Parks Canada employee unsuccessfully challenges denial of workers’ compensation claim under Alberta policy
Canada's top court has upheld an Alberta Workers’ Compensation decision that a federal government worker is not entitled to compensation for chronic onset stress.
Douglas Martin was hired as a park warden for Parks Canada in 1973. In 2000, he launched a health and safety complaint arguing wardens should be armed when carrying out law enforcement duties. Martin and Parks Canada went through several internal complaint processes, which led to court proceedings and appeals. Because of his position at the head of the complaint, Martin felt he suffered professionally because of a loss of work and training, as well as promotion opportunities.
In June 2006, Parks Canada told Martin to disclose information on his work computer in relation to an access-to-information request. Six months later, Martin was warned he hadn’t responded sufficiently to the instructions and if he didn’t provide a proper response, he would be disciplined.
However, the due date for compliance was five days before Martin actually received the letter demanding compliance.
Martin had a previous written reprimand on his file so he was worried he would be fired. For him, the warning letter was the final straw after years of conflict over his health and safety complaint, triggering a psychological condition.
Martin went on medical leave on Dec. 23, 2006, to seek medical treatment. He also filed a workers’ compensation claim for chronic onset stress.
As a federal employee, Martin’s claim was governed by the Government Employees Compensation Act (GECA), which stated that federal workers who suffer workplace injuries were entitled to compensation "at the same rate and under the same conditions" as workers under jurisdiction of the province in which they were employed. As such, his claim was handled by the Alberta Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB).
Martin’s claim was denied first by the WCB and, on appeal, by the Dispute Resolution and Decision Review Body and the Alberta Appeals Commission for workers’ compensation. All three decision-makers determined that although Martin’s claim met two of the criteria for chronic onset stress under WCB policy — a confirmed diagnosis and it was predominantly caused by work-related events or stressors — it failed to meet two other criteria, that "work-related events are excessive or unusual in comparison to the normal pressures and tensions experienced by the average worker in a similar occupation" as well as an objective confirmation of the events.
The appeals commission found the main causes of Martin’s stress — health and safety concerns, conflicts in the workplace, performance management and the employer’s request for disclosure of information — were normal pressures and tensions and therefore did not qualify as excessive or unusual.
Federal worker challenged jurisdiction of provincial policy
Martin then appealed to the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, which overturned the decision and sent it back to the appeals commission. The court found Martin’s eligibility for compensation should be determined solely under the GECA, which was intended to ensure all federal employees were treated under the same rules.
However, on appeal by the WCB, the Alberta Court of Appeal restored the original decision, finding the intention of GECA was to rely on provincial criteria, not the same criteria for all federal employees in different provinces. Martin appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, arguing the purpose of GECA was to provide all federal employees with the same eligibility standard and govern compensation for them, without reference to them being subject to provincial laws for policy. As a result, the Alberta WCB policy on chronic onset stress shouldn’t be applied, said Martin.
Federal workers meant to be equal to counterparts in province: Court
The Supreme Court found the GECA incorporates provincial workers’ compensation regimes, except where they conflict with the GECA. The federal legislation indicated federal employees were "entitled to receive compensation at the same rate and under the same conditions as are provided under the law of the province where the employee is usually employed."
The intention was to put federal employees on par with workers in the province where they work, not other federal employees across Canada, said the court.
Additionally, the GECA stated that compensation for federal workers should be determined by "the same board, officers or authority" as that for workers under provincial legislation.
"Read as a whole and in context, (GECA) supports the interpretation that the criteria for entitlement are not specified in the GECA and are to be determined according to provincial workers’ compensation law and authorities," said the court.
The court noted that where Parliament intended to impose different conditions for federal workers, it has done so expressly in the language of the GECA. However, there was no specific wording regarding the determination of eligibility or entitlement in the GECA, and no standard definition of what constituted an "accident" — only that it was "wilful" and "intentional." This made it likely Parliament intended to rely on provincial laws to define the scope of what constituted an "accident", said the court.
Since Martin worked in Alberta, the Supreme Court found his compensation eligibility should be determined by Alberta legislation and policies. The Alberta WCB had specific policies to guide acceptance of certain medical conditions, including psychological conditions such as stress. The policy of psychological stress required the condition to be the result of "excessive or unusual events," which Martin’s was deemed not to be.
The WCB and its appeal bodies found Martin’s stress did not meet the definition under its policy and since there was no conflict with the GECA’s broad definition of "accident," the denial of compensation was reasonable, said the Supreme Court — the appeal was dismissed.
For more information see:
• Martin v. Alberta (Workers’ Compensation Board), 2014 SCC 25 (S.C.C.).
Jeffrey R. Smith is the editor of Canadian Employment Law Today, a publication that looks at workplace law from a business perspective. He can be reached at [email protected] or visit www.employmentlawtoday.com.
