Michelle Alton

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) denying her claim for psychotraumatic disability arising from a 1998 workplace injury.

The WSIAT had found that her depression manifested more than five years after the injury and that the accident was not a significant contributing factor.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding that the WSIAT's decisions were justified, transparent, and intelligible.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision barring her civil action against the respondents for injuries sustained in a parking lot fall.

The Tribunal found that although the applicant was paid by a numbered company, the respondent Sargent Farms Limited was her de facto employer and she was in the course of her employment at the time of the accident.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's conclusion that the respondent extensively controlled her employment was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The self-represented applicants sought various corrections and additions to the record and transcripts for an upcoming Divisional Court hearing.

The court ordered that agreed-upon changes be deemed made to the transcripts and allowed the applicants' written closing statement and the employer's document compendium to be added to the record.

However, the court denied requests to supplement the transcripts based on memory, to alter the record based on translation objections, or to remove a photograph from the record.

The court also set a timetable for factums and the hearing on the merits.

In a case management endorsement, the court provided procedural directions to a self-represented applicant regarding disputes over the accuracy of transcripts and the Record of Proceedings.

The court ordered the applicant to prepare detailed lists of alleged errors and proposed corrections, and directed the respondents to reply to those lists.

The court noted that the intense case management required by the self-represented applicant's lack of trust in the respondents would inevitably cause delays.

A case management conference was held for an application for judicial review of a WSIAT decision.

The self-represented applicants' amended notice of application was accepted without further amendment.

The court addressed procedural issues, including the preparation of the Record of Proceedings, the unavailability of video recordings of the WSIAT hearing, and the procedure for introducing fresh evidence.

WSIAT agreed to compile and serve the Record of Proceedings, and a further case management conference was to be scheduled.