The Appeal CommissionThe Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba

Preamble

The worker is appealing decisions made by the Workers Compensation Board ("WCB") regarding his claim for a back injury that occurred in May 2010. A hearing was held on January 9, 2017 to consider the worker's appeal.

Issue

Whether or not the modified duties offered by the employer were appropriate; and

Whether or not the worker has been overpaid wage loss benefits.

Decision

That the modified duties offered by the employer were appropriate; and

That the worker has been overpaid wage loss benefits.

Background

On May 27, 2010, the worker was turning and pulling down a roll of wrapping material when he felt a shooting pain down his left leg that went into his low back. Initial medical reports showed that the worker was seen by two treating physicians and by a physiotherapist. The diagnoses outlined were mechanical low back pain, a new right injury, pre-existing left sciatica and an L5 disc strain. The WCB accepted the worker's claim based on a lumbar disc strain.

On June 23, 2010, the treating physiotherapist advised the WCB that the worker should attempt a graduated return to work program with modified duties in place. It was also felt that the worker was pain focused and she requested a WCB call-in assessment.

On June 28, 2010, the employer advised the WCB that they were not able to accommodate the worker with modified duties, as at the time of his injury, he was working in their lightest position which involved wrapping parts. The position no longer existed as it was transferred out to another location.

On September 21, 2010, a WCB medical advisor reviewed the medical information on file and stated:

The physiotherapist's discharge report and [neurologist's] consultation both indicate that the claimant has objectively improved with time and conservative management, as expected given the usual natural history of lumbar disc protrusions. [Neurologist's] examination does not indicate the presence of any significant nerve root impingement.

As e-mail from the employer, dated September 8, 2010, noted that modified duties have become available (counting inventory, part-time) and that the employer had contacted the claimant that day to offer such duties. These duties appear to be within the restrictions suggested by the physiotherapist in her discharge report of September 1, 2010.

In a memo to file dated September 30, 2010, the WCB case manager recorded that she spoke with the worker and he advised that his left leg was dragging and he had trouble walking. He had muscle wasting in his left leg and had pain when sitting. He could not lay down more than 2 hours at a time. He was unable to drive a far distance as it was too painful to sit that long.

In a memo to file dated October 6, 2010, the case manager recorded that he spoke to the worker's advocate who voiced concerns that the worker was to avoid work activities until after he underwent an MRI assessment based on the advice of an occupational health physician and the treating neurologist. The advocate noted that the worker could barely move.

On October 7, 2010, the employer's representative advised that a meeting was held with the worker and his advocate regarding return to work options. It was agreed that pending consultation with the neurosurgeon and MRI findings (scheduled for the following week), they would respect the capabilities provided by the treating physician dated August 9, 2010. The restrictions were considered to be very restrictive, i.e. worker could not even sit anytime during the work day. The representative noted that they previously discussed with the worker a return to work position that involved label making with the availability of a sit/stand stool facilitating this position. The worker did not participate, citing his concerns about further exacerbation of his described spinal pathology and the influence of his current medication which he reported made him drowsy.

On October 13, 2010, the employer's representative advised the WCB that they acknowledged that the worker did not participate in the modified duties that were offered to him. Their position was however that the "event" in May 2010 was minor and at most, an aggravation of a pre-existing condition, not requiring excessive time loss.

On November 3, 2010, the worker was interviewed by a WCB physical medicine consultant at a call-in assessment. The consultant outlined the opinion that despite the worker's long history of back pain and the multilevel disc degenerative involvement of his spine, there were no apparent contraindications to pushing and performing regular physical fitness activities. It was expected that with certain exercises, the worker would be able to progress back to his usual employment within his current preventative restrictions.

In a decision dated November 30, 2010, the WCB advised the worker that based on the medical information on file and the WCB examination findings of November 3, 2010, the WCB was not able to accept further responsibility in relation to his May 27, 2010 workplace injury as it was felt that his condition had returned to a pre-accident/pre-existing condition.

On December 6, 2010, the WCB confirmed that no change would be made to the November 30, 2010 decision based on a review of MRI reports dated June 24, 2009 and October 13, 2010 and a CT scan report dated February 15, 2005.

On December 17, 2010, the WCB advised the worker that "Based on a review of the surveillance information in relation to your consistent self-reported total disability in comparison to your employer's efforts to accommodate your condition with modified duties, I am of the opinion that you should have been capable of fully participating in a graduated return to work plan effective September 21, 2010. Please note that the earliest surveillance information is dated September 21, 2010. As such, all wage loss benefits paid effective September 21, 2010 to December 6, 2010 will be considered an overpayment and will need to be repaid."

On May 2, 2011, the claim was considered by Review Office based on an appeal by the employer's representative who suggested that the compensable incident reported on May 27, 2010 was not severe enough to totally disable the worker from a reasonable accommodation prior to September 21, 2010.

On May 2, 2011, Review Office determined that there was insufficient evidence to support that the worker had a full loss of earning capacity beyond September 10, 2010. Review Office said the medical information supported a return to work with modified duties and the employer was able to accommodate this effective September 13, 2010.

On October 19, 2011, Review Office considered an appeal by the worker and determined that the modified part-time duties offered by the employer were appropriate, and that the worker was overpaid wage loss benefits. Review Office referred to its previous decision of May 2, 2011 and stated there was no new evidence that would change the decision. It was felt that the modified duties were in keeping with the worker's restrictions in relation to his compensable injury and he was capable of a part-time return to modified duties effective September 13, 2010.

Review Office concluded that the worker was withholding key information related to his capabilities resulting in the overpayment of his benefits. As the overpayment from September 13 to September 20, 2010 resulted from a reconsideration decision, that part of the overpayment would not be pursued for recovery.

Review Office indicated that the worker was responsible for repayment of the overpayment based on his ability to return to work on a graduated basis between September 21, 2010 and December 6, 2010.

On July 9, 2016, the worker appealed Review Office's decision to the Appeal Commission and an oral hearing was arranged.

Reasons

Applicable Legislation and Policy

The appeal commission and its panels are bound by The Workers Compensation Act  (the "Act"), regulations and policies of the WCB's Board of Directors.

The worker has an accepted claim for a lower back injury which occurred on May 27, 2010.

The worker is appealing 2 issues:

Issue 1. Whether or not the modified duties offered by the employer were appropriate.

Under subsection 4(1) of the Act, where a worker suffers personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment, compensation shall be paid to the worker by the WCB.

Subsection 27(1) provides that medical aid will be paid by the WCB for so long as is necessary to cure and provide relief from the injury.

Subsection 39(1) of the Act provides that wage loss benefits will be paid: “…where an injury to a worker results in a loss of earning capacity…” Subsection 39(2) of the Act provides that the WCB will pay wage loss benefits until such a time as the worker’s loss of earning capacity ends, or the worker attains the age of 65 years.

WCB Board Policy 43.20.25, Return to Work with the Accident Employer ("Return to Work policy") states in part:          

If a worker refuses to participate in suitable work, wage loss benefits will be reduced or eliminated by the amount the worker would have earned in the suitable work.

Issue 2. Whether the worker has been overpaid wage loss benefits.

Subsection 109.2 of the Act Provides:           

Recovery of overpayments

109.2 Where a person receives an overpayment of compensation, being an amount that      the board determines is in excess of that to which the person is entitled, the board may recover the overpayment from the person, or from the executors or administrators of the person, as a debt due to the board.

WCB Board Policy 35.40.50, Overpayments of Benefits ("Overpayments Policy") deals with recovery of overpayments of benefits.  This policy sets out the principles established by the WCB Board of Directors to guide the WCB in its recovery of overpayments.

Worker's Position

The worker was represented by legal counsel. The worker answered questions asked by his representative and the panel.

The worker's representative acknowledged there are two issues before the panel but submitted that the primary issue is whether the worker has been overpaid wage loss benefits. 

He framed the issue as follows:

The issue is whether or not [worker] is responsible for repayment of the benefits issued from September 21 to December 6, 2010, for the reason being that he was withholding key information affecting benefit entitlement.

He noted that based on video surveillance it was determined that the worker withheld key information affecting benefits entitlement and was able to work.   He said that the issue isn’t that the worker was reporting false information, but was withholding key information. 

The worker's representative reviewed the worker's medical history and accident history.  He noted that the worker's original back injury was in November 1983, where he was diagnosed with a collapsed L3/L4 disc compression at L4/L5. The worker's representative noted that the worker had back claims in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009.

In 2010, the worker was wrapping small parts, a full-time alternate position, when he turned and pulled on the wrap he was using, and he felt a pain in his lower back radiating into his left foot. He noted this is the claim currently before the panel.

Regarding the worker's medical history, the worker's representative referred to the February 15, 2005 CT scan which indicated:

• at L3/L4 there was a mild disc space narrowing, slight posterior bulging, there was no evidence of stenosis or foraminal stenosis.  Nerve root compression is not suspected.
• at L4/L5 there is a slight disc space narrowing, there is a small more localized posterior protrusion at the midline. This contacts the thecal sac and distorts it slightly. Nerve root compression is considered unlikely, however, there is no evidence of spinal stenosis or neural foraminal stenosis.
• at L5/S1 there is localized but quite marked right posterior disc protrusion.  

The worker's representative referred to other diagnostic studies including an October 13, 2010 MRI which indicated:       

• L2 and L3 appear normal.
• the L3/L4 demonstrates a left paracentral disc protrusion. This just contacts the left L4 root, central canal and the foraminal are well maintained.
• L4/L5 demonstrates a moderate left obtrusion, disc contacts and results in slight posterior displacement of the left L5 root, the central canal and foraminal are well maintained.
• L5/S1 level demonstrates a shallow right protrusion. This just contacts the right SI nerve root, possibly with minimal posterior displacement.

The worker's representative submitted that this information appears to have been left out by the WCB medical advisors.  He submitted that there is objective medical evidence that supports the worker's reports of pain and disability.  

The worker's representative noted the WCB medical consultant’s November 3, 2010 report.  The WCB medical consultant recorded the following complaints when he saw the worker on this date.   He noted that the worker reported:

• he cannot sit for a very long time, his back gets sore.
• he has difficulty getting up.
• bending and lifting produce symptoms, so he avoids bending and lifting.
• he does not bend much because bending or twisting, he feels this throws his back out. He can have increased symptoms for a number of days that requires crutches and being bent forward.
• functional abilities for activities of daily living are variable.
• he reported some days he was able to do his activities of daily living.  

The worker's representative submitted that:

…this is key to the withholding key information issue.  He reported some days he was able to do his activities of daily living, so he’s telling the medical advisor from WCB that some days he’s able to do his daily living activities.  

The worker's representative submitted that there was "nothing more than daily activities in the surveillance."  He added that the worker did not say he couldn’t carry anything.  

The worker's representative also noted that the worker advised the WCB medical consultant at the November 2010 appointment, that he was able to do his daily living activities.  

The worker's representative tendered a letter from an occupational health clinic physician dated September 8, 2010.  He noted that the physician reviewed the worker's medical history and injury history.  The physician also noted that the worker complained of painful flare-ups which had occurred 4 to 5 times in the past year.  As well, the worker estimated his walking tolerance was six to eight blocks.  

The worker's representative noted that the WCB medical consultant commented that it is expected the worker will be able to progress back to his usual employment within his current preventative restrictions.  

The worker's representative referred to file information which he said indicates that it was agreed between the WCB, employer and worker, that a further return to work would wait until results of an MRI were available.  

The worker's representative commented on the video surveillance and the worker's actions on the video.  He submitted that:  

The issue is he was paid up until this day, up until December 6th…and in order for the board to claw it back, they need to prove one of those, on the balance of probabilities, one of the indicia in the policy, and that’s fraud, misrepresentation or withholding key information.  And my position is [worker] didn’t withhold any key information.  

The worker's representative stated:  

I don’t think anything in this surveillance would be considered key information that he would need to call the board, and inform the board that I went to a healing, that I went to my daughter’s football game, that I went to the grocery store.  

The worker's counsel submitted that on the first issue relating to the modified duties, that none of the duties were actually provided.  He reviewed the various modified duties that had been discussed.  He said the inventory position was not a meaningful position. The labeling position was not considered an adequate alternative duty.  He noted that the worker previously reinjured his back doing these light modified duties.  

Regarding the application of the WCB overpayment policy, the worker's representative submitted that the overpayment in the worker's case resulted from an adjudicative reversal and is not recoverable, unless there is fraud, deliberate misrepresentation or withholding key information.  He said that in this case there wasn’t anything in this surveillance that would raise an issue of withholding key information and noted:  

The only way this panel can find that the board is able to claw back this money is if it could be proven on the balance of probabilities that [worker] withheld key information from the board, and it’s my submission that can’t be proven on the balance of probabilities.

The worker's representative submitted that:

The issue with regards to the modified duties, in my submission, has nothing to do with whether or not the board can claw back what they’ve already paid [worker] in wage loss. It has nothing to do with the modified duties, it doesn’t have anything to do with any of that.

The worker was asked questions by the panel.  He responded as follow:

• he did not receive any medical treatment after he saw the neurosurgeon in September 2010.
• he did not return to work until February 2011 when he returned to his original job as a plastic tech.
• with respect to the condition of his back when he returned to work in February 2011, he advised  "Probably not much different than it was before."
• he continued to work in this positon until he ceased working for the employer in 2012.
• he did not attend further physiotherapy because the WCB would not cover it.
• he has not had to go for surgery and has altered his life since 1983.
• today his symptoms vary one day to the next just as they did before.

The worker agreed with the following query by a panel member:

Q   "So the sense I have from your things, it was a fear of re-injury, which is the issue,    rather than a specific concern whether you could do those jobs?"

A   I would agree with that.

The worker's counsel advised that the worker was relying on the physicians who were treating him at the time.

The worker described his duties as a plastic tech.  He said they were making parts, about 5 feet in width, and described the process as being a "kind of a production line."

The position with wrapping duties involved a big roll of wrap mounted to a table which was used to wrap parts.  The worker likened it to wrapping Christmas presents.  

The worker's representative stated there was no medical information with regards to clearing the worker to go back to any duties until the WCB medical consultant's report on November 3, 2010.

The worker's representative closing remarks included:

So whether or not this panel finds, and, with regards to the modified duties that were offered between September and December, whether or not this panel finds that any one of these, and in our respectful submission, none of them were appropriate at the time, the          panel finds that one of them was appropriate at the time, so be it. I suppose [worker] can ive with that.  It still doesn’t change our position that, based on the policy with regards to overpayment, that the WCB cannot claw back the set amount, which was at the time $6,900.00 and change, unless one of the indicia could be proven on the balance of probabilities of fraud, misrepresentation or withholding key information.  And it’s our position none of that happened. So if an overpayment, if this panel decides one of these modified duties were relevant, and [worker] could have returned to one of these modified duties, it doesn’t affect the fact that the board can’t claw back the payment, from our submission.  They cannot claw back the overpayment unless one of the indicia I just mentioned is proven on the balance of probabilities.

Employer's Position

The employer was represented by its Employee Relations Officer (Employer Representative) and Disability Management Specialist.

The employer's representative noted that the worker was offered an accommodation on August 3, 2010.  He advised that "at this time he presented that he had restrictions that would not allow him to work full working duties he was offered at that point, and he did not accept employment at that time."

The employer's representative advised that:

"The next time we offered him accommodated duties was September 9, we called him back September 10 to discuss a possible return. This one was doing inventory.  [Worker] himself told us he could not return to work."

The employer representative advised that he was offered a third positon on October 1, and this is when he was offered labeling, which the worker said is not meaningful work. The employer representative explained that this is the work that the employer offers employees who require accommodation. The employer has a desk set up in the quality department that’s predominately used for accommodating employees to make labels.  He said that when this accommodation was offered to the worker it was explained to him that he could take whatever breaks were necessary. He could walk when he needed to, he could sit when he needed to, and it would completely be on his own schedule.  This was a 40-hour a week job.

The employer representative commented that the worker's actions in the video surveillance were inconsistent with his refusal to return to work.

The employer representative reported that the worker expressed concern about further injury and that it was not worth the risk.  The worker indicated that he would wait for the MRI results.

Analysis

Issue 1:  Whether the modified duties offered by the employer were appropriate.

For the worker's appeal of this issue to be approved, the panel must find that the modified duties offered to the worker by the employer pertaining to the period September 13, 2010 to December 6, 2010, were not appropriate.

The panel was not able to make this finding.  The panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the duties offered by the employer to the worker were appropriate.

At the hearing, information was provided by the employer representative regarding duties that were offered by the employer. 

The panel accepts the evidence of the employer representative that three offers of modified duties were made to the worker.  The panel finds that the duties were not the worker's regular duties but were modified to take into account the worker's restrictions.  The panel notes that worker did not attempt a return to work until after December 6, 2010.  The panel attaches no weight to the argument that the duties were not appropriate as the worker refused to even attempt the modified duties.  As well the panel notes the worker's acknowledgement, at the hearing, that it was a fear of re-injury, which was the issue, rather than a specific concern whether he could do the jobs.

Further, the panel finds that the worker's fitness to return to work is also confirmed by the medical evidence.  The panel attaches weight to the June 23, 2010 Physiotherapy Progress Report that indicates the worker is fit for alternate or modified duites and states "GRTW 4 hour x 2 weeks , 6 hours x 2 weeks, as of June 6, 2010.  This authorization was followed by an authorization from a different physiotherapist dated August 27, 2010.  She indicated "can begin on modified hours/duties with minimal sitting & reduced lifting to 10 lbs @ waist." These authorizations were given before September 13, 2010.

In addition, on September 21, 2010, a WCB medical advisor reviewed the worker's file, including the proposed alternate duties, and opined that "These duties appear to be within the restrictions suggested by the physiotherapist in her discharge report of September 1, 2010."

The panel notes that some reliance was placed on the fact that a neurosurgeon had ordered an MRI of the worker's back.  It was suggested that the worker could not return to work until the MRI was completed.  The panel has reviewed the opinions of the neurosurgeon and finds that the neurosurgeon's reports do not suggest an inability to perform modified duties or authorize absence from work.  The September 7, 2010 report of the neurosurgeon indicates "There was some questionable weakness of dorsiflexion of the left foot."  After his review of the MRI, he commented that he could not appreciate any significant displacement.  In a subsequent report on October 27, 2010, the neurosurgeon recommended that the worker pursue physiotherapy, but provided no comment on the worker's ability to perform modified duties.  The neurosurgeon's emphasis was on some weakness in the left foot and not on the worker's back.

The worker's representative submitted that a substantial offer of employment was not made by the employer.  In addition, he argued that the first medical authorization for a return to work was given by a WCB medical consultant on November 3, 2010.  As noted in our findings above, offers of employment were made by the employer and there was appropriate authorization provided by the treating physiotherapists.

The worker's appeal of this issue is dismissed. 

Issue 2:  Whether the worker has been overpaid wage loss benefits.

For the worker's appeal to be approved, the panel must find that the worker was not overpaid.  The panel is not able to make this finding.

Given the panel's decision on Issue 1 above, that the modified duties offered by the employer were appropriate and given that the worker refused to participate in the modified duties but continued to be paid benefits by the WCB, the panel finds that the worker has received an excess of benefits over entitlement, in other words, an overpayment as defined by the Act, and by the Return to Work policy.

The panel notes that the WCB has taken action to recover the overpayment and it is this action that has caused the worker to appeal the WCB's decision.  The panel finds that the issue under appeal is set out more narrowly than intended by the parties and finds that it has the authority to determine whether the worker must repay the overpayment.  The panel further notes that the parties both spoke specifically to the issue of whether the worker was required to repay.

The worker's representative submitted that the real issue in this appeal is whether the WCB can recover the overpayment.  He submitted that:

The issue arises because the WCB and Review Office found that the overpayment to [worker], although the result of adjudication reversal, was caused by [worker] withholding key information affecting benefits entitlement about his condition and the ability to return to work.

The worker's counsel also submitted that:

For [worker's] appeal to be successful the panel must find that an overpayment was not caused by fraud, deliberate misrepresentation or withholding key information affecting benefits and entitlement, benefit entitlement.

In addressing this appeal and the recovery of overpayments, the panel must apply the Overpayments Policy.  The policy provides:

Overpayment Recovery Criteria

3. All overpayments receivable will be pursued for recovery, unless:

(i.) they resulted from an adjudicative reversal or a reconsideration decision by the WCB, or from a decision of the Appeal Commission; or

(ii.) they resulted from either an administrative error by the WCB, or the receipt of incorrect information from an employer that affected eligibility or the amount payable. The exception to this provision is that the overpayment will be pursued if the WCB considers that the error or incorrect information was so material or obvious that the worker should have recognized it and reported it to the WCB; or

(iii.) new information relevant to entitlement was known to the worker and was not provided to the WCB, but it resulted in an overpayment of less than $50; or

(iv.) the amount receivable is not cost-effective to pursue; or

(v.)  recovery of the overpayment, in whole or in part, would create financial hardship   for the worker or the worker’s defendants; or

(vi.) the worker has died, unless it is clear that the estate has sufficient funds available to repay the overpayment; or

(vii.) the overpayment occurred more than three years prior to its discovery by the WCB.

4. Despite the provisions in Part 3, overpayments will be pursued for recovery where the following circumstances apply:

(i.) there was fraud, deliberate misrepresentation or withholding of key information affecting benefits entitlement; or

(ii.) the overpayment represents a duplication of benefits paid from another source for the same injury, for example Long Term Disability or CPP Disability benefits.

The worker's counsel noted that the WCB expressly found that the worker's conduct was not fraudulent.  He has suggested that the decisions of the WCB were based on the WCB's belief that the worker withheld key information.

The panel has considered the worker's action during the period that he was receiving benefits and refusing to perform modified duties.  The panel notes that surveillance was done on the worker on September 23, October 8, 9, and15, and December 2, 2010. The panel notes that the worker spoke to a WCB staff person on September 30, 2010.  In that conversation the worker that:

• his left leg drags and hooks on things.
• he has trouble walking. he has muscle wasting in his left leg.
• he has pain when sitting, he cannot lay down for more than 2 hours at a time.
• he cannot drive a car a far distance as it is too painful to sit that long.
• he can only drive short distances to the store.

On November 3, 2010, the worker met with a WCB medical consultant.  The worker advised the medical advisor that:

• he has had continuous back pain since a 1983 accident.
• in October  2009 after an incident at work he began getting pain in his left leg, feeling numbness and weakness in his left foot.
• his symptoms increased in severity.
• his leg symptoms remain severe, from the top of the thigh to the buttock area and extends past the knee.
• at times the pain is present to the heel, foot and sometimes the shin of the foot.
• he can only walk three to four blocks.
• he develops hot points in his hips.
• he has difficulty getting up.
• he reports bending and lifting produce symptoms so he avoids bending and lifting.
• if he does bending or twisting he feels this throws his back out.
• he can have increased symptoms for a number of days that requires crutches and being bent forward.
• in terms of functional abilities for activities of daily living, he reports these are variable.
• some days he is able to do activities of daily living. 
• other days it is painful to bend over the sink and he has modified how he does a number of his activities.
• he needs help carrying grocery items and usually uses a cart for several cartons of milk.
• he does some leg raises, leg extensions and calf raises, no general aerobic fitness activity.
• he gets some relief if he lies on the floor and puts his legs up on a bench.

The panel had an opportunity to view all the surveillance videos and finds that worker's appearance and actions during the period did not exhibit any conduct that was consistent with the serious debilitating back injury he described to the WCB staff person or WCB medical consultant.  

Specifically, the panel finds that the worker's activities on September 23, 2010 are not consistent with the description of his condition provided to the WCB staff person on September 30, 2010.  The panel further notes that the medical evidence does not support the worker's complaint, particularly his complaint of foot dragging or the need for any additional medical restrictions beyond those proposed by his physiotherapists or WCB physical medicine consultant. 

The panel finds that the worker has misrepresented his condition to WCB staff and the WCB medical consultant with the end result being that he received WCB benefits during a period that he should have returned to work. The panel finds that the worker deliberately embellished or exaggerated his symptoms for the purpose of remaining off work.  The panel finds that the worker's actions amount to a deliberate misrepresentation of his condition and ability. 

The panel notes that at the hearing the worker acknowledged that he refused to return to work due to a fear of re-injury.  The panel finds that this does not justify his refusal to return to work.

The panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the worker deliberately misrepresented his medical condition to the WCB.  The panel finds that the worker was fit to participate in the recommended graduated return to work program in the suitable work offered, and that his actions resulted in the overpayment of WCB benefits. The panel finds that pursuant to the Overpayments Policy, the worker is required to repay the overpayment of benefits.

The worker's appeal of this issue is dismissed.

Panel Members

A. Scramstad, Presiding Officer
A. Finkel, Commissioner
P. Walker, Commissioner

Recording Secretary, B. Kosc

A. Scramstad - Presiding Officer
(on behalf of the panel)

Signed at Winnipeg this 9th day of February, 2017