Martin v. Workers' Compensation Board (Alta.) et al., (2014) 569 A.R. 6

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Karakatsanis and Wagner, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 28, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2014), 569 A.R. 6;2014 SCC 25;[2014] ACS no 25;[2014] 1 SCR 546;[2014] SCJ No 25 (QL);368 DLR (4th) 667

Martin v. WCB (2014), 569 A.R. 6; 606 W.A.C. 6 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] A.R. TBEd. MR.126

Douglas Martin (appellant) v. Workers' Compensation Board of Alberta, Appeals Commission for Alberta Workers' Compensation and Attorney General of Canada (respondents) and Workers' Compensation Board of British Columbia, Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail and Workers' Compensation Board of Nova Scotia (interveners)

(35052; 2014 SCC 25; 2014 CSC 25)

Indexed As: Martin v. Workers' Compensation Board (Alta.) et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Karakatsanis and Wagner, JJ.

March 28, 2014.

Summary:

The federal Crown, rather than establishing its own workers' compensation scheme for federal employees, effected compensation through the use of provincial workers' compensation tribunals pursuant to the Government Employees Compensation Act (GECA). A federal employee (Parks Canada) received a letter from his employer requesting that he provide certain data from his work computer, which the Crown legitimately needed to respond to a request under the Access to Information Act. The letter triggered work-related chronic stress, for which the employee claimed compensation under s. 4(1)(a)(i) of the GECA (personal injury caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment). In Alberta, an employee was entitled to compensation for stress-related injury only if all four criteria established by Workers' Compensation Board Policy were met. The adjudicator, upheld by both the Board's Dispute Resolution and Review Body and the Board's Appeal Commission, determined that the employee was not eligible for compensation because he did not meet two of the Policy criteria (requirement of excessive or unusual pressures and tensions compared to the average worker in a similar occupation and objective confirmation of a causative link). The employee sought judicial review.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application and quashed the adjudicator's decision. The court held that the GECA provided the sole basis for entitlement to compensation; that federal employees claiming compensation for stress were not subject to the provincial Policy criteria. Once s. 4(1)(a) of the GECA was satisfied, a federal employee was entitled to compensation. The provincial workers' compensation legislation governed the rate of compensation, but not eligibility. The Board appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported (2012), 536 A.R. 121; 559 W.A.C. 121, allowed the appeal and restored the adjudicator's decision denying compensation for failing to meet all four of the Policy eligibility criteria. The employee appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal. Provincial boards and authorities were required under the GECA to apply their own provincial laws and policies as long as they did not conflict with the GECA. The eligibility criteria of the provincial policy did not conflict with the GECA. The Commission's decision to reject the employee's claim was reasonable.

Government Programs - Topic 3622

Federal employees' compensation - Entitlement - Federal v. provincial legislation - The federal Crown, rather than establishing its own workers' compensation scheme for federal employees, effected compensation through the use of provincial workers' compensation tribunals pursuant to the Government Employees Compensation Act (GECA) - A federal employee (Parks Canada) received a letter from his employer requesting that he provide certain data from his work computer, which the Crown legitimately needed to respond to a request under the Access to Information Act - The letter triggered work-related chronic stress, for which he claimed compensation under s. 4(1)(a)(i) of the GECA (personal injury caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment) - In Alberta, an employee was entitled to compensation for stress-related injury only if all four criteria established by Workers' Compensation Board Policy were met - The adjudicator, upheld by both the Board's Dispute Resolution and Review Body and the Appeal Commission, found the employee ineligible for compensation because he did not meet two of the Policy criteria (requirement of excessive or unusual pressures and tensions compared to the average worker in a similar occupation and objective confirmation of a causative link) - A Chambers judge quashed the adjudicator's decision, finding that the GECA provided the sole basis for entitlement to compensation; that federal employees claiming compensation for stress were not subject to provincial policy criteria - The Alberta Court of Appeal restored the adjudicator's decision - The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the employee's appeal - Both eligibility and compensation rates were to be determined under provincial law and policies - As the GECA did not specify criteria for entitlement, there was no conflict with the GECA - There was also no conflict between the definition of "accident" in the GECA and the Policy's requirement that chronic stress result from "excessive or unusual" events where there was "objective confirmation" - The Commission's denial of benefits for the employee's failure to meet the "excessive or unusual" criterion was reasonable - Since that criterion was not met, it was unnecessary to consider the Commission's decision on the fourth criterion - See paragraphs 18 to 63.

Government Programs - Topic 3625

Federal employees' compensation - Entitlement - Mental stress - [See Government Programs - Topic 3622 ].

Government Programs - Topic 3665

Federal employees' compensation - Administration - Jurisdiction of provincial tribunal - [See Government Programs - Topic 3622 ].

Statutes - Topic 1845

Interpretation - Intrinsic aids - Titles, headings and section numbers - Headings and marginal notes - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "Marginal notes are not part of the provision and are not determinative of the meaning of the section" - See paragraph 20.

Workers' Compensation - Topic 5567

Compensation - Persons entitled - Employees - Federal employees - [See Government Programs - Topic 3622 ].

Workers' Compensation - Topic 5611

Compensation - Compensable injuries and disabilities - Psychological injuries (incl. stress) - [See Government Programs - Topic 3622 ].

Cases Noticed:

Rees v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police et al. (2005), 246 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 79; 731 A.P.R. 79; 2005 NLCA 15, leave to appeal denied, [2005] 2 S.C.R. x; 347 N.R. 199, refd to. [para. 2, footnote 1].

Stewart v. Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission (N.B.) (2010), 363 N.B.R.(2d) 288; 936 A.P.R. 288; 2010 NBCA 67, refd to. [para. 2, footnote 1].

Canada Post Corp. v. Smith et al. (1998), 109 O.A.C. 117; 40 O.R.(3d) 97; 159 D.L.R.(4th) 283 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied [1998] 3 S.C.R. v; 236 N.R. 386, refd to. [para. 2, footnote 2].

Thomson v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal (N.S.) et al. (2003), 212 N.S.R.(2d) 81; 665 A.P.R. 81; 2003 NSCA 14, refd to. [para. 2, footnote 2].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Luo et al. (2009), 273 B.C.A.C. 203; 461 W.A.C. 203; 96 B.C.L.R.(4th) 7; 2009 BCCA 318, refd to. [para. 2, footnote 2].

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. 11].

Cape Breton Development Corp. v. Morrison Estate et al. (2003), 218 N.S.R.(2d) 53; 687 A.P.R. 53; 2003 NSCA 103, refd to. [para. 38].

McLellan v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal (N.S.) et al. (2003), 218 N.S.R.(2d) 176; 687 A.P.R. 176; 2003 NSCA 106, refd to. [para. 39, footnote 3].

Ryan Estate et al. v. Universal Marine Ltd. et al. (2013), 447 N.R. 1; 339 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 312; 1054 A.P.R. 312; 2013 SCC 44, refd to. [para. 51].

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. 51].

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

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. 61].

Statutes Noticed:

Government Employees Compensation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. G-5, sect. 2, sect. 4 [para. 13].

Workers' Compensation Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. W-15, sect. 1(1)(a) [para. 13].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, April 16, 1918, 1st Sess., 13th Parl., vol. 132, p. 812 [para. 30]; March 31, 1947, 3rd Sess., 20th Parl., vol. 22, p. 1892 [para. 37]; May 7, 1952, 6th Sess., 21st Parl., vol. 2, p. 1974 [para. 34]; February 28, 1955, 2nd Sess., 22nd Parl., vol. 2, p. 1561 [para. 32].

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 87 [para. 18].

Counsel:

Andrew Raven, Andrew Astritis and Amanda Montague-Reinholdt, for the appellant;

Douglas R. Mah, Q.C., and Ron Goltz, for the respondent, the Workers' Compensation Board of Alberta;

Sandra Hermiston, for the respondent, the Appeals Commission for Alberta Workers' Compensation;

John S. Tyhurst, for the respondent, the Attorney General of Canada;

Laurel M. Courtenay and Scott A. Nielsen, for the intervener, the Workers' Compensation Board of British Columbia;

Pierre Michel Lajeunesse and Lucille Giard, for the intervener, Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail;

Roderick (Rory) H. Rogers, Q.C., and Madeleine F. Hearns, for the intervener, Workers' Compensation Board of Nova Scotia.

Solicitors of Record:

Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne & Yazbeck, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant;

Workers' Compensation Board of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, for the respondent, the Workers' Compensation Board of Alberta;

Appeals Commission for Alberta Workers' Compensation, Edmonton, Alberta, for the respondent, the Appeals Commission for Alberta Workers' Compensation;

Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent, the Attorney General of Canada;

Workers' Compensation Board of British Columbia, Richmond, British Columbia, for the intervener, the Workers' Compensation Board of British Columbia;

Vigneault Thibodeau Bergeron, Quebec, Quebec, for the intervener, Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail;

Stewart McKelvey, Halifax, Nova Scotia, for the intervener, the Workers' Compensation Board of Nova Scotia.

This appeal was heard on December 10, 2013, before McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Karakatsanis and Wagner, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On March 28, 2014, Karakatsanis, J., delivered the following judgment in both official languages for the Court.