paragraphs 5 to 37.

Workers' Compensation - Topic 7008

Practice - Appeals - Review of board's decision by an appeal board or by the courts - Evidence and proof - [See Workers' Compensation - Topic 1084 ].

Workers' Compensation - Topic 7086.1

Practice - Appeals to the courts - Scope of appeal or review - [See Workers' Com­pensation - Topic 1084 ].

Cases Noticed:

Lyne v. Workers' Compensation Board (Sask.) (1997), 155 Sask.R. 309 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 22].

Novak v. Workers' Compensation Board (Sask.) (1991), 89 Sask.R. 174 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 24].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Public Ser­vice Alliance of Canada, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 941; 150 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 39].

Board of Education of Toronto v. Ontario Secondary Teachers' Federation District No. 15 et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 487; 208 N.R. 245; 98 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 40].

Statutes Noticed:

The Workers' Compensation Act, S.S. 1979, c. W-17.1, sect. 60(1) [para. 11].

Counsel:

Kevin A. Clarke, for the applicant;

Wayne P. Dale, for the respondent.

This application was heard by Armstrong, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Regina, who delivered the following judgment on October 2, 2000.