Canadian Employment Law Today

Canadian Employment Law Today Canadian Employment Law Today | | 3 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2014 WCB eligibility for federal workers subject to provincial rules: Supreme Court Parks Canada employee unsuccessfully challenges denial of workers' compensation claim under Alberta policy BY JEFFREY R. SMITH CANADA'S TOP COURT has upheld an Alberta Workers' Compensation decision that a federal government worker is not entitled to compensation for chronic onset stress. Douglas Martin was hired as a park war- den for Parks Canada in 1973. In 2000, he launched a health and safety complaint ar- guing wardens should be armed when car- rying out law enforcement duties. Martin and Parks Canada went through several internal complaint processes, which led to court proceedings and appeals. Because of his position at the head of the complaint, Martin felt he suff ered professionally be- cause of a loss of work and training, as well as promotion opportunities. In June 2006, Parks Canada told Martin to disclose information on his work computer in relation to an access to information re- quest. Six months later, Martin was warned that he hadn't responded suffi ciently to the instructions and if he didn't provide a proper response, he would be disciplined. However, the due date for compliance was fi ve days before Martin actually received the letter demanding compliance. Martin had a previous written reprimand on his fi le, so he was worried he would be fi red. For him, the warning letter was the fi nal straw after years of confl ict over his health and safety complaint, triggering a psychological condition. Martin went on medical leave on Dec. 23, 2006, to seek medical treatment. He also fi led a workers' compensation claim for chronic onset stress. As a federal employee, Martin's claim was governed by the Government Employees Compensation Act (GECA), which stated that federal workers who suff er workplace injuries were entitled to compensation "at the same rate and under the same condi- tions" as workers under jurisdiction of the province in which they were employed. As such, his claim was handled by the Alberta Workers' Compensation Board (WCB). Martin's claim was denied fi rst by the WCB and, on appeal, the Dispute Resolution and Decision Review Body and the Alberta Appeals Commission for workers' compen- sation. All three decision-makers deter- mined that although Martin's claim met two of the criteria for chronic onset stress under WCB policy — a confi rmed diagnosis and it was predominantly caused by work-related events or stressors — it failed to meet two other criteria, that "work-related events are excessive or unusual in comparison to the normal pressures and tensions experienced by the average worker in a similar occupa- tion" as well as an objective confi rmation of the events. e appeals commission found the main causes of Martin's stress — health and safety concerns, confl icts in the workplace, perfor- mance management and the employer's re- quest for disclosure of information — were normal pressures and tensions and there- fore did not qualify as excessive or unusual. Federal worker challenged jurisdiction of provincial policy Martin then appealed to the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, which overturned the de- cision and sent it back to the appeals com- mission. e court found Martin's eligibil- ity for compensation should be determined solely under the GECA, which was intended to ensure all federal employees were treated under the same rules. However, on appeal by the WCB, the Al- berta Court of Appeal restored the original decision, fi nding the intention of GECA was to rely on provincial criteria, not the same criteria for all federal employees in diff erent provinces. Martin appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, arguing the purpose of GECA was to provide all federal employees with the same eligibility stan- dard and govern compensation for them, without reference to them being subject to provincial laws for policy. As a result, the Alberta WCB policy on chronic onset stress shouldn't be applied, said Martin. Federal workers meant to be equal to counterparts in province: Court e Supreme Court found the GECA incor- porates provincial workers' compensation regimes, except where they confl ict with the GECA. e federal legislation indicated federal employees were "entitled to receive compensation at the same rate and under the same conditions as are provided under the law of the province where the employee is usually employed." e intention was to put federal employ- ees on par with workers in the province where they work, not other federal employ- ees across Canada, said the court. Additionally, the GECA stated that com- pensation for federal workers should be determined by "the same board, offi cers or authority" as that for workers under provin- cial legislation. "Read as a whole and in context, (GECA) supports the interpretation that the crite- ria for entitlement are not specifi ed in the GECA and are to be determined according to provincial workers' compensation law and authorities," said the court. e court noted that where Parliament intended to impose diff erent conditions for federal workers, it has done so expressly in the language of the GECA. However, there was no specifi c wording regarding the de- termination of eligibility or entitlement in the GECA, and no standard defi nition of what constituted an "accident" — only that it was "wilful" and "intentional." is made it likely Parliament intended to rely on pro- vincial laws to defi ne the scope of what con- stituted an "accident", said the court. Since Martin worked in Alberta, the Su- preme Court found his compensation eligi- bility should be determined by Alberta leg- islation and policies. e Alberta WCB had specifi c policies to guide acceptance of cer- tain medical conditions, including psycho- logical conditions such as stress. e policy of psychological stress required the condi- tion to be the result of "excessive or unusual events," which Martin's was deemed not to be. e WCB and its appeal bodies found Martin's stress did not meet the defi nition under its policy and, since there was no confl ict with the GECA's broad defi nition of "accident," the denial of compensation was reasonable, said the Supreme Court. Mar- tin's appeal was dismissed. For more information see: • Martin v. Alberta (Workers' Compensation Board), 2014 SCC 25 (S.C.C.). Cases and Trends Cases and Trends The intention was to put federal employees on par with workers in the province where they work.

• Cover