Buettner v. Workers' Compensation Board Appeals Commission (Alta.), (2004) 352 A.R. 241 (QB)

• Judge: Moreau, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: December 11, 2003
• Citations: (2004), 352 A.R. 241 (QB);2004 ABQB 15

Buettner v. WCBAC (2004), 352 A.R. 241 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] A.R. TBEd. FE.103

Garry Buettner (applicant) v. Appeals Commission for Alberta Workers' Compensation (respondent)

(0303-16682; 2004 ABQB 15)

Indexed As: Buettner v. Workers' Compensation Board Appeals Commission (Alta.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Moreau, J.

January 8, 2004.

Summary:

The Appeals Commission ruled that Buettner was not a "worker" in the course of employment in an industry to which the Workers' Compensation Act applied and, therefore, was not entitled to protection from civil action under s. 23(1) of the Act. Buettner appealed under s. 13.4 of the Act.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal. The Commission's decision fell squarely within its jurisdiction and was not patently unreasonable.

Workers' Compensation - Topic 5

General principles - Definitions - Worker defined - Buettner was employed by a company involved in both the lumber and farming industries - He worked half a year at each - The company remitted workers' compensation premiums throughout the year, although the farming industry was exempted from the Act's application - Buettner received rent-free accommodations for his custodial services on the farm - Buettner, while working in the farming business, started a brush fire which allegedly negligently caused a fatal accident - Buettner sought the Act's protection from civil action - The Appeals Commission ruled that Buettner was not a "worker" in the course of employment in an industry to which the Workers' Compensation Act applied and, therefore, was not entitled to protection from civil action under s. 23(1) of the Act - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the Commission's decision was not patently unreasonable - The farming industry was exempted and the Commission's finding that Buettner was working in an exempted industry at the time of the accident had a rational basis - The fact that the company paid premiums on Buettner's behalf all year long could not oust the express provisions of the Act - See paragraphs 20 to 49.

Workers' Compensation - Topic 7086.1

Practice - Appeals to the courts - Scope of appeal or review - The Workers' Compensation Board Appeals Commission ruled that Buettner was not a "worker" under the Workers' Compensation Act and was not entitled to the statutory protection from civil action - Buettner appealed under s. 13.4 - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "the applicable standard of review is whether or not the decision of the Appeals Commission is patently unreasonable. This standard applies because the Appeals Commission has, under s. 13.1(1) of the Act, exclusive jurisdiction to examine, inquire into, hear and determine all matters and questions arising under the Act in respect of appeals brought under s. 13.1(1), and s. 13.1(1) contains a strong privative clause. ... the Appeals Commission's determination of whether or not [Buettner] is a 'worker' within the meaning of the Act ... is a matter properly within the jurisdiction of the Commission." - The court stated that the new appeal provisions of s. 13.4 of the Act (in force as of September 1, 2002) did not create a new standard of review - See paragraphs 12 to 15.

Cases Noticed:

Rhodes v. McKee Harvester (Alberta) Ltd. et al. (1981), 27 A.R. 121 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Doane v. Groenenboom (1985), 59 A.R. 277 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Medicine Hat (City) et al. v. Wilson et al. (2000), 271 A.R. 96; 234 W.A.C. 96; 2000 ABCA 247, refd to. [para. 13].

Workers' Compensation Board (Alta.) v. Workers' Compensation Board Appeals Commission (Alta.) et al. (2003), 332 A.R. 342; 2003 ABQB 233, refd to. [para. 14].

Bachmann v. Workers' Compensation Board Appeals Commission (Alta.) et al. (2003), 350 A.R. 14; 2003 ABQB 975 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 14].

Penny v. Workers' Compensation Board (Alta.) (1993), 145 A.R. 20; 55 W.A.C. 20 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Canada Labour Relations Board et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 157; 177 N.R. 1; 121 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 27 Admin. L.R.(2d) 1; 95 C.L.L.C. 210-009, refd to. [para. 17].

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. 17].

Johannessen v. Workers' Compensation Board Appeals Commission (Alta.) (1998), 215 A.R. 325; 1998 ABQB 72, refd to. [para. 18].

Paccar of Canada Ltd. v. Canadian Association of Industrial, Mechanical and Allied Workers, Local 14, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 983; 102 N.R. 1; 62 D.L.R.(4th) 437; 89 C.L.L.C. 14,050; [1989] 6 W.W.R. 673; 40 Admin. L.R. 181, refd to. [para. 18].

Fleck v. Workmen's Compensation Board (N.B.), [1934] 2 D.L.R. 145 (N.B.K.B.), affd. [1934] 3 D.L.R. 301 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Lewis v. Nisbet & Auld Ltd., [1934] S.C.R. 333, leave to appeal refused, [1934] S.C.R. vii, refd to. [para. 22].

Gibbs v. Great Western Railway Co. (1884), 12 Q.B.D. 208 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

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; 149 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 39].

Ramey v. Workers' Compensation Board (Alta.) (1997), 200 A.R. 59; 146 W.A.C. 59 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique, section locale 301 v. Montréal (Ville), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 793; 210 N.R. 101; 144 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 45].

Statutes Noticed:

Workers' Compensation Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. W-15, sect. 1(1)(z) [para. 8]; sect. 14 [para. 9]; sect. 13.1(1), sect. 13.1(9) [para. 12]; sect. 16(1) [para. 10]; sect. 23(1) [para. 11]; sect. 114(1) [para. 25].

Counsel:

Brian E. Wallace (Duncan & Craig), for the applicant;

Ron Goltz, for the Workers' Compensation Board;

Michael Hussey (Kay, Shipley, McVey & Smith), for the Estate of Kevin Woodcock;

Denise M. Perret, for the Appeals Commission for Alberta Workers' Compensation.

This appeal was heard on December 11, 2003, before Moreau, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on January 8, 2004.