- Statutory interpretation (principles of)
- Time limits (knowledge of time limit)
- Notice of accident (by worker)
In the September 21, 2020 decision under appeal, the ARO found that the worker had failed to meet the legislative transitional provisions to file her chronic mental stress claim on or before July 1, 2018. The worker sought a finding from the Tribunal that her claim could proceed on the merits and was not barred by virtue of the legislation.
The appeal was allowed.The Vice-Chair noted that the purpose of the transitional provisions under section 13.1(5) of the WSIA was to permit the retroactive application of the newer, broader entitlement to mental stress benefits to workers whose claims might have been denied under the former mental stress provisions. For Board decisions made prior to January 1, 1998, section 112(3) of the WSIA provides that the appeal must be filed with the Tribunal by June 30, 1998, or such longer time as the Tribunal might permit. The Vice-Chair found that interpreting section 13.1(5) as a hard time limit, with no exception, would be preempting substantive rights with procedural finality, notwithstanding the particular facts or extenuating circumstances of an individual case. Thus, the Vice-Chair interpreted "must" in section 13.1(5) as directory rather than mandatory. The Vice-Chair found that the worker was not aware of her right to file a compensation claim for chronic mental stress until the deadline for doing so had expired. She then promptly contacted the employer and her doctor to initiate the appeal. The worker did not know, nor could reasonably be expected to know, of the relevant legislative changes. The employer did not inform the worker that a compensation claim might be appropriate. The Vice-Chair noted that an employer does not have to agree with a worker's claim for injury in order for there to exist an obligation to file a Form 6, when it has a reasonable apprehension that the worker believes there has been a work-related injuring process. The Vice-Chair found it reasonable to infer that the employer was both cognizant of the legislative changes, and aware of the reasons the worker was off on medical leave. According to its own handbook for managers in the federal public service, it had an obligation to initiate a claim with the WSIB.The Vice-Chair determined that depriving the worker of her right to have her case considered on the merits would constitute an unintended and "inconvenient effect" of a time limit too rigourously applied. Accordingly, the Vice-Chair granted the worker an extension of time so that her case can be heard on the merits. Since there was no final decision on the merits from the Board, this appeal will be returned to the Board to be heard on the merits at the ARO level.