D. Revington

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision granting a worker loss of earning benefits.

The Tribunal found the worker was involuntarily terminated and no suitable modified work was available.

The Divisional Court quashed the decision, finding it unreasonable because the Tribunal ignored uncontradicted evidence that the worker accepted a voluntary severance package while suitable modified work was available.

The court declared the worker was not entitled to benefits beyond his surgery recovery period.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) regarding the recalculation of their permanent income supplements under the Workers' Compensation Act.

The WSIAT had applied a statutory cap to the recalculated supplements, which the applicants argued was not explicitly required by the recalculation provision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the WSIAT's interpretation of the statute was reasonable when read in context and in light of the legislative intent to cap such supplements.

The applicant sought judicial review of a WSIAT decision that found he was involved in an activity reasonably incidental to his employment when injured in a motor vehicle accident during a lunch break at a remote work location.

The applicant argued the decision was unreasonable due to an inconsistent statement in the reasons and findings of fact allegedly lacking evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that despite one inconsistent statement, the decision as a whole showed a clear line of reasoning, was supported by evidence, and fell within a range of reasonable outcomes.