Instructor claimed sport industry was exempt from workers’ compensation regime so he was free to sue after serious injury
A Saskatchewan sailing instructor who lost a hand from an accident loading a sailboat was exempt from workers’ compensation, the Saskatchewan Workers’ Compensation Board has ruled.
Logan Campbell, 24, was a part-time sailing instructor for the Saskatchewan Sailing Clubs Association (SSCA) in the summer of 2006. Campbell was a university student who was training to be on Canada’s national sailing team, and SSCA emailed him to see if he was interested in teaching sailing during the summer. Campbell replied that he couldn’t commit to a fixed schedule because he would be competing in regattas and he didn’t need the income to cover his university expenses. SSCA said it could work around Campbell’s schedule and they could take him on.
Campbell agreed to work as an assistant instructor if SSCA arranged sessions that didn’t conflict with his regatta schedule on a session-by-session basis, but didn’t commit to a set schedule. Though SSCA wanted an official commitment from Campbell to be an instructor, he didn’t provide one and he wasn’t registered on SSCA’s payroll. The only payment SSCA gave to Campbell was a cheque to cover $35 in expenses.
On June 9, 2006, Campbell and two other instructors were loading a sailboat onto a trailer when the sailboat’s mast touched overhead power lines. Campbell suffered severe burns to his right hand and one of his feet. The damage to his hand was serious enough that it eventually had to be amputated.
On June 20, Sask Sport, the parent organization of SSCA, contacted Campbell and the other instructors to tell them they would be put on the organization’s payroll so they would be covered by workers’ compensation. They were told they would have to fill out some forms, including a payroll authorization form that would label Campbell a temporary employee that worked 40 hours a week.
However, Campbell didn’t sign any forms and he filed a lawsuit against SSCA, Sask Sport, the Saskatchewan Power Corporation and others for liability for the accident. Some of the defendants argued that the injury was the result of a work-related accident so, because he was eligible for workers’ compensation, he couldn’t file a separate action for damages. Campbell took his case before the board, arguing sailing was a sport and therefore was an excluded industry under the act — which specifically excluded “sports professionals, sports instructors, players and coaches” from the workers’ compensation regime. He also said SSCA was not an employer and he wasn’t a worker under the act’s definitions. The board rejected Campbell’s claim, ruling he did fall under the province’s workers’ compensation scheme and could not sue. The basis for its finding was a board policy that stipulated organizations that provide primarily instruction, particularly for amateur sport, instead of the playing of a professional sport should not be considered to be part of the legislation’s exclusion.
No documents showing employment
Sask Sport filed two reports with the board to help clarify the situation. The reports stated it was an unusual case because there was a lack of information on the situation, Campbell been hired on a verbal agreement and he had not been entered into the payroll system. However, they considered him an assistant sailing instructor on an “irregular schedule” who was supposed to be paid an hourly wage. Therefore, he was considered a worker and SSCA was responsible for his health, safety and welfare.
Campbell appealed to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, which found the board’s use of its policy to interpret the definition of sports instructors to be beyond its legislative mandate. It found the board’s policy would allow those who earn a living playing, coaching and instructing sports to be included as long as they were doing it with an amateur sports organization.
The court found the act’s exclusion of sports instructors, coaches and players was clear and further interpretation by the board’s policy was not necessary, nor was it within the board’s jurisdiction.
“To limit the exclusion of ‘sports instructors and coaches’ provided by the (Exclusion Regulation under the act) to those sports instructors and coaches employed by an organization established with the intent of making a profit from the playing of a sport is a significant departure from the plain grammatical meaning of the exclusion as enacted,” said the court. “In so limiting the interpretation of the exclusion, the board has in effect substituted its own policy for that of the Lieutenant Governor in Counsel.”
