- Death (maintenance of claim by estate)
- Jurisdiction, Tribunal (right to sue) (member of the family)
- Parties (participation)
- Supplier of motor vehicle, machinery or equipment (purchase or rental basis)
- Right to sue (Schedule 2 employer)
- Jurisdiction, Tribunal (right to sue) (estate)
A worker passed away in a motor vehicle accident. His wife and parents commenced a civil action seeking damages for the worker's death under the Family Law Act. Four defendants were named in the action.
The defendants sought a ruling from the Tribunal that the worker's right to sue was taken away, and to the extent that an action was permitted, that the damages should be limited by section 29 of the WSIA. The worker's parents disputed the Tribunal's jurisdiction to decide this issue, and stated that their right to sue (as non-dependents) pursuant to the FLA was an issue for the courts. The worker's wife chose not to participate in the proceedings, and as such, the Panel noted that an evidence-based approach was required here.The Panel decided that a broad and purposive interpretation of the WSIA was appropriate to avoid a situation in which the division of authority between the Tribunal and the courts resulted in a situation where neither the Tribunal nor the courts were willing to exercise jurisdiction to make a necessary decision - namely whether the WSIA would have taken away the worker's right to recover damages for his injury had he not been killed. The Panel noted that this decision fell directly within the expertise of the Tribunal regardless of the fact that the ultimate decision regarding the parent's ability to proceed with their FLA claim lay with the courts.It was found that the late worker and his wife's right of action against three of the four defendants (including against one defendant for actions in his personal capacity outside his executive capacity) was not removed by the WSIA.It was also clarified in this decision that the defendant owner of the motor vehicle involved in the accident was not protected by the WSIA as it had provided the motor vehicle on a purchase or rental basis to the co-defendant without supplying workers to operate the motor vehicle. The Panel noted there are two potential exceptions to this: whether the supplier was a related corporation to the defendant who was provided with the motor vehicle, and whether the arrangements for the provision of the truck were informal versus formal. It was found that the defendants were separate legal entities although they were owned by the same owner (not related). In addition, informality of an agreement was not considered prohibitive as long as the essential elements of the rental agreement were in place, demonstrating an intent to transfer property rights - which was the case here. As such, the defendant was found not to be exempt from protection.The Panel also found that the defendants were entitled to a determination that the amount that they may be liable to pay in the action is limited by the provisions of section 29 of the WSIA.