Employer liability in workplace injuries: lessons from Alberta decision

A recent decision by the Alberta Appeals Commission for Workers’ Compensation serves as a wake-up call for employers and HR professionals across Canada, experts say. 

The case involved a worker who, less than a week into his employment, suffered a back injury while driving a truck over ruts at a worksite.  

Despite the employer’s efforts to contest the claim, the panel found the worker’s injury was work-related, upholding his entitlement to compensation and denying the employer’s appeal. 

The panel’s reasoning highlights that it is not enough to simply make efforts to reduce risk; those efforts must be consistently recorded and easily accessible if challenged. The employer’s inability to provide a complete paper trail, particularly regarding daily safety checklists and maintenance logs, became a critical weakness in their defence. 

As Shannon Sproule, lawyer with Turnpenny Milne, explains, the biggest takeaway from this decision for employers across the country is the need for consistent, thorough documentation and risk mitigation.  

“If you know your workplace or working conditions are implicitly risky, or if there's implicit risk in the job duties, make sure that you're regularly assessing the situation itself,” she says.  

“Taking measures to do what's needed to make it safe, and documenting those efforts as well.” 

The perils of missing evidence in WCB claims 

The Alberta case involved several contested points, one of which was whether or not the driver’s truck seat was broken, contributing to his injury; the employer argued that it wasn’t, and that regular maintenance was performed. However, it couldn’t produce the daily checklist and maintenance record required to prove this claim. 

Julie Weller, lawyer with Mathews Dinsdale, explains that in the absence of solid evidence, whether it be missing or incomplete, decision-makers are far more likely to side with the worker: “We're in a realm where the worker gets the benefit of the doubt. You have to give the decision-maker something to point at.” 

This is particularly true for workplaces that are inherently risky, she notes, and depend upon regular routine safety checks that can easily be overlooked by employers themselves. 

“Especially with these job duties that have such risk attached to them, make sure at the end of the day, you're going through your own checklist as an employer,” Weller says. 

“Ensuring that you have all the documents that you need to have, so that you have evidence of any issues and what measures were taken as well, because you certainly don't want to get to a hearing with the evidence that you were ‘missing your own copy’.”   

Implicit risk and employer safety procedures 

The case highlights the importance of proactive, not just reactive, risk mitigation – the employer’s efforts to regularly smooth ruts on the surface of the worksite were presented as evidence of safety diligence, but the panel saw it as an admission that the work environment was risky by nature.  

This, in turn, strengthened the worker’s claim that his injury was caused by workplace conditions. 

Sproule emphasizes that risk mitigation must be ongoing and proportionate to the level of risk. When a workplace is inherently risky, she explains, the expectation is that employers will go above and beyond to protect workers, including strict compliance and documentation. 

“In situations like these, you could likely expect accidents, or mishaps might happen from time to time,” she says, pointing to the dispute of the truck seat’s condition as an example of where gaps in safety can exist.  

“Is there a clear way to make sure that you've done your best as an employer, to ensure that any worker who gets into the vehicle on each and every day is getting into a safe vehicle?” 

Sproule emphasizes that with workplaces or roles that carry implicit or inherent risk rather than obvious risks, employers can make the mistake of underestimating responsibility. 

“It might be inherently risky, but what doesn't flow from that is that as an employer, you therefore escape liability,” she says. 

“You should assume that it's actually the opposite … you should be going that extra mile, with due diligence to make sure the conditions are safe and to make sure the workers understand what their own obligations are in terms of reporting and conduct on the job.” 

Credibility challenge and role of tenure 

Another notable aspect of the case was the employer’s attempt to challenge the worker’s credibility, partly based on his very short tenure – less than a week on the job.  

However, as Weller explains, tenure is irrelevant when it comes to workplace injuries caused by a single incident. Not only that, attempting to discredit an employee’s claim without solid evidence can harm the employer’s case: “Credibility is really hard because the benefit of the doubt is in favour of the worker. Unless you've got real evidence that the worker is not credible, the panel often disregards credibility arguments.” 

Sproule adds that in workplace injury law, the focus is on the circumstances of the injury, not the length of service. This means that even a brand-new employee is entitled to the same protections and benefits as a long-term worker if they are injured on the job. 

“The relevance is that it's a reminder that tenure doesn't really matter, as long as you have the injury on the job, while working,” she says. 

“Even if it's day one, you could be liable if something happens to them causing an injury while they're in the workplace, performing the work.” 

Medical evidence: the deciding factor 

Ultimately, the panel found the most persuasive evidence was the medical assessment, particularly an orthopedic surgeon’s bone scan that confirmed the injury occurred around the time of the accident.  

There had been some debate about when the injury occurred as other assessments had been inconclusive – although it, too, was not 100 percent conclusive, the surgeon’s evidence tipped the balance in favour of the worker. 

In this case, the employer’s lack of countervailing medical opinions or documentation meant that the panel was left with little choice but to accept the worker’s account, as supported by the specialist’s findings.  

Weller explains that employers should be aware that, when contesting a claim, it is essential to have not only administrative and operational records but also, where appropriate, expert medical evidence to support their position. 

“This just came down to a lack of providing the tribunal with something to confidently point at,” she says.  

“To say, ‘We're going to just disregard medical [records] and what the worker’s saying, and we're going to just agree with the employer.’” 

For Sproule, this means that risk management is not a one-time event, but an ongoing process that requires regular review, documented training and a commitment to continuous improvement.  

She also stresses that safety policies must be clearly communicated, with as little ambiguity as possible. 

“You should be taking steps to get any assessments done, if that's possible, as well to look into the best type of equipment to use, best practices to keep the equipment safe,” Sproule says.  

“The more you can limit what the worker can interpret themselves, the less risk you have.”