Workmen's Compensation Board (N.B.) v. Cullen Stevedoring Co., (1970) 2 N.B.R.(2d) 435 (SCC)
| Judge | Abbott, Martland, Judson, Ritchie and Pigeon, JJ. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Canada |
| Case Date | May 04, 1970 |
| Jurisdiction | Canada (Federal) |
| Citations | (1970), 2 N.B.R.(2d) 435 (SCC);[1971] SCR 49;2 NBR (2d) 435;1970 CanLII 184 (SCC);1970 CanLII 189 (SCC);[1971] SCR 413;15 DLR (3d) 60;12 DLR (3d) 421 |
WCB v. Cullen Stevedoring Co. (1970), 2 N.B.R.(2d) 435 (SCC);
2 R.N.-B.(2e) 435
MLB headnote and full text
Sommaire et texte intégral
Workmen's Compensation Board of New Brunswick v. Cullen Stevedoring Company Limited
Indexed As: Workmen's Compensation Board (N.B.) v. Cullen Stevedoring Co.
Répertorié: Workmen's Compensation Board (N.B.) v. Cullen Stevedoring Co.
Supreme Court of Canada
Abbott, Martland, Judson, Ritchie and Pigeon, JJ.
May 4, 1970.
Summary:
Résumé:
The Supreme Court of Canada reversed the New Brunswick Court of Appeal and restored the decision of the Workmen's Compensation Board which affirmed two "special" or "demerit" assessments imposed upon Cullen Stevedoring Company Limited because of higher than average claims experience during the years 1966 and 1967.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that pursuant to Section 52 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, the Workmen's Compensation Board was authorized to impose a special assessment on a particular firm or establishment and that the meaning of the word "industry" as found in section 52 does not refer collectively to all stevedoring employers.
The Supreme Court of Canada also stated that the words "merit rating" in section 52 authorized the Board to give a firm merits and demerits depending upon the firm's claims experience.
Workers' Compensation - Topic 8604
Assessments upon employers - Special assessments - For high accident experience - Workmen's Compensation Act, Sections 52 and 54 - Whether Workmen's Compensation Board is authorized by Statute to impose a special assessment on an employer because of a high accident experience of that particular employer (Supreme Court of Canada).
Cases Noticed:
Wisconsin Compensation Rating and Inspection Bureau v. Mortensen (1938), 227 N.W. 679, folld.
Statutes Noticed:
Workmen's Compensation Act, R.S.N.B. 1952, c. 255, sect. 52, sect. 54, sect. 55.
Counsel:
T.B. Drummie, for the appellant;
J.W. Turnbull, for the respondent.
APPEAL from a decision of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal, (1969), 1 N.B.R.(2d) 621, reversing a decision of the Workmen's Compensation Board which affirmed a special assessment imposed upon a stevedoring firm because of its higher than average claims experience.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by Pigeon, J.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carriage of Goods under Bills of Lading and Similar Documents
...sea waybills, for instance, is outside the application of the Act. 119 Bills of Lading Act, ibid., s.4. 120 ComincoLtd. v. Bilton (1970), 15 D.L.R. (3d) 60 (S.C.C.). 121 Bills of Lading Act, above note 55, s.4. 122 Unless there is evidence to show that the shipowner and charterer mutually i......
-
R. v. Sword (J.C.), 2015 SKCA 116
...Pozniak who explained the breath testing procedure to the accused and conducted the tests. The first breath sample was taken at either 2:49 or 2:53 a.m. and the second at 3:11 a.m. The legislation requires at least 15 minutes between the 2 tests. Here an interval of at least 17 minutes was ......
-
R. v. Sword (J.C.), 2015 SKQB 9
...Pozniak who explained the breath testing procedure to the accused and conducted the tests. The first breath sample was taken at either 2:49 or 2:53 a.m. and the second at 3:11 a.m. The legislation requires at least 15 minutes between the 2 tests. Here an interval of at least 17 minutes was ......
-
R. v. Sword (J.C.), 2015 SKCA 116
...Pozniak who explained the breath testing procedure to the accused and conducted the tests. The first breath sample was taken at either 2:49 or 2:53 a.m. and the second at 3:11 a.m. The legislation requires at least 15 minutes between the 2 tests. Here an interval of at least 17 minutes was ......
-
R. v. Sword (J.C.), 2015 SKQB 9
...Pozniak who explained the breath testing procedure to the accused and conducted the tests. The first breath sample was taken at either 2:49 or 2:53 a.m. and the second at 3:11 a.m. The legislation requires at least 15 minutes between the 2 tests. Here an interval of at least 17 minutes was ......
-
Carriage of Goods under Bills of Lading and Similar Documents
...sea waybills, for instance, is outside the application of the Act. 119 Bills of Lading Act, ibid., s.4. 120 ComincoLtd. v. Bilton (1970), 15 D.L.R. (3d) 60 (S.C.C.). 121 Bills of Lading Act, above note 55, s.4. 122 Unless there is evidence to show that the shipowner and charterer mutually i......