Canadian Safety Reporter

7 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2014 News | May 2014 | CSR 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 warden for Parks Canada in 1973. In 2000, he launched a health and safety complaint ar- guing wardens should be armed when carrying out law enforce- ment duties. Martin and Parks Canada went through several internal complaint processes, which led to court proceedings and appeals. Because of his po- sition at the head of the com- plaint, Martin felt he suffered professionally because of a loss of work and training, as well as promotion opportunities. In June 2006, Parks Canada told Martin to disclose infor- mation on his work computer in relation to an access-to-in- formation request. Six months later, Martin was warned he hadn't responded sufficiently to the instructions and if he didn't provide a proper response, he would be disciplined. However, the due date for compliance was five days before Martin actually received the let- ter demanding compliance. Martin had a previous written reprimand on his file so he was worried he would be fired. For him, the warning letter was the final straw after years of conflict over his health and safety com- plaint, triggering a psychologi- cal condition. Martin went on medical leave on Dec. 23, 2006, to seek medi- cal treatment. He also filed a workers' compensation claim for chronic onset stress. As a federal employee, Mar- tin's claim was governed by the Government Employees Com- pensation Act (GECA), which stated that federal workers who suffer workplace injuries were entitled to compensation "at the same rate and under the same conditions" as workers under jurisdiction of the province in which they were employed. As such, his claim was handled by the Alberta Workers' Compen- sation Board (WCB). Martin's claim was denied first by the WCB and, on appeal, by the Dispute Resolution and Decision Review Body and the Alberta Appeals Commission for workers' compensation. All three decision-makers deter- mined that although Martin's claim met two of the criteria for chronic onset stress under WCB policy — a confirmed diagno- sis 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 occupation" as well as an objective confirma- tion of the events. The appeals commission found the main causes of Mar- tin's stress — health and safety concerns, conflicts in the work- place, performance manage- ment and the employer's request for disclosure of information — were normal pressures and tensions and therefore did not qualify as excessive or unusual. Federal worker challenged jurisdiction of provincial policy Martin then appealed to the Al- berta Court of Queen's Bench, which overturned the decision and sent it back to the appeals commission. The court found Martin's eligibility for compen- sation should be determined solely under the GECA, which was intended to ensure all feder- al employees were treated under the same rules. However, on appeal by the WCB, the Alberta Court of Ap- peal restored the original deci- sion, finding the intention of GECA was to rely on provincial criteria, not the same criteria for all federal employees in different provinces. Martin appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, arguing the purpose of GECA was to provide all fed- eral employees with the same eligibility standard 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 The Supreme Court found the GECA incorporates provin- cial workers' compensation re- gimes, except where they con- flict with the GECA. The federal legislation indicated federal em- ployees 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 employ- ee is usually employed." The intention was to put federal employees on par with workers in the province where they work, not other federal em- ployees across Canada, said the court. Additionally, the GECA stat- ed that compensation for federal workers should be determined by "the same board, officers or authority" as that for workers under provincial legislation. "Read as a whole and in con- text, (GECA) supports the inter- pretation that the criteria for en- titlement are not specified in the GECA and are to be determined according to provincial workers' compensation law and authori- ties," said the court. The court noted that where Parliament intended to im- pose different conditions for federal workers, it has done so expressly in the language of the GECA. However, there was no specific wording regarding the determination of eligibility or entitlement in the GECA, and no standard definition of what constituted an "accident" — only that it was "wilful" and "in- tentional." This made it likely Parliament intended to rely on provincial laws to define the scope of what constituted an "accident", said the court. Since Martin worked in Al- berta, the Supreme Court found his compensation eligibility should be determined by Alberta legislation and policies. The Al- berta WCB had specific policies to guide acceptance of certain medical conditions, including psychological conditions such as stress. The policy of psychologi- cal stress required the condition to be the result of "excessive or unusual events," which Martin's was deemed not to be. The WCB and its appeal bod- ies found Martin's stress did not meet the definition under its policy and since there was no conflict with the GECA's broad definition of "accident," the de- nial of compensation was rea- sonable, said the Supreme Court — the appeal was dismissed. For more information see: • Martin v. Alberta (Workers' Compensation Board), 2014 SCC 25 (S.C.C.). Jeffrey R. Smith is the editor of Ca- nadian Employment Law Today, a publication that looks at workplace law from a business perspective. He can be reached at Jeffrey.r.smith@ thomsonreuters.com or visit www. employmentlawtoday.com. His claim failed to meet two key criteria.

• Cover