Sebastian v. Workers' Compensation Board (Sask.), (1993) 112 Sask.R. 111 (QB)

• Judge: Noble, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: August 04, 1993
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1993), 112 Sask.R. 111 (QB)

Sebastian v. WCB (1993), 112 Sask.R. 111 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Dean Sebastian (applicant) v. Workers' Compensation Board (respondent)

(1993 Q.B.M. No. 286)

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

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Regina

Noble, J.

August 4, 1993.

Summary:

The Workers' Compensation Board sus­pended the payment of compensation bene­fits to Sebastian from September 30, 1985, to November 12, 1987, while he was incar­cerated in a penitentiary. Sebastian applied for judicial review of the Board's decision.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application, quashed the decision and ordered the Board to calculate Sebastian's loss and pay it to him.

Administrative Law - Topic 3211

Judicial review - General - Review of exercise of statutory power - The Workers' Compensation Board suspended the pay­ment of compensation benefits to Sebastian while he was incarcerated in penitentiary - Sebastian applied for judicial review, arguing, inter alia, that the Board acted ultra vires of its statutory powers, because in making its decision, the Board relied on two policy directives, neither of which was given the force of law or regulation by being approved by the Lieutenant Gov­ernor-in-Council - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench agreed and quashed the Board's decision - See para­graph 12.

Administrative Law - Topic 3221

Judicial review - General - Unreasonable­ness of decision attacked - The Workers' Compensation Board suspended payment of compensation benefits to Sebastian for a period while he was incarcerated in penitentiary - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench quashed the Board's deci­sion because it had fettered its discretion and had acted ultra vires its statutory powers - The court opined that the Board's decision to suspend benefits, based on the premise that Sebastian's loss of earning capacity was due to his incarceration, was patently unreasonable - See paragraph 17.

Administrative Law - Topic 3503

Judicial review - Mandamus - When available - The Workers' Compensation Board suspended the payment of compen­sation benefits to Sebastian for a period while he was incarcerated in penitentiary - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench quashed the Board's decision and issued an order for mandamus to compel the Board to calculate Sebastian's loss and pay it to him - The court held that an order of mandamus was warranted, where the only things left for the Board to do were to calculate the loss and pay it to Sebastian, neither of which required an exercise of discretion by the Board - See paragraphs 18 to 20.

Administrative Law - Topic 3584

Judicial review - Mandamus - Bars - Delay, inconvenience or expense - On September 26, 1985, the Workers' Com­pensation Board initially advised Sebastian that his benefits would be suspended while he was incarcerated in a penitentiary - Sebastian applied for certiorari and mandamus - The Board raised a prelimi­nary objection relating to the timeliness of the application - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench rejected the Board's objection, where the Board had consistent­ly dealt with many appeals and reviews requested by Sebastian over the years (the last decision was rendered on December 24, 1992) and the Board was not preju­diced because there had been no signifi­cant change in the facts or positions of the parties - See paragraphs 6 and 7.

Administrative Law - Topic 3589

Judicial review - Mandamus - Bars - Discretionary power - [See Administra­tive Law - Topic 3503 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 5186

Judicial review - Certiorari - Discretion­ary bars to issue of certiorari - Delay, inconvenience or expense - [See Admin­istrative Law - Topic 3584 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 8264

Administrative powers - Discretionary powers - Fettering of discretion - The Workers' Compensation Board suspended the payment of benefits to Sebastian while he was incarcerated in penitentiary - Sebastian applied for judicial review, arguing, inter alia, that in deciding to suspend his benefits, both initially and thereafter, the Board rigidly relied on its policy directives and thereby fettered its discretion - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench quashed the Board's deci­sion, holding that the Board so consistently relied on its policy as set out in the direc­tives that it disabled itself from exercising its discretion under the Workers' Compen­sation Act and lost jurisdiction over the claim - See paragraphs 13 to 16.

Administrative Law - Topic 8927

Boards and tribunals - Powers - Statutory powers - [See Administrative - Law Topic 3211 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 9026

Boards and tribunals - Jurisdiction - Loss of - By fettering of discretion - [See Administrative Law - Topic 8264 ].

Interest - Topic 3501

Statutory interest - On judgments - Gen­eral - The Workers' Compensation Board suspended the payment of compensation benefits to Sebastian for a period while he was incarcerated in penitentiary - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench quashed the Board's decision and ordered the Board to calculate Sebastian's loss and pay it to him - The court refused Sebastian's request for prejudgment inter­est, because payment of the suspended benefit was neither a judgment for dam­ages or for the recovery of a debt as required by the Prejudgment Interest Act and the court had no authority to direct the Board to pay interest - See paragraph 21.

Statutes - Topic 6704

Operation and effect - Commencement, duration and repeal - Retrospective and retroactive enactments - Presumption against retrospectivity and retroactivity - In September 1985 the Workers' Compen­sation Board advised Sebastian that his benefits would be suspended while he was incarcerated in a penitentiary - In 1989, s. 104 of the Workers' Compensation Act was amended to permit the Board to sus­pend payment of benefits based on the worker's loss of earning capacity during any period in which the worker was un­available for employment for a cause unrelated to the injury - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the 1989 amendment could not rea­sonably be construed as intending a retro­spective effect and therefore the law in effect in 1985 applied - See paragraph 5.

Statutes - Topic 6704

Operation and effect - Commencement, duration and repeal - Retrospective and retroactive enactments - Presumption against retrospectivity and retroactivity - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench stated that "[t]he general rule respecting the retrospective nature of legislation has always been that unless the particular statute uses express words to make it so or there is a distinct implication to be drawn from the construction of the statute as a whole that its effect is retrospective, then any amendment is presumed not to have a retroactive effect" - See paragraph 5.

Workers' Compensation - Topic 5502

Compensation - Interest - [See Interest - Topic 3501 ].

Workers' Compensation - Topic 5504

Compensation - Bars - Incarceration - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3221 ].

Workers' Compensation - Topic 7083

Practice - Appeals to the courts - Excess or loss of jurisdiction - [See Administra­tive Law - Topic 8264 ].

Cases Noticed:

MacKenzie v. Commissioner of Teachers' Pensions (B.C.) (1992), 15 B.C.A.C. 69; 27 W.A.C. 69; 94 D.L.R.(4th) 532 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Maxwell v. Callbeck, [1939] S.C.R. 440, refd to. [para. 5].

Crommer v. Workers' Compensation Board (Sask.) et al. (1992), 98 Sask.R. 213 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 6].

Reimer v. Workers' Compensation Board (Sask.) (1991), 96 Sask.R. 183 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 8].

Stephen v. College of Physicians and Surgeons (Sask.), [1989] 6 W.W.R. 1; 76 Sask.R. 57 (C.A.), consd. [para. 12].

Lloyd v. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles (B.C.), [1971] 3 W.W.R. 619 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Jackson v. Beaudry (1969), 70 W.W.R.(N.S.) 572 (Sask. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 14].

Testa v. Workers' Compensation Board (B.C.) (1989), 58 D.L.R.(4th) 676 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Maple Lodge Farms Ltd. v. Canada, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 2; 44 N.R. 354, refd to. [para. 14].

Innisfil (Township) v. Vespra (Township), South Simcoe Estates et al., [1981] 2 S.C.R. 145; 37 N.R. 43, refd to. [para. 14].

Cholod et al. v. Mayor and Council of Regina, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 484; 6 N.R. 525, refd to. [para. 18].

Saskatchewan (Attorney General) et al. v. Saskatchewan Association of Architects, [1980] 2 W.W.R. 242; 1 Sask.R. 305 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Statutes Noticed:

Workers' Compensation Act, S.S. 1979, c. W-17.1, sect. 22, sect. 25, sect. 68, sect. 69, sect. 104, sect. 181 [para. 3].

Workers' Compensation Amendment Act, S.S. 1988-89, c. 63, sect. 10, sect. 20, sect. 22 [para. 3].

Authors and Works Noticed:

de Smith, S.A., Judicial Review of Administrative Action (2nd Ed.), p. 294 [para. 14].

Jones, David P., and de Villars, A.S., Principles of Administrative Law, p. 366 [para. 19].

Counsel:

K. Clarke, for the applicant;

E. Bennett, for the respondent.

This case was heard before Noble, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Regina, who delivered the following judgment on August 4, 1993.