- Statutory interpretation (principles of)
- Time limits (appeal) (intent) (notice to Board)
- Time limits (appeal) (length of delay)
- Time limits (appeal) (prejudice)
- Time limits (appeal) (receipt of decision)
- Time limits (appeal) (final decision)
The issue on this appeal was whether the worker's request to extend the time to file a notice of objection with the Board should be granted.
The appeal was denied.The Board does not have a policy on time extensions; however, the Board's Appeals Services Division has adopted a practices and procedures document which discusses time limits to object. It is titled "Appeals Services Division Practices and Procedures." While the Tribunal is not required to apply the ASD Practices and Procedures, it may consider the document if it provides relevant and helpful guidance. The Vice-Chair found that the criteria under this document were not met.The Vice-Chair found that the worker had received the December 15, 2010 decision. In addition, the six-month time limit actually expired on June 15, 2011 and not June 10, 2011 as stated in the decision letter. However, the Vice-Chair did not accept that this error in the decision letter rendered it void. Section 120(1)(b) states that a notice of objection to a Board decision shall be filed "within six months after the decision is made or within such longer period as the Board may permit." The Vice-Chair found that the phrase "after the decision is made" was best interpreted in the context of section 120 and the scheme and object of the WSIA, and in its grammatical and ordinary sense, as meaning after the decision letter was issued informing the worker of the decision. The meaning of the word "made" was most appropriately interpreted as the date of the decision letter. The discrepancy of five days between the stated date of expiry of the time limit and the correct expiry date did not negate the substance of the decision. The discrepancy was of minimal significance in this case, given that the delay in objecting was more than 10 years after the expiry of the time limit. The worker did not have serious health problems or an organic or non-organic condition that prevented him from being able to object within the time limit. There was no information provided establishing whether a timely objection or appeal had been made regarding the additional conditions for which the worker claimed entitlement. The worker did not communicate his intent to object until April 2022, more than 10 years after the expiry of the six-month statutory time limit. A reasonable explanation for this period of delay had not been provided by the worker or his representatives. While the worker had an arguable case on the merits for his objection, the employer was significantly prejudiced and the Board's ability to fairly and fully adjudicate the objection on the merits had been negatively affected by the delay of more than 10 years.