Skip to Main Content

HOME /



WCAT Decision Search

FROM THIS PAGE you can view all WCAT decisions, or search the decisions.
Enter a decision number, or a word or phrase to search:
Between / / And / /



DISCLAIMER: Decisions of the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal have been edited for the purpose of release to the public and to protect the privacy of the parties concerned in accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act R.S.P.E.I. 1988, Cap. F-15.01. Information edited from the decisions is identified by square brackets.

PREV
Displaying results 1 to 10 (of 265 total).
sort: ascending | descending

Date: 2017-11-10
Appellant: Worker
Appeal Issues
Was the October 15, 2015 decision of the IRO to close the Appellant's claim for both temporary wage loss and medical aid benefits appropriate?
WCAT Decision
79. It appears to the Tribunal that the non-work related factors – the motor vehicle accident – contributed to the injury or symptoms and the Tribunal finds that the non-work related factors are the dominant cause of the injury or symptoms. 81. The Tribunal would also agree that the motor vehicle accident could not equate to an ordinary activity that could aggravate an injury and it would be a significant intervening factor and would break the chain of causation between the workplace injury and the loss of earnings. Therefore,the Worker's appeal is denied.

Date: 2017-11-10
Appellant: Worker
Appeal Issues
Was the IRO decision of September 9, 2015 to close the Appellant's claim for temporary wage loss benefits appropriate?
WCAT Decision
The Appellant was cleared by her family doctor to return to work but stated that the Appellant could only perform office work. Her employer was unable to accommodate the Appellant’s return to work duties, and given that an ease back program with the employer was no longer possible, the Board paid the Appellant four weeks of wage loss benefits in lieu of the ease back. 66. Upon the Tribunal’s review of POL-93 “Return to Work” with regard to the obligation of re-employment of the employer; the Board provided the Appellant with four weeks of wage loss benefits in lieu of an ease back program. The Board met its obligation to the Appellant and pursuant to the legislation and policy, closed their file. The Tribunal agrees that the Board met its duties under the Workers Compensation scheme and therefore, the decision of the IRO of September 9, 2015, that closed the Appellant’s claim for temporary wage loss benefits was appropriate. Therefore, the worker's appeal is denied.

Date: 2017-11-16
Appellant: Worker
Appeal Issues
The issue in this matter was whether the IRO was correct in deciding that the Worker’s hearing loss claim was filed outside the six (6) month limitation period.
WCAT Decision
WCAT finds that since the Worker was made aware of his noise induced right ear hearing loss by no later than December of 2010, the Worker's date of accident was no later than December of 2010, and that the Worker filed his claim for compensation well past the six month limitation period provided by section 59(4) of the Workers' Compensation Act. Therefore, the Worker's appeal is denied.

Date: 2017-11-16
Appellant: Worker
Appeal Issues
The issue in this appeal is whether the Worker is entitled to pension replacement benefits.
WCAT Decision
WCAT finds that the Worker’s Group RRSP constitutes a retirement savings plan within the meaning of Policy POL-124 as amended, and as it is a retirement savings plan, it is registered with the Canada Revenue Agency. Accordingly, WCAT finds that the Worker is eligible for pension replacement benefits under Section 43 of the Act and POL-124 as amended. Therefore, the Worker's appeal is allowed.

Date: 2017-11-01
Appellant: Worker
Appeal Issues
Was the November 26, 2014, decision to deny the Appellant’s claim appropriate?
WCAT Decision
On a balance of probabilities, the Tribunal finds that the totality of the evidence does not support a finding that the Appellant sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment in October 2010. Therefore, the Appellant’s appeal id denied.

Date: 2017-11-01
Appellant: Worker
Appeal Issues
Was the IRO decision of November 17, 2014 to deny the Appellant’s claim on the basis that it was filed outside the six (6) month limitation period appropriate?
WCAT Decision
26. The GECA scheme is unusual and unique in that a worker is not physically permitted to submit his or her Form 6 directly to the PEI Workers Compensation Board. Therefore, for the purpose of establishing compliance with the limitation period, the Appellant has no control over when ESDC provides the forms to the provincial jurisdiction. As stated in POL-121 when a unique or unanticipated situation that was not likely contemplated when drafting the policy in question, good judgment must be used in decision-writing. In accordance with POL-121, the Tribunal finds that POL-90 was not drafted to reflect the realities faced by federal government employees, and therefore, good judgment must prevail in accepting March 4, 2014 (the date of re-submission to ESDC) as the date of submission and receipt of the Forms, which should be interpreted to have satisfied the limitation period. As such, the Tribunal finds that the claim was made within the timeframes and no extension of time is required. Therefore, the Appellant's appeal is allowed.

Date: 2017-10-19
Appellant: Worker
Appeal Issues
Is the Appellant entitled to pension replacement benefits under section 43 of the Act in relation to a loss of benefits in his employer sponsored Group RRSP while he was receiving workers compensation benefits?
WCAT Decision
At the hearing, the Appellant stated that it was not asking for a retroactive application of the policies, but rather, asked that an inference should be drawn from the fact that the policy was changed to include RRSPs shortly after the IRO’s decision. The Tribunal finds that there was no ambiguity in the definition of “registered employer sponsored pension plan” in effect at the time of the decisions. The fact that the policy was later amended to include RRSPs shows that the Board felt a substantive change was required to its policy on pension replacement benefits. To apply elements of the "new policy" on the facts of this case, would result in effectively a retroactive application of a substantive new policy to past events. Pursuant to section 56(17) of the Act, the Tribunal is bound and must fully implement the policies of the Board. No provision of the Act expressly authorizes the retroactive application of board policies. As such, the Tribunal agrees with the Respondent that it must implement the Board policies which were in effect at the time the decisions were made. Therefore, the Appellant's appeal is denied.

Date: 2017-10-19
Appellant: Worker
Appeal Issues
Was the IRO’s August 17, 2015 decision to deny the Appellant’s reconsideration request appropriate?
WCAT Decision
With regard to the cumulative effects in Section 9, 10 and 11 of POL-01, given that the Tribunal has found that the traumatic event is an unexpected and emotionally shocking event, it does not need to make a determination of the cumulative effect of a series of events that in any other occupation would be considered traumatic and will not include a determination of such in its reasons. For all the reasons as set out in the decision,the Tribunal finds that the Appellant suffered an accident arising out of and in the course of employment and, therefore, the Tribunal allows the Appellant’s appeal.

Date: 2017-10-19
Appellant: Worker
Appeal Issues
Was the IRO’s October 7, 2015 decision to deny the Appellant’s claim in relation to her right foot planter fasciitis correct?
WCAT Decision
The Tribunal agrees with the Board that there was not a lot of objective medical evidence on file; however, what medical evidence there is, supports the Appellant. With respect to assessing whether, according to the relevant authorities, the Worker’s personal injury should be characterized as a compensable accident, the Worker’s medical history showed, on a balance of probabilities, her injury was linked to, in whole or in part, to an activity undertaken because of her employment. Therefore, the Appellant's appeal is allowed.

Date: 2017-11-10
Appellant: Worker
Appeal Issues
The issue in this Appeal is whether or not the Worker’s left elbow symptoms in February 1, 2015 were a recurrence of the Worker’s repetitive strain injury of September of 2014.
WCAT Decision
WCAT finds that the Worker suffered a recurrence of her September 2014 workplace repetitive strain injury, resulting in her symptoms of February of 2015. Therefore, the Worker's appeal is allowed.

PREV
Displaying results 1 to 10 (of 265 total).
sort: ascending | descending