Sebastian v. Workers' Compensation Board (Sask.), (1994) 125 Sask.R. 28 (CA)

• Judge: Tallis, Cameron and Wakeling, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: January 11, 1994
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1994), 125 Sask.R. 28 (CA);1994 CanLII 3874 (SK CA);119 DLR (4th) 528;[1994] SJ No 523 (QL);125 Sask R 28;7 CCEL (2d) 270

Sebastian v. WCB (1994), 125 Sask.R. 28 (CA);

    81 W.A.C. 28

MLB headnote and full text

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

(Appeal File No. 1632)

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

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Tallis, Cameron and Wakeling, JJ.A.

October 18, 1994.

Summary:

The Workers' Compensation Board sus­pended the payment of compensation bene­fits to Sebastian while he was incar­cerated in a penitentiary. Sebastian applied for judicial review of the Board's decision.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 112 Sask.R. 111, allowed the application, quashed the deci­sion and ordered the Board to calculate Sebas­tian's loss and pay it to him. The Board appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the Board's decision.

Administrative Law - Topic 1420

Finality - Privative clauses - Effect of privative clauses - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3202 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 3202

Judicial review - General - Scope of review - Section 22(2) of the Workers' Compensation Act provided that decisions and findings of the Workers' Compensation Board under the Act upon all ques­tions of fact and law were "final and con­clusive and no proceedings by or before the board shall be restrained by injunction, prohib­ition or other proceeding or remov­able by certiorari or otherwise in any court" - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal character­ized the provision as a "true" privative clause - The court dis­cussed the standard of review to be applied by a superior court reviewing a decision when the governing legislation contains a "true" privative clause - See paragraphs 29 to 46.

Administrative Law - Topic 8264

Administrative powers - Discretionary powers - Fettering of discretion - The Workers' Compensation Board suspended payment of compensation benefits to Seb­astian while he was incarcerated in a peni­tentiary - Sebastian argued that in decid­ing to sus­pend his benefits, the Board rigidly relied on its policy directives and thereby fettered its discre­tion - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal rejected the contention that the Board so fettered its discretion that it lost jurisdiction - Sebas­tian had been given every opportun­ity to make full submissions and it could not be said that the Board refused to con­sider the merits of the claim by blindly following a policy - See para­graphs 54 to 60.

Administrative Law - Topic 9026

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

Workers' Compensation - Topic 1061

Boards - Jurisdiction - General - The Workers' Compensation Board sus­pend­ed pay­ment of compensation benefits to Seb­astian while he was incarcerated in a peni­tentiary - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the Board acted ultra vires its stat­utory powers because, in mak­ing its deci­sion, it relied on two policy direc­tives, neither of which was given the force of law or regu­lation - The court quashed the Board's decision, concluding that in the absence of "valid" regula­tions the Board had no auth­ority to con­sider the issue - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal restored the Board's deci­sion, holding that s. 22 of the Workers' Com­pensation Act evi­denced the legisla­ture's clear intent to confer juris­dic­tion on the Board to de- cide the issue - See para­graphs 51 to 53.

Workers' Compensation - Topic 5504

Compensation - Bars - Incarceration - The Workers' Compensation Board sus­pended payment of benefits to Sebastian while he was incarcerated in a penitentiary - Although the Board conceded that Seb­astian was disabled by his work related injury during his incarceration, it con­cluded that his earn­ing capacity was impaired by reason of his incarcer­ation - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that the Board had jurisdic­tion under the Workers' Compensation Act to make the determina­tion and that its deci­sion was not patently unreasonable or clearly irrational - See paragraphs 61 to 64.

Workers' Compensation - Topic 7088

Practice - Appeals to the courts - Privative clauses - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3202 ].

Workers' Compensation - Topic 7127

Practice - Judicial review - Privative clauses - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3202 ].

Cases Noticed:

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 579 v. Bradco Construction Ltd., [1993] 2 S.C.R. 316; 153 N.R. 81; 106 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 140; 334 A.P.R. 140, refd to. [para. 32, foot­note 14].

Farrell v. Workmen's Compensation Board (B.C.), [1962] S.C.R. 48, consd. [para. 32].

Acme Home Improvements Ltd. v. Workmen's Compensation Board (B.C.) (1957), 23 W.W.R.(N.S.) 545 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 963 v. New Brunswick Liquor Corp., [1979] 2 S.C.R. 227; 26 N.R. 341; 25 N.B.R.(2d) 237; 51 A.P.R. 237; 97 D.L.R.(3d) 417; 79 C.L.L.C. 14,209, consd. [para. 38].

Service Employees' International Union, Local No. 333 v. Nipawin District Staff Nurses' Association et al., [1975] 1 S.C.R. 382; 41 D.L.R.(3d) 6, refd to. [para. 39].

Pearlman v. Keepers and Governors of Harrow School, [1979] 1 Q.B. 56 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 42].

Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission, [1969] 2 A.C. 147 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 42].

Syndicat national des employees de la commission scolaire regional de l'Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employes de service, Local 298 (FTQ), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1048; 95 N.R. 161; 24 Q.A.C. 244, consd. [para. 44].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Public Ser­vice Alliance of Canada, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 941; 150 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Port of London Authority, ex p. Kynoch, [1919] 1 K.B. 176, refd to. [para. 56].

Maple Lodge Farms Ltd. v. Canada and Minister of Economic Development, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 2; 44 N.R. 354; 137 D.L.R.(3d) 558, refd to. [para. 57].

Tremblay v. Commission des affaires sociales et autres, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 952; 136 N.R. 5; 47 Q.A.C. 169, refd to. [para. 57].

Consolidated Bathurst Packaging Ltd. v. International Woodworkers of America, Local 2-69 and Labour Relations Board (Ont.), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 282; 105 N.R. 161; 38 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 57].

Pezim v. British Columbia Securities Commission et al. (1994), 168 N.R. 321; 46 B.C.A.C. 1; 75 W.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 61, footnote 17].

Shalansky and Saskatchewan Union of Nurses v. Regina Pasqua Hospital, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 303; 47 N.R. 76; 22 Sask.R. 153; [1983] 6 W.W.R. 289; 145 D.L.R.(3d) 413; 83 C.L.L.C. 14,026, refd to. [para. 61].

Statutes Noticed:

Workers' Compensation Act, S.S. 1979, c. W-17.1, sect. 11 [para. 29]; sect. 13, sect. 18, sect. 19, sect. 20, sect. 21, sect. 22, sect. 25, sect. 26, sect. 27, sect. 67, sect. 67.1, sect. 68, sect. 69, sect. 104(1), sect. 135, sect. 135.1, sect. 136, sect. 137 [para. 28]; sect. 162 [para. 30]; sect. 181 [para. 28].

Counsel:

E.L. Bennett, for the appellant;

K.E. Clarke, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on January 11, 1994, before Tallis, Cameron and Wakeling, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. On October 18, 1994, Tallis, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.