Decision #105/20 - Type: Workers Compensation
Preamble
The worker is appealing decisions made by the Workers Compensation Board ("WCB") that:
Accident of June 1, 2001: His claim is not acceptable; and
Accident of November 1, 2010: His claim is not acceptable.
A teleconference hearing was held on September 22, 2020 and reconvened on October 1, 2020 to consider the worker's appeals.
Issue
Accident of June 1, 2001: Whether or not the worker’s claim is acceptable; and
Accident of November 1, 2010: Whether or not the worker’s claim is acceptable.
Decision
Accident of June 1, 2001: The worker’s claim is not acceptable; and
Accident of November 1, 2010: The worker’s claim is not acceptable.
Background
Accident of June 1, 2001
The worker filed a Worker Incident Report with the WCB on May 2, 2019, reporting he suffered a psychological injury (anxiety) at work on June 1, 2001 due to his job duties and inability to report his concerns to his employer.
On May 7, 2019, the WCB contacted the worker to discuss his claim. At that time, the worker related his anxiety to his workload and that he had several non-compensable motor vehicle accidents that left him unable to lift items with much weight. He advised his employer was not accommodating his limits and had advised him that if he did not perform his job duties, he would be fired.
The WCB advised the worker that his claim was not acceptable on May 7, 2019 on the basis that the daily pressures and stressors of work, and issues between employees and employers do not meet the definition of an accident under the WCB legislation.
The worker requested reconsideration of the WCB’s decision to Review Office on July 2, 2019, providing further details regarding his work duties, a detailed chronology of the events surrounding his non-compensable motor vehicle accidents, and copies of medical information from his occupational therapist and treating family physician.
On July 9, 2019, Review Office determined the worker’s claim was not acceptable. Review Office noted the medical information outlined that the worker’s reporting of anxiety, stress and depression related to personal issues and did not reference work-related causes. Further, Review Office found the worker’s reports of stress or harassment in his workplace fell within “regular workplace operations” and therefore, the claim was not acceptable.
Accident of November 1, 2010
On December 11, 2018, the worker filed a Worker Incident Report with the WCB indicating he injured his back, both legs and his neck in an incident at work on November 1, 2010. He reported he had been in a non-compensable motor vehicle accident in June 2010 that required him to be off work for four months, and upon his return to work, a new workstation was to be set up to accommodate his inability to stand all day. The worker stated this accommodation was not implemented. The employer filed an Employer Injury Report with the WCB on January 16, 2019 indicating that they were not aware of an injury occurring on November 1, 2010.
When the WCB spoke with the worker on January 21, 2019 regarding his claim, he provided names of his treating healthcare providers and noted that on his return to work around September 2010 after being injured in a motor vehicle accident, “He was supposed to have a special work station set up but his employer didn’t want one set up as they didn’t want him sitting in a chair.” The worker further advised that he believed he aggravated his injury by standing all day and lifting equipment heavier than he was able to.
The WCB gathered information from the worker’s treating healthcare providers and his employer, including a job description and list of job duties. The employer advised the WCB on April 24, 2019 that they were not aware of the specifics of the worker’s accommodation request regarding his workstation.
On April 25, 2019, the WCB advised the worker that his claim was not acceptable. The WCB noted the medical information provided by the worker’s healthcare providers revealed his condition was degenerative in nature. As well, the WCB could not establish that an accident “arising out of or in the course of employment” had occurred, and as such, it could not accept responsibility for his claim.
On July 2, 2019, the worker requested reconsideration of the WCB’s decision to Review Office.
Review Office determined on July 16, 2019 that the worker’s claim was not acceptable. Review Office found the medical information on the worker’s file indicated he sustained several injuries because of multiple non-compensable motor vehicle accidents. As a result of those pre-existing and degenerative conditions, Review Office found it likely that the worker would experience symptoms of his difficulties “…even with activities of daily living” and could not establish a relationship between the worker’s difficulties and his job duties. Further, Review Office found although the worker reported having difficulties in 2010 with his job duties, he did not report them to his employer and as such, Review Office could not relate those difficulties to an accident “arising out of or in the course of” his employment.
Both Claims
The worker filed appeals with the Appeal Commission on both of his claims on August 30, 2019. A teleconference hearing was arranged for September 22, 2020.
Reasons
Applicable Legislation and Policy
The Appeal Commission and its panels are bound by The Workers Compensation Act (the "Act"), regulations under that Act and the policies established by the WCB's Board of Directors.
The Act sets out the definition of an accident in s 1(1) as a chance event occasioned by a physical or natural cause, as a result of which a worker is injured. The definition includes events arising out of and in the course of employment as well as occupational disease.
When it is established that a worker has been injured as a result of an accident at work, the worker is entitled to benefits under s 4(1) of the Act. Those benefits may include wage loss benefits where there is a loss of income earning capacity arising out of the injury, as set out in s 39 of the Act, or medical aid as required to cure and provide relief from injury arising out of a compensable accident, provided under s 27 of the Act.
The Act requires in s 17(1) that an injured worker report an accident to their employer within 30 days after the injury occurs. Further, the Act requires in s 19(2) that an application for compensation be filed with the WCB within one year after the date of injury, subject to s 109 which allows the WCB to enlarge the time period for application where an injustice would result as a result of failing to do so.
The WCB has established Policy 44.05.30 Adjudication of Psychological Injuries (the “Psychological Injury Policy”) to outline how claims for psychological injury will be adjudicated. This policy sets out that such claims will be adjudicated in the same way as claims for physical injuries. The WCB will determine whether: there has been an accident arising out of and in the course of employment.; the worker has suffered an injury; and the injury was caused by the accident. The Psychological Injury Policy specifically excludes from coverage psychological injuries that occur because of burn-out or the daily pressures or stressors of work as the daily pressures or stressors of work do not fall within any part of the definition of accident because there is no chance event, no wilful and intentional act and no traumatic event. Further, matters of discipline, promotion, demotion, transfer, or other employment related matters are also specifically excluded from the definition of accident.
The WCB has also established Policy 44.10.20.10 Pre-existing Conditions (the “Pre-existing Conditions Policy”) to set out the approach where a worker makes a claim for injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment and the worker has a pre-existing condition that is not a compensable condition. This policy clarifies that the WCB will not provide benefits for injury resulting solely from the effects of a worker's pre-existing condition as such a pre-existing condition does not fall within the definition of "personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment." The WCB is only responsible for personal injury as a result of accidents that are determined to be arising out of and in the course of employment.
Worker’s Position
The worker appeared on his own behalf before the panel and made oral submissions in support of his position on the two issues under appeal. Further, his position is outlined in written submissions he provided to the Appeal Commission in advance of the hearing, received on July 16 and 17, 2020 and on September 14, 2020. The worker’s submissions included medical reports annotated by the worker as well as various handwritten correspondence from the worker to the Appeal Commission.
Accident of June 1, 2001
The worker’s position with respect to the claim of accident occurring June 1, 2001 is that he began to experience psychological symptoms as a result of bullying and harassing treatment in the workplace by his supervisor, beginning in June 2001 and as a result of the employer’s failure to provide him with accommodation or assistive devices.
The worker, in his oral submission, outlined to the panel that he first noted anxiety when the employer did not provide him with assistive devices, such as a support stool, to accommodate injuries he incurred in a motor vehicle accident. This occurred, he said, between 1996 and 2000. He also described first experiencing anxiety when his new supervisor told him in 2001 that if he did not like his job, he should contact Human Resources or the Labour Board. The worker also described experiencing trauma and anxiety on returning to work after receiving several joint injections between 1996 and 2004.
The worker described to the panel that his condition was aggravated upon his return to work in 2010 after recovery from a non-compensable motor vehicle accident injury. At that time, he learned that he had “lost” his entitlement to three weeks of vacation. Around that time, he stated he also experienced a loss of privacy when the Human Resources staff shared personal information about his medications with his supervisor. The worker stated that in this time, his boss told him he was skinny and lethargic, and the worker noted that this upset him.
The worker described to the panel that during the period of 2001-2018, every 2-3 months the employer would threaten that he would lose his employment if he did not do his job well. The worker stated that this sort of bullying was not called for and that it messed him up.
In describing the nature of the psychological injury suffered, the worker reported experiencing anxiety, panic attacks and flashbacks. He described living with the fear of losing his job all those years. He also stated he experienced post traumatic stress, describing how he replays conversations that took place at work and that he witnessed a fight between two other employees.
The worker’s position is that his anxiety symptoms are directly related to and the result of his workplace experiences beginning in 2001, and that the claim should therefore be accepted.
Accident of November 1, 2010
The worker’s position with respect of the claim of accident occurring November 1, 2010 is that as a result of the employer’s failure to accommodate his pre-existing injury, his condition was worsened, and therefore the claim should be accepted.
The worker described to the panel that when he returned to work on November 1, 2010 after a period of time away due to injuries incurred in a non-compensable motor vehicle accident, he was unable to perform certain job duties and that the employer did not accommodate his disability or provide any required assistive devices to enable him to do his job without causing further injury.
The worker described to the panel the specific job duties that he was unable to perform or that he required support to perform as including carrying heavy pails from the work area to the drain, lifting and emptying a filled shop vacuum, crawling into small spaces to clean or repair machines, cleaning floor drains and more. Carrying out these job duties, the worker stated, caused him discomfort in his groin as well as in his neck and back. The worker stated he believed that his diagnosis of fibromyalgia was also related to his workplace duties.
The worker stated that when he returned to work, he did so with physical restrictions including limits on lifting and no bending. He referenced a document he said was provided to the employer in August 2010 by his treating physiotherapist with respect to his need for an accommodative workstation setup and outlining his physical restrictions.
In sum, the worker’s position is that as a result of carrying out duties arising out of and in the course of his employment, he caused or worsened injury to his neck and back and groin, and was diagnosed with fibromyalgia. For this reason, the claim should be accepted.
Employer’s Position
The employer was represented in the hearing by a human resources business partner (“HR partner”) and by legal counsel. Legal counsel provided the panel with a written submission in advance of the hearing and made oral submissions during the hearing. The employer’s human resources business partner provided testimony through answers to questions posed by the legal counsel and by members of the hearing panel.
The employer’s HR partner testified to the panel that he joined the employer in 2017 and first took on responsibility for the region including the site where the worker was employed in December 2018.
Accident of June 1, 2001
The employer’s position is that the worker’s claim should not be accepted as the evidence does not establish that an accident occurred, nor that the worker was injured as a result of any workplace event or accident or occupational disease.
The HR partner explained to the panel that he first learned of this claim when the employer received a letter from WCB dated May 7, 2019 denying the worker’s claim. He noted that there was not any documentation in the worker’s file of any struggle with his workload and that this issue was not noted in the worker’s performance evaluations. The performance evaluations for 2008 through 2017 were reviewed by the HR partner who stated the worker was consistently rated at 3/5, which is considered a good rating. The HR partner also stated he spoke with the worker’s supervisor and was advised the supervisor had no issues or confrontations with the worker and that the worker’s service was appreciated.
The HR partner noted that the worker’s job description included little to no heavy lifting and that the worker’s supervisor had provided instruction that the worker should not do any heavy lifting due to his prior back injuries.
The HR partner told the panel that the worker’s employment file contains no documentation of harassment or threats to the worker’s job or pushback to requests for accommodation. He noted that the employer has a mechanism in place to address complaints of discrimination, bullying and harassment and pointed to the employer’s Discrimination, Harassment and Bullying Policy, submitted in evidence. This policy had been signed by the worker in 2013 and 2015. The worker had not made any complaints under the policy.
With respect to the worker’s allegation that personal information about the worker’s medications was shared with his supervisor, the HR partner noted that any medical information would only be shared regarding physical restrictions or relevant limitations resulting from use of medications, but that information about specific medication would not be shared.
The position of the employer, as outlined by legal counsel, is that the evidence does not support that there was an accident resulting in the worker’s claimed psychological injury. The evidence does not support any finding that there was a chance event or wilful act that could be defined as an accident under the Act. The worker’s claim is based upon his perceived confrontations with his supervisor and perceived over-burdensome workload, but there is no evidence that these perceptions are accurate, and even if accurate, that there was any wilful or intentional act involved. Further, there is no evidence of harassment or bullying in the workplace, nor of any traumatic event that might have triggered a psychological injury.
Legal counsel noted that the medical reporting also does not establish any link between the worker’s job duties and responsibilities and his psychological injuries. Further, even if the worker’s anxiety did result from a heavy workload and confrontations with his supervisor, these are the sort of daily stressors of work that are explicitly non-compensable under the provisions of the Psychological Injuries Policy.
Therefore, the employer’s position is that the claim should not be accepted.
Accident of November 1, 2010
The employer’s position is that the worker’s claim should not be accepted as the evidence does not support that the worker was injured as a result of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment; rather, the evidence establishes that the worker’s injury was pre-existing and was not aggravated or enhanced as a result of injury arising out of and in the course of his employment.
The HR partner explained to the panel that he became aware of the worker’s claim of injury when the WCB claim was received by the employer in December 2018. At that time, he reviewed the worker’s human resources file and noted there was no reference to a workplace injury occurring in 2017. The HR partner explained that he then spoke with the worker’s supervisor and was advised that in 2010, on the worker’s return to work, the supervisor asked him if he wanted a chair to sit on and the worker declined. The HR partner confirmed there was no documentation of this conversation.
The HR partner also stated that when he spoke with the worker’s supervisor about the claim, the supervisor confirmed he was not aware of any physical restrictions upon the worker’s return to work in 2010. This is confirmed by the fax memo dated September 21, 2010 from the vehicle insurance program case manager to the worker’s supervisor indicating that the worker was cleared to return to work on reduced hours on September 20, 2010, without any restrictions. The HR partner also stated that the supervisor reported he advised the worker’s team leader not to allow the worker to do any heavy lifting due to his history of back injuries.
Further, the HR partner confirmed the worker’s file did not include any documentation of requests for accommodation, indications that the worker was struggling with his workload or standing, information about restrictions or requests for installation of an accommodative workstation.
The HR partner advised the panel that the Employer Injury Report, dated January 8, 2019 was prepared based upon the information he gathered from the worker’s human resources file and conversations with the worker’s supervisor. Subsequently, he provided the WCB case manager with a copy of the worker’s job description on April 24, 2019 and confirmed to the WCB that there was no record on file of any request for accommodation by the worker.
The HR partner outlined to the panel that if an employee required accommodation, a request could be made to the human resources department, or an employee might ask for it during a performance evaluation. He noted that other employees have been accommodated for physical restrictions as needed.
The employer’s position, as outlined by legal counsel, is that the evidence does not support that the worker’s neck and back injuries were caused by any of the worker’s job duties, but are the result of the worker’s motor vehicle collision injuries and other degenerative conditions. Counsel also noted that the worker did not report this purported injury until more than 8 years after he stated it occurred and that he continued to perform his job duties throughout that period.
Further, counsel noted that there is no record that the worker required any accommodation in 2010 upon his return to work, nor that he requested it of the employer at that time or thereafter. The evidence is clear that the motor vehicle injury insurer did not place any restrictions upon the worker’s return to work or set out any need for accommodation.
The cause of the worker’s injuries are not his job duties or any act of the employer, but relate to pre-existing, non-compensable conditions as outlined in the medical reports on file. These conditions were caused or exacerbated by the worker’s history of motor vehicle accidents and there is no evidence to support that these conditions were enhanced or aggravated by the worker’s job duties or any accident in the workplace.
Therefore, the employer’s position is that the claim should not be accepted.
Analysis
This appeal deals with two different accident claims filed by the appellant worker in 2018 and 2019 with respect to events that the worker claimed occurred in 2001 (the 2019 claim) and 2010 (the 2018 claim). In determining the issues before us, the panel considered the evidence and submissions of the worker and the employer, as well as the contents of each of the WCB claim files. For the reasons outlined below, the panel dismissed the worker’s appeal on each claim.
Accident of June 1, 2001
The issue for determination on this claim is whether the claim is acceptable. To find that the claim is acceptable, the panel would have to determine that the worker was injured because of an accident that occurred arising out of and in the course of his employment. The panel was not able to make such a finding.
The panel noted that the worker’s report of injury was not made until nearly 18 years after the purported injury occurred. The panel finds this delay to be significant and notes that such a lengthy delay in reporting an injury creates an even more significant challenge in establishing whether there is a causal link between the worker’s job duties and his reported injury. The challenges arising from the delay in reporting are exacerbated here by a lack of evidence of any contemporaneous reporting of injury by the worker to anyone, whether medical professionals or colleagues or others.
In considering whether there was an accident as defined by the Act and in accordance with the Psychological Injury Policy, the panel must consider whether the evidence supports a finding that there was a chance event, a wilful and intentional act or an occupational disease, including an acute reaction to a traumatic event or post traumatic stress disorder.
The worker is not alleging that there was any chance event occasioned by a physical or natural cause, or that there was any discrete traumatic event capable of causing serious physical or psychological harm. Rather, the worker’s position is that the course of bullying and harassment he perceived himself to be subjected to by the employer, beginning in June 2001 reflects wilful and intentional behaviour on the part of the employer.
The panel considered the worker’s evidence as to the specific behaviours he said he was subjected to, as well as the evidence on file from the employer. The worker described being told to speak with Human Resources or contact the Labour Board if he didn’t like his job, hearing others call him skinny and lethargic, feeling stressed when he lost vacation time owing to him, and experiencing a loss of privacy in relation to his medical information.
The Psychological Injury Policy, in describing what is required to establish a psychological injury arising out of a workplace accident, specifically excludes psychological injuries that occur as a result of burn-out or the daily pressures or stressors of work as “...daily pressures or stressors of work do not fall within any part of the definition of accident because there is no chance event, no wilful and intentional act and no traumatic event.” Further, the Policy goes on to state that matters of discipline, promotion, demotion, transfer, or other employment related matters are specifically excluded from the definition of accident.
The panel finds that these events or incidents described by the worker, if they occurred at all, would not meets the definition of a wilful and intentional act done with malice or bad faith. At most, it might be said that the worker perceived he was poorly treated by his employer during the specified period.
The panel also considered the evidence whether there was any medical support for the worker’s claim that he incurred a psychological injury arising out of workplace stress due to harassment and bullying.
The available medical reporting does not provide any support for the worker’s assertion that the psychological injury is causally related to his workplace duties beginning in and after June of 2001. There is evidence from April 7, 2000 of the worker’s treating physician noting the worker suffered “...chronic muscular pain with a great deal of functional overlay” and suggesting already at that time that the worker might benefit from seeing a psychiatrist.
There is a significant gap in the file information with respect to the worker’s mental health for the period from June 2001 onward. Chart notes from worker’s treating physician from May 1, 2018 indicate the worker was at that time experiencing depressive symptoms. The physician noted it was “difficult to ascertain if this is in relation to situation or if this is exacerbating pain and work situation.” An undated report from a different physician addressed to the employer outlines that the worker was unable to work as of April 2018 due to his pain. The physician also reported the worker “...has difficulties expressing himself, and has significant anxiety when trying to communicate. He also tends to misinterpret situations that result in extreme anxiety.” The panel notes the physician did not link the worker’s anxiety symptoms to any workplace experiences or events.
Following a psychological assessment of the worker in September 2019, the psychologist concludes:
“While current impairments are evident, it is difficult to ascertain the reason behind these difficulties. [The worker] was a poor historian during his interview....At this point, we can state that [the worker] currently has low cognitive resources and low cognitive functioning, which could be the result of a variety of explanations....
[The worker] has had great difficulty in adapting to his current life circumstances. He often becomes irritable and emotionally dysregulating when discussing his past “trauma” related to a poor work environment and his experiences related to insurance claims....He meets criteria for persistent depressive disorder, which he attributes to chronic pain and not being able to carry out day-to-day activities that he used to be able to do. He also describes high anxiety and sleep difficulties related to his job loss and previous work situation, though does not appear to meet criteria for a specific anxiety disorder at his time.
There is the possibility that [the worker’s] impairments are due to a neuro-cognitive or organic brain impairment....Indeed, certain personality changes, irritability, and some development of paranoia could be explained by the impact of job loss but could also be related to a neurological issue.”
The evidence before the panel suggests that causation of the worker’s psychological condition is complex and cannot be related directly to a workplace accident as defined by the Act, but more likely than not relates to the worker’s response to the combination of his perception of poor treatment by his employer, chronic pain, and pre-existing functional impairments unrelated to his work.
In sum, the totality of evidence on file and provided by the worker does not establish, on the standard of a balance of probabilities, that there was an accident arising out of and in the course of the worker’s employment.
The panel also finds that the evidence does not support, on a balance of probabilities that the worker’s reported injury arose out of and in the course of her employment. Furthermore, the panel finds that the worker’s delay of some 18 years in reporting injury to the WCB is significant and that the evidence does not support, on a balance of probabilities that an injustice would result if the time period for reporting were not enlarged.
Therefore, the claim is not acceptable.
Accident of November 1, 2010
The issue for determination on this claim is whether the claim is acceptable. To find that it is, the panel would have to determine that the worker was injured as a result of an accident that occurred arising out of and in the course of his employment. The panel was not able to make such a finding.
The panel noted that the worker’s report of injury was not made until just over 8 years after the purported injury occurred. The panel finds this to be a significant delay and notes that such a delay creates an even more significant challenge in establishing whether there is a causal link between the worker’s job duties and his reported injury.
The worker’s position is that he suffered injury arising out of and in the course of completing his work duties after his return to work in fall 2010 from an absence due to a non-compensable injury arising from a motor vehicle accident. He believes that the employer failed to accommodate his non-compensable injury and that as a result that injury was worsened by continuing to complete his job duties.
The panel considered the medical evidence available from the time when the worker stated the injury occurred. In the period before his return to work in September 2010, medical reports indicate the worker was being treated for fibromyalgia prior to his motor vehicle accident in June of that year, and that the motor vehicle accident likely worsened the fibromyalgia. Disc degeneration was evident as well at that time.
A September 16, 2010 fax message from the worker’s treating physiotherapist to the motor vehicle insurer indicates that the worker had returned to pre-accident condition and was ready for a graduated return to work beginning on September 20, 2010. Notably, there were no physical restrictions in place at that time.
Physiotherapy chart notes from October 18, 2010, during the worker’s graduated return to work period, indicated he was working full-time at his pre-accident light duties. Although these notes are detailed in respect of the worker’s report as to his symptoms and activities, there are no comments in the report relating to any difficulties arising out of the return to work nor out of any lack of accommodation, other than that the worker was too tired to walk for exercise after work.
The panel also reviewed more recent medical reporting and noted the May 1, 2018 chart note from a treating physician outlined the worker’s complaints of pain and low mood, with difficulty sitting or standing for too long. The physician noted the worker:
“...feels that if [the motor vehicle insurer] and his work would have set up his work station 10 years ago he would not have his pain. I tried to challenge that fibromyalgia is unlikely related to his car accident 10 years ago, and he may still have had this....MRI showed some degenerative disc disease to L4-L5-S1 with possible nerve root impingement.”
The physician noted fibromyalgia and depressive symptoms as the diagnosis.
The same physician wrote in a report dated February 26, 2019 that the worker had been treated since October 2013 by various medical professionals in the physician’s clinic. The worker first presented with chronic pain from fibromyalgia secondary to three motor vehicle accidents. He was followed for pain management and was relatively stable until April 2015 when cervical spine symptoms worsened. Diagnostic testing at that time revealed some cervical and lumbar spine degeneration. The physician noted the worker was involved in another motor vehicle accident in December 2015, and in 2016 and 2017, the worker reported that his pain was aggravated by work and prolonged standing.
The panel also noted a Doctor First Report to the WCB dated September 5, 2019 in which the worker’s treating physician comments with respect to the worker’s complaint of a work injury on January 17, 2017 to his neck, left arm, shoulder and left leg, that:
“Patient had work injury long time ago, and he states he never reported it. I am not sure what he feels is related to the work injury; he definitely has cervical and lumbar spine arthritis with no stenosis or nerve impingement reported by CT of neck and back. It is possible that the work injury made his arthritis worse and was not able to continue working.”
While the medical reporting supports a finding that the worker has multiple health concerns, including significant chronic pain, arthritis and multi-level disc degeneration, and that these conditions impact his ability to work, the evidence does not support a finding that the worker’s job duties caused his medical conditions, or that those duties aggravated or enhanced those conditions. The evidence rather points to a conclusion that the worker’s difficulty in performing his job duties is the result of his pre-existing and non-compensable medical conditions.
The panel finds that the evidence does not support, on a balance of probabilities that the worker’s reported injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. Further the panel finds that the worker’s delay of some 8 years in reporting injury to the WCB is significant and that the evidence does not support, on a balance of probabilities that an injustice would result if the time period for reporting were not enlarged.
Therefore, the claim is not acceptable.
Panel Members
K. Dyck, Presiding Officer
J. Witiuk, Commissioner
M. Kernaghan, Commissioner
Recording Secretary, J. Lee
K. Dyck - Presiding Officer
(on behalf of the panel)
Signed at Winnipeg this 6th day of November, 2020