5 total
WCB benefits are not income from employment for calculating statutory accident benefits under the pre-1994 Schedule.
The appellant was injured in a snowmobile accident while receiving temporary total disability benefits from the Workers' Compensation Board for a prior workplace injury.
He appealed an arbitrator's decision calculating his weekly income benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule by averaging his employment income over the full 52 weeks preceding the accident, without including his WCB benefits as income from employment.
The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, confirming that the statutory language requires averaging over the full 52 weeks and that WCB benefits do not constitute income from employment under the applicable Schedule.
The claim for a special award was also dismissed.
Correction issued to clarify that the appellant was granted arbitration expenses, not appeal expenses.
The Director's Delegate issued a correction to an appeal order dated May 2, 1997.
The correction amended a sentence in the first paragraph to clarify that the arbitrator granted the appellant his arbitration expenses, rather than his appeal expenses.
Appeal of benefits denial dismissed; minor interpretation issues at arbitration did not render hearing unfair.
The appellant appealed an arbitrator's decision denying him weekly income benefits following a motor vehicle accident.
The appellant, who was self-represented on appeal, argued that he was denied a fair hearing because of inadequate interpretation services during the arbitration, particularly during his lawyer's closing submissions.
The Director's Delegate found that while there were minor interpretation issues, they did not affect the fairness of the hearing or result in an injustice.
The insurer's request for a special award on the basis that the appeal was frivolous or vexatious was denied, as the appellant's concerns were not groundless.
The appeal was dismissed and no expenses were awarded.
Insured entitled to ongoing weekly income benefits as he lacked training for proposed sedentary occupations.
The applicant, a self-employed taxi driver, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits for four years.
The insurer terminated benefits on the basis that the applicant could engage in suitable employment.
The arbitrator found that the applicant did not have the education, training, or experience for the sedentary jobs proposed by the insurer and had made bona fide efforts to retrain.
The arbitrator ordered the reinstatement of weekly income benefits, calculated the quantum at $385 per week based on pre-accident self-employment income and ceasing expenses, and dismissed the insurer's claim for repayment of an overpayment since the benefits were ongoing.
Replacement worker complaint dismissed; Red Cross found to have made intimidating statements regarding job loss.
The applicant unions alleged that the Red Cross and various home care agencies and service providers violated the replacement worker provisions of the Labour Relations Act when clients were reassigned to other agencies during a lawful strike by Red Cross homemakers.
The Board found that the other agencies were not acting on behalf of the Red Cross and were not employers of the striking workers, dismissing the replacement worker complaints.
However, the Board found that the Red Cross violated sections 65, 67(c), and 71 of the Act by making intimidating statements to employees, threatening job loss if they exercised their right to strike.
