Challenger Geomatics Ltd. v. Workers' Compensation Board Appeals Commission (Alta.), 2014 ABQB 712

• Judge: Graesser, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: June 12, 2014
• Citations: 2014 ABQB 712;(2014), 604 A.R. 1 (QB)

Challenger Geomatics Ltd. v. WCBAC (2014), 604 A.R. 1 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] A.R. TBEd. JA.049

Challenger Geomatics Ltd. (appellant) v. Appeals Commission for Alberta Workers' Compensation (respondents)

(1303 12707; 2014 ABQB 712)

Indexed As: Challenger Geomatics Ltd. v. Workers' Compensation Board Appeals Commission (Alta.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Graesser, J.

November 20, 2014.

Summary:

Challenger Geomatics Ltd. (Challenger) was in the land surveying business. Challenger applied for judicial review of a decision of the Appeals Commission for the Alberta Workers' Compensation Board dated March 12, 2013. That decision held that Challenger was: required to participate in the Industry Custom Pricing Program for the Land and General Surveying Industry effective 2012; and not entitled to any Cost Relief from a 2009 claim for 2012.

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

Administrative Law - Topic 2266

Natural justice - Duty of fairness - Procedural fairness - What constitutes - Challenger was in the land surveying business - Challenger applied for judicial review of the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) Appeals Commission that held that Challenger was: required to participate in the Industry Custom Pricing (ICP) Program for the Land and General Surveying Industry effective 2012; and not entitled to any Cost Relief from a 2009 claim for 2012 - Under an ICP program, "Cost Relief" was no longer available to industry members - Cost Relief was a premium option for employers that required them to pay an additional premium of $0.60 per $100.00 of applicable payroll over their usual rate - In return, the cost for employees who had suffered an aggravation of a pre-existing condition or previous injury were not charged to the employer - Following a 2009 surveying industry poll, the WCB considered that a majority of the industry (employers representing more than 50% of the insurable earnings of the employers in the industry) had voted in favour of the ICP Program - As a result, the WCB implemented ICP for the survey industry effective 2010 - Challenger argued that the Appeals Commission erred by finding that the polling process was fair - Challenger argued that the ICP documents demonstrated "a slant in favour of ICP" - Further, it argued that the WCB's information letter sent to survey industry employers before the vote failed to explain the ramification of Cost Relief - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that obviously deference was owed to the Appeals Commission on its fact findings - The court found no unreasonableness in the Appeals Panel's decision as to the fairness of the polling process, or the quality of the information provided on ICP to employers - The court stated, inter alia, that "... so long as the WCB puts out accurate information so that employers can make an informed decision, I do not see that encouraging employers to consider a certain option, or providing materials that suggest a slant in favour of a certain decision, is offensive in any way." - See paragraphs 129 to 144.

Administrative Law - Topic 2267

Natural justice - The duty of fairness - Reasonable expectation or legitimate expectation - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "The doctrine of legitimate expectations is part of procedural fairness, and thus is dealt with on the correctness standard." - See paragraph 149.

Administrative Law - Topic 2267

Natural justice - The duty of fairness - Reasonable expectation or legitimate expectation - Challenger applied for judicial review of the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) Appeals Commission that held that Challenger was: required to participate in the Industry Custom Pricing (ICP) Program for the Land and General Surveying Industry effective 2012; and not entitled to any Cost Relief from a 2009 claim for 2012 - Under an ICP program, "Cost Relief" was no longer available to industry members - Cost Relief was a premium option for employers that required them to pay an additional premium of $0.60 per $100.00 of applicable payroll over their usual rate - In return, the cost for employees who had suffered an aggravation of a pre-existing condition or previous injury were not charged to the employer - Following a 2009 surveying industry poll, the WCB considered that a majority of the industry (employers representing more than 50% of the insurable earnings of the employers in the industry) had voted in favour of the ICP Program - As a result, the WCB implemented ICP for the survey industry effective 2010 - Challenger argued that its legitimate expectations as to prior consultation were not met by the WCB - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected the argument - See paragraphs 145 to 158.

Administrative Law - Topic 3202

Judicial review - General - Scope or standard of review - [See first Administrative Law - Topic 2267 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 3345.2

Judicial review - General - Practice - Issues not raised before tribunal - Challenger was in the land surveying business - Challenger applied for judicial review of a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) Appeals Commission that held that Challenger was: required to participate in the Industry Custom Pricing (ICP) Program for the Land and General Surveying Industry effective 2012; and not entitled to any Cost Relief from a 2009 claim for 2012 - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "The WCB appropriately objects to any review based on arguments not raised before the Appeals Commission. As argued, it is somewhat unfair to overturn or vary a decision on a point not considered by the tribunal or raised before them. ... Despite this admonition, the WCB fully argued the three points it objected to: The absence of jurisdiction to make assessment policy; Improper sub-delegation of authority by relying on the industry's vote; and Conflicts with the Competition Act." - The court held that, on the facts of this case, it was appropriate to hear these issues of jurisdiction and law - See paragraphs 53 to 59.

Administrative Law - Topic 7565

Delegated powers - Subdelegation of powers - Prohibition against delegation by delegate (delegatus non potest delegare) - Challenger was in the land surveying business - Challenger applied for judicial review of the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) Appeals Commission that held that Challenger was: required to participate in the Industry Custom Pricing (ICP) Program for the Land and General Surveying Industry effective 2012; and not entitled to any Cost Relief from a 2009 claim for 2012 - Under an ICP program, "Cost Relief" was no longer available to industry members - Cost Relief was a premium option for employers that required them to pay an additional premium of $0.60 per $100.00 of applicable payroll over their usual rate - In return, the cost for employees who had suffered an aggravation of a pre-existing condition or previous injury were not charged to the employer - Following a 2009 surveying industry poll, the WCB considered that a majority of the industry (employers representing more than 50% of the insurable earnings of the employers in the industry) had voted in favour of the ICP Program - As a result, the WCB implemented ICP for the survey industry effective 2010 - Challenger argued, inter alia, that the WCB had delegated its authority to classify an industry to another body, abrogating its decision in this regard to the employers by holding a vote and implementing the ICP Program following a positive vote - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that this issue raised a true question of jurisdiction - The court noted that the concluding sentence of the ICP Policy stated that "In all cases, the selected features of an industry's ICP are subject to WCB review and approval." - The court stated that "With that proviso in effect, it appears that a majority vote is only the beginning of an ICP program. The program features themselves must be approved by the Board. That ... is sufficient supervisory control to prevent the application of delagatus non potest delegare." - See paragraphs 86 to 92.

Civil Rights - Topic 989

Discrimination - Employment - On basis of physical or mental disability - [See Civil Rights - Topic 992 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 992

Discrimination - Employment - Adverse effect or indirect discrimination - Challenger was in the land surveying business - Challenger applied for judicial review of the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) Appeals Commission that held that Challenger was: required to participate in the Industry Custom Pricing (ICP) Program for the Land and General Surveying Industry effective 2012; and not entitled to any Cost Relief from a 2009 claim for 2012 - Under an ICP program, "Cost Relief" was no longer available to industry members - Cost Relief was a premium option for employers that required them to pay an additional premium of $0.60 per $100.00 of applicable payroll over their usual rate - In return, the cost for employees who had suffered an aggravation of a pre-existing condition or previous injury were not charged to the employer - Following a 2009 surveying industry poll, the WCB considered that a majority of the industry (employers representing more than 50% of the insurable earnings of the employers in the industry) had voted in favour of the ICP Program - As a result, the WCB implemented ICP for the survey industry effective 2010 - Challenger argued, inter alia, that removing Cost Relief as required under an ICP program provided an incentive for employers to discriminate against workers with a pre-existing disability or medical condition, contrary to the Alberta Human Rights Act - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected the argument - The court stated that "there is nothing in the ICP which 'authorizes or requires' any unlawful discrimination. Employers may choose to discriminate if they are part of an ICP, and they may choose to discriminate if they have not purchased Cost Relief. In either case, they would violate the Alberta Human Rights Act. Nothing in the Workers' Compensation Act authorizes or could otherwise be seen to condone or encourage such unlawful conduct. As a result, I do not see that the concerns about unlawful discrimination have any effect on the validity of policies and programs that are on their face neutral concerning hiring practices. The fact that there may be an adverse-impact discrimination is the possible result of unlawful conduct on the part of employers under other legislation, which is remedied by taking proceedings against those employers, not the WCB." - See paragraphs 108 to 117.

Statutes - Topic 2263

Interpretation - Presumptions and rules in aid - Against interference with vested rights - [See third Workers' Compensation - Topic 63 ].

Statutes - Topic 2263

Interpretation - Presumptions and rules in aid - Against interference with vested rights - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that a presumption against interference with vested rights was a principle of statutory interpretation, not a principle of law - Clear legislative intent might interfere with vested rights - See paragraphs 169 and 170.

Trade Regulation - Topic 503

Competition - General - Interpretation of Competition Act - [See second Workers' Compensation - Topic 63 ].

Trade Regulation - Topic 701

Competition - Unfair competition - General - [See second Workers' Compensation - Topic 63 ].

Workers' Compensation - Topic 62

Interpretation - Particular provisions - [See second Workers' Compensation - Topic 1071 ].

Workers' Compensation - Topic 63

General principles - Interpretation - Statutory policies and programs - [See Administrative Law - Topic 2266 , second Administrative Law - Topic 2267 and third Workers' Compensation - Topic 1071 ].

Workers' Compensation - Topic 63

General principles - Interpretation - Statutory policies and programs - Challenger was in the land surveying business - Challenger applied for judicial review of the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) Appeals Commission that held that Challenger was: required to participate in the Industry Custom Pricing (ICP) Program for the Land and General Surveying Industry effective 2012; and not entitled to any Cost Relief from a 2009 claim for 2012 - Under an ICP program, "Cost Relief" was no longer available to industry members - Cost Relief was a premium option for employers that required them to pay an additional premium of $0.60 per $100.00 of applicable payroll over their usual rate - In return, the cost for employees who had suffered an aggravation of a pre-existing condition or previous injury were not charged to the employer - Following a 2009 surveying industry poll, the WCB considered that a majority of the industry (employers representing more than 50% of the insurable earnings of the employers in the industry) had voted in favour of the ICP Program - As a result, the WCB implemented ICP for the survey industry effective 2010 - Under the Competition Act, s. 45 made it an offence to lessen competition - Challenger argued that because the employers with the highest insurable earnings had greater voting capacity under the ICP voting system, such employers with "more economic power" could select the premium pricing mechanism most effective for its businesses - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "These were all hypothetical arguments that do not satisfy me that even if there was substance to them, they would adversely affect competition. Under the Workers' Compensation Act and its programs, what adversely affects an employer's competitiveness is its accident experience. Employers with a poor record pay higher premiums and fail to achieve premium rebates, regardless of whether they are able to purchase Cost Relief or not. Challenger has not demonstrated that either the ICP policy or the voting system for ICP contravenes the Competition Act. Even if it did, that is not a basis to strike down the policy. The Competition Act is not paramount legislation." - See paragraphs 121 to 127.

Workers' Compensation - Topic 63

General principles - Interpretation - Statutory policies and programs - Challenger was in the land surveying business - Challenger applied for judicial review of the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) Appeals Commission that held that Challenger was: required to participate in the Industry Custom Pricing (ICP) Program for the Land and General Surveying Industry effective 2012; and not entitled to any Cost Relief from a 2009 claim for 2012 - Under an ICP program, "Cost Relief" was no longer available to industry members - Cost Relief was a premium option for employers that required them to pay an additional premium of $0.60 per $100.00 of applicable payroll over their usual rate - In return, the cost for employees who had suffered an aggravation of a pre-existing condition or previous injury were not charged to the employer - Following a 2009 surveying industry poll, the WCB considered that a majority of the industry (employers representing more than 50% of the insurable earnings of the employers in the industry) had voted in favour of the ICP Program - As a result, the WCB implemented ICP for the survey industry effective 2010 - Challenger argued that it had a vested right to Costs Relief - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected the argument - The court held that, from the evidence, it appeared "that in order to obtain Cost Relief, the employer must continue to pay Cost Relief premiums. Once an employer has joined an ICP and is no longer able to purchase that type of coverage, the entitlement to purchase Cost Relief on an ongoing basis is lost. In this case, any right to purchase Cost Relief in these circumstances was expressly taken away. This argument strongly suggests that Cost Relief was not a vested right in the first place. Because I have found that the WCB was entitled to change its policies, and did so validly, any vested rights to Cost Relief (if they existed) were lost - It appears clear from this evidence that in order to obtain Cost Relief, the employer must continue to pay Cost Relief premiums. Once an employer has joined an ICP and is no longer able to purchase that type of coverage, the entitlement to purchase Cost Relief on an ongoing basis is lost. In this case, any right to purchase Cost Relief in these circumstances was expressly taken away." - See paragraphs 159 to 183.

Workers' Compensation - Topic 1071

Boards - Jurisdiction - Policies - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench found that the standard of review applicable to the Alberta Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) Appeals Commission - The court looked to prior case law and found that the issue had been determined in the following manner - Inadequate reasons were a procedural fairness issue, which, along with breaches of natural justice, were reviewed for correctness - The inadequacy of reasons was not a "stand-alone" ground for judicial review of administrative decisions - This application involved the vires of WCB policies - The standard of review generally applicable to the validity or vires of a policy was correctness - However, the Court of Appeal had held that the Appeals Commission's jurisdiction did not extend to the assessment of the reasonableness of a WCB policy so long as the scope of the policy fell within s. 6 of the Workers' Compensation Act - See paragraphs 39 to 52.

Workers' Compensation - Topic 1071

Boards - Jurisdiction - Policies - Section 17(1) of the Workers' Compensation Act provided that "Subject to section 13.1, the Board has exclusive jurisdiction to examine, inquire into, hear and determine all matters and questions arising under this Act or the regulations and the action or decision of the Board on such matters and questions is final and conclusive, and is not open to question or review in any court." - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "It is a stretch to suggest that section gives the Board additional policy-making powers ..." - See paragraphs 77 and 78.

Workers' Compensation - Topic 1071

Boards - Jurisdiction - Policies - Challenger was in the land surveying business - Challenger applied for judicial review of the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) Appeals Commission that held that Challenger was: required to participate in the Industry Custom Pricing (ICP) Program for the Land and General Surveying Industry effective 2012; and not entitled to any Cost Relief from a 2009 claim for 2012 - Under an ICP program, "Cost Relief" was no longer available to industry members - Cost Relief was a premium option for employers that required them to pay an additional premium of $0.60 per $100.00 of applicable payroll over their usual rate - In return, the cost for employees who had suffered an aggravation of a pre-existing condition or previous injury were not charged to the employer - Following a 2009 surveying industry poll, the WCB considered that a majority of the industry (employers representing more than 50% of the insurable earnings of the employers in the industry) had voted in favour of the ICP Program - As a result, the WCB implemented ICP for the survey industry effective 2010 - Challenger argued, inter alia, that the WCB lacked jurisdiction to enact an amended Cost Relief Policy to change the participants' eligibility to Cost Relief - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that this was a true question of jurisdiction, attracting a review standard of correctness - The court held that the impugned policies were not ultra vires the WCB - The Appeals Commission had determined the issue correctly - The court held that "... sufficient power is found in ss 6 and 91 [of the Workers' Compensation Act] to support policies relating to the manner in which the WCB goes about setting assessments and ensuring it raises sufficient premiums to fund its activities. While it would have been easy for the legislators to insert a provision in s. 6 expressly authorizing the Board to 'determine the Board's assessment policy', I find that power, if not express, is given by necessary implication to the Board of Directors." - See paragraphs 60 to 85.

Workers' Compensation - Topic 1071

Boards - Jurisdiction - Policies - [See Administrative Law - Topic 7565 ].

Workers' Compensation - Topic 7002

Practice - Appeals - Review of board's decision by an appeal board or by the courts - Jurisdiction - [See first Workers' Compensation - Topic 1071 ].

Workers' Compensation - Topic 7005

Practice - Appeals - Review of board's decision by an appeal board or by the courts - Scope of review - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3345.2 and first Workers' Compensation - Topic 1071 ].

Workers' Compensation - Topic 7006

Practice - Appeals - Review of board's decision by an appeal board or the courts - Standard of review - Challenger was in the land surveying business - Challenger applied for judicial review of the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) Appeals Commission that held that Challenger was: required to participate in the Industry Custom Pricing (ICP) Program for the Land and General Surveying Industry effective 2012; and not entitled to any Cost Relief from a 2009 claim for 2012 - Under an ICP program, "Cost Relief" was no longer available to industry members - Cost Relief was a premium option for employers that required them to pay an additional premium of $0.60 per $100.00 of applicable payroll over their usual rate - In return, the cost for employees who had suffered an aggravation of a pre-existing condition or previous injury were not charged to the employer - Following a 2009 surveying industry poll, the WCB considered that a majority of the industry (employers representing more than 50% of the insurable earnings of the employers in the industry) had voted in favour of the ICP Program - As a result, the WCB implemented ICP for the survey industry effective 2010 - Challenger argued that, with respect to the standard of review for the Appeals Commission's conclusion that the ICP did not conflict with other legislation, the correctness standard applied because the Appeals Commission was interpreting its home legislation in the context of other legislation - It had no expertise with the Alberta Human Rights Act and the federal Competition Act ("other legislation"), so there should be no deference to its interpretation - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that this was one of those limited or exceptional circumstances where questions of interpretation were to be reviewed on the correctness standard - The extricable issue was whether the other legislation essentially nullified the WCB's ICP policy - On this issue, the Appeals Commission did not have any particular expertise or experience, and its interpretation of the primacy of other legislation was a question of general law, and might have a broader application than within the workers' compensation field - No privative clause was at play - The question was not one of purely interpreting the "home statute", but might be boiled down to whether the WCB had jurisdiction to ignore the other legislation; this had at least a quasi-constitutional aspect - The Appeals Commission did not have any particular expertise in this area - See paragraphs 93 to 107.

Workers' Compensation - Topic 7006

Practice - Appeals - Review of board's decision by an appeal board or the courts - Standard of review - [See first and third Workers' Compensation - Topic 1071 ].

Workers' Compensation - Topic 8502

Assessments upon employers - General - Basis for assessment - [See third Workers' Compensation - Topic 1071 ].

Cases Noticed:

Thompson Brothers (Construction) Ltd. v. Workers' Compensation Board Appeals Commission (Alta.) et al. (2012), 522 A.R. 118; 544 W.A.C. 118; 2012 ABCA 78, refd to. [para. 28].

Martin v. Workers' Compensation Board (Alta.) et al. (2012), 536 A.R. 121; 559 W.A.C. 121; 2012 ABCA 248, refd to. [para. 28].

Gahir v. Workers' Compensation Board Appeals Commission (Alta.) et al. (2009), 448 A.R. 135; 447 W.A.C. 135; 2009 ABCA 59, refd to. [para. 28].

Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy Board, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369; 9 N.R. 115, refd to. [para. 28].

Wewayakum Indian Band v. Canada and Wewayakai Indian Band, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 259; 309 N.R. 201; 2003 SCC 45, refd to. [para. 28].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 28].

Gill et al. v. Workers' Compensation Board (1983), 149 D.L.R.(3d) 678; 1983 CarswellBC 755 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 28].

Canadian Forest Products Ltd. (Polar Division) v. International Woodworkers of America - Canada, Local 1-424 (1995), 50 L.A.C.(4th) 164; 1995 CarswelBC 3146, dist. [para. 28].

Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2001), 215 F.T.R. 172; 2001 FCT 1399, dist. [para. 28].

Carter v. Canada (Armed Forces) - see Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canada (Attorney General).

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 28].

Sunshine Coast Parents For French et al. v. Board of School Trustees of School District No. 46 (Sunshine Coast), [1990] B.C.T.C. Uned. 922; 49 B.C.L.R.(2d) 252; 44 Admin. L.R. 252 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 28].

Wood et al. v. Wetaskiwin No. 10 (County) (2003), 320 A.R. 286; 288 W.A.C. 286; 2003 ABCA 67, refd to. [para. 28].

Old St. Boniface Residents Association Inc. v. Winnipeg (City) et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1170; 116 N.R. 46; 69 Man.R.(2d) 134; 75 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 28].

Czerwinski v. Mulaner (2007), 443 A.R. 125; 2007 ABQB 536, refd to. [para. 28].

Shuchuk v. Workers' Compensation Board Appeals Commission (Alta.) (2007), 409 A.R. 321; 402 W.A.C. 321; 2007 ABCA 213, refd to. [para. 28].

Brand v. Workers' Compensation Board Appeals Commission (Alta.) et al. (2006), 403 A.R. 200; 2006 ABQB 546, refd to. [para. 30].

Parada v. Workers' Compensation Board Appeals Commission (Alta.) et al. (2011), 499 A.R. 169; 514 W.A.C. 169; 2011 ABCA 44, folld. [para. 30].

Dr. Q., Re, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226; 302 N.R. 34; 179 B.C.A.C. 170; 295 W.A.C. 170; 2003 SCC 19, refd to. [para. 30].

Schroder v. Workers' Compensation Board (Alta.) (2010), 490 A.R. 298; 497 W.A.C. 298; 2010 ABCA 344, refd to. [para. 30].

Allsop v. Alberta Workers' Compensation Board (Appeals Commission) et al., [2011] A.R. Uned. 546; 29 Admin. L.R.(5th) 321; 2011 ABCA 323, refd to. [para. 30].

Thompson Brothers (Construction) Ltd. v. Workers' Compensation Board Appeals Commission (Alta.) et al. (2012), 522 A.R. 118; 544 W.A.C. 118; 2012 ABCA 78, refd to. [para. 30].

White v. Workers' Compensation Board Appeals Commission (Alta.) (2006), 400 A.R. 183; 2006 ABQB 359, folld. [para. 30].

Alberta Teachers' Association v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 654; 424 N.R. 70; 519 A.R. 1; 539 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 30].

Manitoba Association of Health Care Professionals v. Nor-Man Regional Health Authority Inc., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 616; 423 N.R. 95; 275 Man.R.(2d) 16; 538 W.A.C. 16; 2011 SCC 59, refd to. [para. 30].

Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board) et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 708; 424 N.R. 220; 317 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 340; 986 A.P.R. 340; 2011 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 30].

Driver Iron Inc. v. International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Ironworkers, Local Union No. 720 et al., [2012] 3 S.C.R. 405; 437 N.R. 202; 539 A.R. 17; 561 W.A.C. 17; 2012 SCC 65, refd to. [para. 30].

Construction Labour Relations v. Driver Iron Inc. - see Driver Iron Inc. v. International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Ironworkers, Local Union No. 720 et al.

Canada Safeway Ltd. v. Shineton et al. (2008), 444 A.R. 131; 2007 ABQB 773, refd to. [para. 36].

Vallette Estate v. Workers' Compensation Board (Appeals Commission) et al. (2012), 519 A.R. 228; 539 W.A.C. 228; 2012 ABCA 12, leave to appeal denied (2012), 438 N.R. 389; 539 A.R. 400; 561 W.A.C. 400 (S.C.C.), folld. [para. 36].

Ryan v. Law Society of New Brunswick, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 247; 302 N.R. 1; 257 N.B.R.(2d) 207; 674 A.P.R. 207; 2003 SCC 20, refd to. [para. 36].

Giant Grosmont Petroleums Ltd. et al. v. Gulf Canada Resources Ltd. et al. (2001), 286 A.R. 146; 253 W.A.C. 146; 2001 ABCA 174, leave to appeal refused (2002), 289 N.R. 399 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 36].

Skyline Roofing Ltd. v. Workers' Compensation Board (Alta.) et al. (2001), 292 A.R. 86; 2001 ABQB 624, refd to. [para. 36].

Peace River Timothy Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Board Appeals Commission (Alta.) et al., [2014] A.R. Uned. 225; 2014 ABQB 156, refd to. [para. 36].

Northeast Bottle Depot Ltd. et al. v. Beverage Container Management Board (Alta.) et al. (2000), 269 A.R. 248; 2000 ABQB 572, refd to. [para. 36].

Gelinas v. Northwest Territories and Nunavut (Workers' Compensation Board), [2002] N.W.T.J. No. 100 (N.W.T.S.C.), refd to. [para. 50].

Maple Lodge Farms Ltd. v. Canada and Canada (Minister of Economic Development), [1982] 2 S.C.R. 2; 44 N.R. 354, refd to. [para. 83].

Skyline Roofing Ltd. v. Workers' Compensation Board (Alta.) et al. (2001), 292 A.R. 86; 2001 ABQB 624, refd to. [para. 84].

Workers' Compensation Board (Alta.) v. Workers' Compensation Board Appeals Commission (Alta.) (2005), 371 A.R. 318; 354 W.A.C. 318; 2005 ABCA 276, refd to. [para. 94].

Zakhary v. College of Physicians and Surgeons (Alta.) (2012), 548 A.R. 260; 2012 ABQB 623, refd to. [para. 98].

Canadian Union of Public Employees et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Labour), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 539; 304 N.R. 76; 173 O.A.C. 38; 2003 SCC 29, refd to. [para. 151].

Brink's Canada Ltd. v. Canada Council of Teamsters et al. (1995), 185 N.R. 299 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 154].

Scott v. College of Physicians and Surgeons (Sask.) (1992), 100 Sask.R. 291; 18 W.A.C. 291; 95 D.L.R.(4th) 706 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 160].

Finlay and Stefanyk v. Alberta Pharmaceutical Association et al. (2000), 255 A.R. 311; 220 W.A.C. 311; 2000 ABCA 119, refd to. [para. 160].

Dikranian v. Quebec (Attorney General), [2005] 3 S.C.R. 530; 342 N.R. 1; 2005 SCC 73, refd to. [para. 163].

Brunet v. Beaconsfield (Town), [1923] 4 D.L.R. 378 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 165].

Gustavson Drilling (1964) Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 271; 7 N.R. 401, refd to. [para. 166].

Statutes Noticed:

Workers' Compensation Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. W-15, sect. 6 [para. 62]; sect. 17(1) [para. 77]; sect. 91(3), sect. 91(4) [para. 75].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Janisch, H.N., Administrative Tribunals and the Law (1988-1989), Can. J. Admin. L. & Prac. 263, p. 279 [para. 168].

Counsel:

Liza J. Wold (Bryan & Company), for the appellant;

Dale P. Wispinski, for the Appeals Commission;

Manoj Gupta, for The Workers' Compensation Board.

This application was heard on June 12, 2014, by Graesser, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following decision on November 20, 2014.