Martin v. Workers' Compensation Board (Alta.) et al., (2012) 536 A.R. 121

• Judge: Fraser, C.J.A., Watson and McDonald, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: August 29, 2012
• Citations: (2012), 536 A.R. 121;2012 ABCA 248

Martin v. WCB (2012), 536 A.R. 121; 559 W.A.C. 121 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] A.R. TBEd. AU.085

Douglas Martin (respondent/applicant) v. The Workers' Compensation Board of Alberta, Appeals Commission for Alberta Workers' Compensation and Department of Justice Canada (appellants/respondents)

(1001-0247-AC; 2012 ABCA 248)

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

Alberta Court of Appeal

Fraser, C.J.A., Watson and McDonald, JJ.A.

August 29, 2012.

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 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 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 allowed the appeal and restored the adjudicator's decision denying compensation for failing to meet all four of the Policy eligibility criteria.

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, held that the employee was 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) - On judicial review, 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 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 Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the Board's appeal and restored the adjudicator's decision denying compensation for failing to meet all four of the Policy eligibility criteria - There was no conflict between the WCA and the GECA - The statutes contemplated two levels of government working together legally and administratively - It fell on the provincial workers' compensation boards to determine eligibility under s. 4 of the GECA by applying provincial eligibility criteria.

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 ].

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 ].

Workers' Compensation - Topic 7086.1

Practice - Appeals to the courts - Scope of appeal or review - 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 claimed compensation for stress, for which ineligibility was affirmed by the Alberta Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission on the ground that the employee failed to meet two of the four eligibility criteria under Board of Directors Policy, passed under authority of s. 6(a)(i) of the Alberta Workers' Compensation Act (WCA) - At issue was whether the Commission's decision to apply the Policy criteria in determining compensation eligibility for a federal employee under the GECA was subject to the reasonableness or correctness standard of review - The Alberta Court of Appeal found it unnecessary to decide which standard of review applied, as the Commission's decision that the Policy applied was both correct and reasonable - See paragraphs 25 to 31.

Cases Noticed:

Pattison (Jim) Enterprises Ltd. et al. v. Workers' Compensation Board (B.C.) (2011), 299 B.C.A.C. 29; 508 W.A.C. 29; 329 D.L.R.(4th) 433; 2011 BCCA 35, refd to. [para. 2].

Parada v. Workers' Compensation Board Appeals Commission (Alta.) et al. (2011), 499 A.R. 169; 514 W.A.C. 169; 2011 ABCA 44, refd to. [para. 5].

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.), refd to. [para. 18].

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. 25].

Holmberg v. Workers' Compensation Board Appeals Commission (Alta.) et al. (2011), 505 A.R. 319; 522 W.A.C. 319; 2011 ABCA 173, refd to. [para. 25].

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. 26].

Celgene Corp. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2011] 1 S.C.R. 3; 410 N.R. 127; 2011 SCC 1, refd to. [para. 26].

Alliance Pipeline Ltd. v. Smith, [2011] 1 S.C.R. 160; 412 N.R. 66; 2011 SCC 7, refd to. [para. 27].

Manitoba Association of Health Care Professionals v. Nor-Man Regional Health Authority Inc., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 616; 423 N.R. 95; 2011 SCC 59, refd to. [para. 26].

Nolan et al. v. Superintendent of Financial Services (Ont.) et al., [2009] 2 S.C.R. 678; 391 N.R. 234; 253 O.A.C. 256; 2009 SCC 39, refd to. [para. 27].

Rogers Communications Inc. et al. v. Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada et al. (2012), 432 N.R. 1; 2012 SCC 35, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Shepherd (C.), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 527; 391 N.R. 132; 331 Sask.R. 306; 460 W.A.C. 306; 2009 SCC 35, 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].

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. 29].

Canada Post Corp. v. Workers' Compensation Board (Sask.) et al. (1998), 174 Sask.R. 285; 13 Admin. L.R.(3d) 243 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 29].

Stene v. Workers' Compensation Board (Sask.), [2002] Sask.R. Uned. 26; 2002 SKQB 66, refd to. [para. 29].

Stewart v. Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission (N.B.) (2008), 331 N.B.(2d) 278; 849 A.P.R. 278; 2008 NBCA 45, refd to. [para. 29].

Elgie v. Workers' Compensation Board Appeals Commission (Alta.) et al. (2009), 464 A.R. 127; 467 W.A.C. 127; 311 D.L.R.(4th) 503; 2009 ABCA 277, refd to. [para. 32].

Fenton v. Thorley, [1903] A.C. 443, refd to. [para. 37].

Hewitson v. Robin Hood Mills, [1924] 1 D.L.R. 206; 18 Sask. L.R. 9, refd to. [para. 37].

Workmens' Compensation Board (N.B.) v. Theed, [1940] S.C.R. 553; [1940] 3 D.L.R. 561, refd to. [para. 38].

D.W. v. Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission (N.B.) et al. (2005), 288 N.B.R.(2d) 26; 751 A.P.R. 26; 257 D.L.R.(4th) 594; 2005 NBCA 70, refd to. [para. 38].

Progressive Homes Ltd. v. Lombard General Insurance Co. of Canada, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 245; 406 N.R. 182; 293 B.C.A.C. 1; 496 W.A.C. 1; 2010 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 41].

Reference Re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217; 228 N.R. 203; 161 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 42].

Canadian Western Bank et al. v. Alberta, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 3; 362 N.R. 111; 409 A.R. 207; 402 W.A.C. 207; 2007 SCC 22, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Sheldon S., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 254; 110 N.R. 321; 41 O.A.C. 81; 57 C.C.C.(3d) 115, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local 771, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 425; 341 N.R. 357; 275 Sask.R. 1; 365 W.A.C. 1; 2005 SCC 70, refd to. [para. 49].

Rees v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police et al. (2005), 246 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 79; 731 A.P.R. 79; 2005 NLCA 15, refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Proulx (J.K.D.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61; 249 N.R. 201; 142 Man.R.(2d) 161; 212 W.A.C. 161; 2000 SCC 65, refd to. [para. 60].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Mowat, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 471; 422 N.R. 248; 2011 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 60].

Duncan v. Walker (2001), 533 U.S. 167, refd to. [para. 60].

Canada Post Corp. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal (N.S.) et al. (2007), 261 N.S.R.(2d) 96; 835 A.P.R. 96; 2007 NSCA 129, refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Hare, [1934] 1 K.B. 354, refd to. [para. 68].

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. 73].

Bishop v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal (N.S.) et al. (2008), 264 N.S.R.(2d) 88; 847 A.P.R. 88; 2008 NSCA 29, refd to. [para. 75].

Embanks et al. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal (N.S.) et al. (2008), 264 N.S.R.(2d) 93; 847 A.P.R. 93; 2008 NSCA 28, refd to. [para. 75].

Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board) et al. (2011), 424 N.R. 220; 317 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 340; 986 A.P.R. 340; 2011 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 77].

Stewart v. Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission (N.B.) (2010), 363 N.B.R.(2d) 288; 936 A.P.R. 288; 323 D.L.R.(4th) 561; 2010 NBCA 67, refd to. [para. 81].

Statutes Noticed:

Government Employees Compensation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. G-5, sect. 4 [para. 58].

Workers' Compensation Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. W-15, sect. 1(1)(a) [para. 15]; sect. 2 [paras. 14, 71]; sect. 24(1)(a) [para. 16].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 87 [para. 48].

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes (5th Ed. 2008), p. 210 [para. 60].

Counsel:

A. Raven, for the respondent, Douglas Martin;

D.R. Mah, Q.C., for the appellant, Workers' Compensation Board (Alta.);

S.R. Hermiston, for the appellant, Alberta Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission;

B.F. Hughson (not appearing), for the appellant, Department of Justice Canada.

This appeal was heard on September 13, 2011, before Fraser, C.J.A., Watson and McDonald, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal.

On August 29, 2012, the judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

Watson, J.A. (Fraser, C.J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 84;

McDonald, J.A. - see paragraphs 85 to 99.