The Appeal CommissionThe Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba

Preamble

A non-oral file review was held on October 15, 2001, at the employer's request.

Issue

Whether or not the decision to partially approve relief of the late filing penalty applied to the employer was appropriate.

Decision

That the decision to partially approve relief of the late filing penalty applied to the employer was appropriate.

Background

The employer's Annual Worker's Earnings Report was received at the Workers Compensation Board (WCB) office's eight calendar days past the February 28, 2001 due date (i.e. March 8, 2001). The WCB therefore charged the employer a late filing penalty of $3,567.93. In an appeal letter dated April 20, 2001, the employer requested that the WCB reverse the late filing charges as it was an oversight on their part and it was not an intentional act.

In a decision dated May 31, 2001, the Assessment Committee partially accepted the employer's appeal and decided to remove 50% of the late filing penalty from the employer's account. Under the decision heading entitled "Rationale", the Assessment Committee outlined the policy criteria that was used by the WCB when relief from penalties and interest charges can be provided. It found that the firm met the criteria for relieving 50% of the late filing penalty because it had provided the required payroll information within 30 days of the due date and the firm had no prior history of default. The Assessment Committee did not feel that the firm qualified for 100% relief because the cause of the default was not beyond the firm's control.

On August 2, 2001 the employer appealed the Assessment Committee decision of May 31st. The employer was of the opinion that it had a solid history of adhering to WCB reporting and payment deadlines. The Annual Workers' Earnings Report was only 8 days late. The employer did not believe, "that this small and one-time only oversight on our part should warrant such a harsh penalty." A non-oral file review was then arranged.

Reasons

This case involves a corporation which was late in submitting its Annual Workers' Earnings Report. It was received by the WCB on March 8, eight calendar days after the due date of February 28, 2001.

As a result of this late filing, the corporation was assessed a late filing penalty equal to 5% of its assessment, pursuant to section 86(1) of The Workers Compensation Act and section 6(1) of Regulation 280/91. The corporation appealed this penalty and was granted relief of 50% of the penalty.

The corporation subsequently appealed to the Appeal Commission seeking relief of the total amount.

The issue before the panel was whether or not the board decision to grant only partial relief was appropriate.

Relief from penalties assessed by the board is regulated by Board Policy 35.40.10, which reads in part:

1. The WCB may grant relief of the penalty which would otherwise be imposed under subsection 86(1) according to the following criteria:
   1. A default will generally be considered excusable and relief of up to 100% of the penalty amount may be provided where the period of default is less than 5 business days. Where circumstances warrant, the 5-day period may be extended at the discretion of the Executive Director responsible for Assessments.
   2. A default will generally be considered excusable and relief of up to 50% of the penalty amount may be provided where the period of default is less than 30 calendar days, the employer does not have a prior history of default, and has co-operated fully with the WCB.
   3. A default will generally be considered excusable and relief of up to 100% of the penalty amount may be provided where the cause of the default was beyond the control of the employer, the employer does not have a prior history of default, the employer has cooperated fully with the WCB, and the default does not extend beyond 60 calendar days.

Under statute, the Commission must comply with Board policy in rendering decisions.

The corporation in this case does not warrant relief under section 1 a), as the delay was beyond 5 working days. It does not qualify under section 1 c), because the reason for the delay was simply oversight, not something beyond the control of the corporation.

The corporation does meet the parameters of section 1 b), thus qualifying for 50% relief.

Accordingly, we conclude that the decision of the board was correct and the appeal is dismissed.

Panel Members

T. Sargeant, Presiding Officer
A. Finkel, Commissioner
M. Day, Commissioner

Recording Secretary, B. Miller

T. Sargeant - Presiding Officer
(on behalf of the panel)

Signed at Winnipeg this 18th day of October, 2001