Workers' Compensation - SCC

The appellant trustee in bankruptcy appealed a decision according the respondent Workers' Compensation Board the status of a secured creditor.

The Board claimed unpaid assessments from the bankrupt employer, arguing that provincial legislation created a charge on the employer's property.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the federal Bankruptcy Act determines priorities in bankruptcy.

The provincial legislation, while valid, is inoperative in a bankruptcy situation to the extent it conflicts with the federal scheme of distribution.

The appellant appealed a decision authorizing a writ of evocation against a workers' compensation review board.

The board had estimated the respondent's impairment of earning capacity based solely on the nature of the injury, refusing to consider his fitness to continue his employment or adapt to another occupation as required by the Workmen's Compensation Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge was justified in authorizing the writ of evocation because the board's refusal to consider the statutory factors constituted a failure to exercise its jurisdiction.

The victim of a workplace accident elected to receive compensation from the Workmen's Compensation Commission and subsequently sued the perpetrators of the accident for the full amount of his damages.

Over a year after the accident, the Commission sought to intervene in the victim's action to recover the compensation it had paid.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that upon the victim's election, the Commission was subrogated to his rights for the compensation amount, leaving the victim with only the right to claim any additional sum.

Consequently, the Commission lacked the necessary interest to intervene in the victim's action, and the victim's action did not interrupt the prescription period for the Commission's claim, which was therefore prescribed.

The respondent taxi driver was injured in a collision with a vehicle owned by the appellant and negligently driven by a garage employee during a test drive.

Both drivers were covered by the Workers' Compensation Act, which barred the respondent from suing the negligent driver.

The appellant owner argued that because her liability was purely vicarious, the driver's statutory immunity should also shield her from liability.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the owner was not an employer under the Workers' Compensation Act and could not rely on its provisions to escape vicarious liability imposed by the Motor-vehicle Act.