Worker's Compensation Board (P.E.I.) v. Dyment, (2016) 376 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 107 (PEICA)

• Judge: Jenkins, C.J.P.E.I., Murphy and Mitchell, JJ.A.
• Case Date: November 19, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Prince Edward Island
• Citations: (2016), 376 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 107 (PEICA)

WCB v. Dyment (2016), 376 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 107 (PEICA);

    1170 A.P.R. 107

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2016] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. TBEd. MY.018

Worker's Compensation Board of Prince Edward Island (appellant) v. Nora Dyment (respondent)

(S1-CA-1314; 2016 PECA 10)

Indexed As: Worker's Compensation Board (P.E.I.) v. Dyment

Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal

Jenkins, C.J.P.E.I., Murphy and Mitchell, JJ.A.

May 6, 2016.

Summary:

The Board denied the worker's compensation claim on the basis that her right knee injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment. The Appeal Tribunal, reviewing the Board decision on the standard of correctness, found that the worker did indeed twist her knee, that this was a chance event which arose out of and in the course of her employment, and accordingly the injury qualified her for compensation. The Board appealed.

The Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The Court confirmed the Appeal Tribunal's power to review all Board decisions on the standard of correctness. On the reasonableness standard of review, the Court held that the Appeal Tribunal dealt sufficiently with the submissions made by the Board and provided reasons that demonstrated it considered the Board submissions and why it rejected them.

Administrative Law - Topic 9122

Boards and tribunals - Administrative appeals - Scope of appeal or standard of review - [See Workers' Compensation - Topic 7006 ].

Statutes - Topic 2601

Interpretation - Interpretation of words and phrases - Modern rule (incl. interpretation by context) - General principles - [See Workers' Compensation - Topic 7006 ].

Workers' Compensation - Topic 7006

Practice - Appeals - Review of board's decision by an appeal board or by the courts - Standard of review - This appeal raised the issue of the proper standard of review on an appeal from a Board decision under the Workers Compensation Act; specifically, whether the Appeal Tribunal was required to accord deference to Board findings of fact and conclusions based on findings of fact - The Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal confirmed the Tribunal's power to review all Board decisions on the standard of correctness - The Court carried out a full exercise in statutory interpretation, in stages: textual, contextual, purposive, and consequential - "The golden rule is that words of an enactment are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act." - In the end result, the Court concluded that "[i]n the exercise of the exclusive and broad powers conferred upon it, the Appeal Tribunal can review a decision of the Board, including decisions on questions of fact, on the standard of correctness. It can undertake its own analysis of the issues and determine whether or not it agrees with the Board's decision, and if it does not agree, it can substitute its own view for that of the Board. Accordingly, the Board's appeal on standard of review should be dismissed." - See paragraphs 9 to 57.

Workers' Compensation - Topic 7086.1

Practice - Appeals to the courts - Scope or standard of appeal or review - The Board denied the worker's compensation claim on the basis that her right knee injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment - The Appeal Tribunal, reviewing the Board decision on the standard of correctness, found that the worker did indeed twist her knee, that this was a chance event which arose out of and in the course of her employment, and accordingly the injury qualified her for compensation - On appeal, the Board submitted that the Appeal Tribunal failed to deal with material Board submissions that addressed the substance of the worker's appeal from the Board decision, and failed to provide reasons that demonstrated it considered those Board submissions and why it rejected them - The Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal dismissed the Board's appeal - "In its review of the Appeal Tribunal decision-making and decision, this Court employs the reasonableness standard of review. The principle of reasonableness, the requirement for reasons, and the duty to deal with essential submissions provide a framework for analysis. ... In its decision-making, the Appeal Tribunal dealt sufficiently with the submissions made by the Board that addressed the substance of the worker appeal from the decision of the Board to deny her benefits, and the Tribunal provided reasons that demonstrate it considered the Board submissions and why it rejected them. The Tribunal did not make a reviewable error in its decision-making process or in its decision." - See paragraphs 9, 58 to 70.

Counsel:

Brian L. Waddell, for the appellant;

Maureen A. Peters, for Nora Dyment;

Michael G. Drake, for Worker's Compensation Appeal Tribunal;

Brian J. McKenna, Q.C., for the employer.

This appeal was heard at Charlottetown, P.E.I., on November 19, 2015, before Jenkins, C.J.P.E.I., Murphy and Mitchell, JJ.A., of the Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal. In reasons written by Jenkins, C.J.P.E.I., the Court delivered the following judgment, dated May 6, 2016.