The Appeal CommissionThe Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba

Preamble

The worker is appealing the decision made by the Workers Compensation Board ("WCB") that it was appropriate to implement a post-accident deemed earning capacity effective June 28, 2020. A teleconference hearing was held on June 2, 2021 to consider the worker's appeal.

Issue

Whether or not it is appropriate to implement a post-accident deemed earning capacity effective June 28, 2020.

Decision

It is not appropriate to implement a post-accident deemed earning capacity effective June 28, 2020.

Background

The WCB accepted the worker’s claim for a partial left rotator cuff tear resulting from a workplace accident that occurred on December 12, 2012. Due to other non-compensable health issues, the worker could not initially be scheduled for a repair surgery. A WCB medical advisor provided permanent restrictions of no tasks above shoulder level with the left upper limb; no repetitive resisted tasks with the left upper limb away from the side of the body; no lifting and carrying more than 30 pounds with the left upper limb; and no pushing or pulling more than 30 pounds with the left upper limb on November 27, 2014. The permanent restrictions were provided to the employer who advised on December 8, 2014 that they could not accommodate the worker. On December 10, 2014, the WCB referred the worker for vocational rehabilitation services.

The worker underwent a left shoulder arthroscopic biceps tenotomy, debridement and subacromial decompression on February 2, 2015. When cleared by the treating orthopedic surgeon, the worker began physiotherapy on March 12, 2015. At a follow-up appointment on April 22, 2015, the treating surgeon noted the worker did not have a good response to the surgery and recommended continuation of physiotherapy and home exercises, as no further surgical intervention was recommended. The surgeon also recommended the worker not return to their pre-accident employment.

The WCB developed a Vocational Rehabilitation (“VR”) Plan for the worker to begin on October 5, 2015, and end on November 12, 2016, with an occupational goal of employment in National Occupancy Classification (NOC) 1453 – Service Advisor. On November 30, 2015, the VR Plan was amended to allow for further retraining for the worker with a new end date of October 7, 2017. In a Deem Recommendation placed to the worker’s file on October 18, 2017, the WCB noted the worker declined further training, updating and job search assistance, choosing rather to attempt to secure employment on their own. Effective, October 7, 2017 the worker was deemed capable of earning the starting wage of NOC 1453.

On July 20, 2018, the worker requested Review Office reconsider the WCB’s decision, noting they felt incapable of meeting the educational requirements to obtain employment in NOC 1453 and were unable to find employment that they were capable of performing within the permanent restrictions. On October 12, 2018, Review Office found the occupational goal of NOC 1453 was not appropriate for the worker and the worker’s wage loss benefits should not have been reduced based on a deemed earning capacity within that NOC. Review Office returned the worker’s file to Compensation Services for further adjudication.

The worker’s WCB case manager referred the worker for further vocational rehabilitation services on November 8, 2018. A new Vocational Rehabilitation Plan for NOC 6623 – Other Elemental Occupations, was developed with the worker, to begin on May 1, 2019 and end on April 4, 2020. The worker began upgrading and tutoring and was scheduled to write their final examination on September 23, 2019 prior to beginning their 31-week job search period. Due to a non-compensable health issue, the worker’s examination had to be rescheduled to November 22, 2019. On November 29, 2019, the worker advised the WCB they missed the November 22, 2019 examination.

On December 9, 2019, the WCB advised the worker the job search portion of their vocational rehabilitation plan commenced on November 23, 2019 and would end 31 weeks later on June 27, 2020 at which time they would be deemed capable of earning the starting wage in NOC 6623. On January 22, February 20, April 14 and May 25, 2020, the WCB sent letters to the worker confirming the job search period dates and that the wage loss benefits would be reduced at the end of that period and advising that the worker could contact the WCB if they required assistance with resume writing, updates or job search workshops.

On May 20, 2020, a new VR consultant was assigned to the claim, who first called the worker on May 25, 2020, leaving a message. On May 26, 2020, the worker spoke to the new VR consultant about their job search over the previous 3 months. At that time, the worker inquired about extending the job search and the VR consultant indicated that an extension would not be granted as the worker “had a long job search following reinstatement of [their] claim from Review Office.” On June 9, 2020, the VR consultant called and left another message for the worker. The worker contacted the VR consultant on June 11, 2020 and advised that they continued to actively seek employment. The VR Consultant noted job search assistance would be available to the end of the plan, on request.

On June 18, 2020, the WCB advised the worker effective June 28, 2020, they were deemed capable of earning the starting wage of NOC 6623 and their wage loss benefits would be reduced. The worker requested reconsideration of their deemed earning capacity to Review Office on July 27, 2020, noting that they continued to experience difficulties with their left shoulder and due to the Covid-19 pandemic, they had been unable secure employment.

Review Office determined on August 19, 2020 that the implementation of a deemed earning capacity effective June 28, 2020 was appropriate. Review Office noted the worker’s request for an extension of their job search weeks due to the Covid-19 pandemic; however, Review Office also noted the worker was provided with the maximum allotted job search weeks pursuant to WCB policy and that a large portion of that job search period was prior to the Covid-19 pandemic impacting the economy. As such, Review Office found the worker was provided with appropriate vocational rehabilitation assistance, including a job search period and that the implementation of deemed earning capacity effective June 28, 2020 was appropriate.

The worker’s representative field an appeal with the Appeal Commission on January 18, 2021. A teleconference hearing was arranged for June 2, 2021.

Reasons

Applicable Legislation and Policy

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

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

Section 22(1) of the Act requires that the worker mitigate the effects of the compensable injury by taking reasonable steps to reduce or eliminate any loss of earnings resulting from an injury, and co-operating with the board in developing and implementing programs for returning to work, rehabilitation or disability management or any other program the board considers necessary to promote the worker's recovery. If a worker fails to comply with these obligations, the board may reduce or suspend the compensation payable to the worker pursuant to s 22(2).

Section 27(20) of the Act allows the WCB to provide academic, vocational, and rehabilitative assistance to injured workers who could experience a long-term loss of earning capacity.

The WCB has established Board Policy 44.80.30.20, Post-Accident Earnings – Deemed Earning Capacity (the “Deemed Earning Policy”) to clarify when the WCB will determine that a worker is capable of earning more than they are actually earning. This policy requires the WCB to demonstrate the worker is capable of competitively finding, competing for, obtaining, and keeping employment in the occupation or group of occupations on which the earning capacity is based, and that the worker has the physical capacity, education, skills, aptitudes, interests, and personal qualities needed to obtain and keep employment in the occupation or group of occupations in the labour market. Further, the WCB must demonstrate that work exists for the occupation group on which the earning capacity is to be based. The Deemed Earning Policy sets out that deemed earning capacity will be used in the loss of earning capacity calculation when:

i. The worker has completed the training part of the vocational rehabilitation plan designed to help the worker obtain new skills or improve current skills; 

ii. The worker has been given reasonable job search assistance (i.e., separate from the training part of the plan); and, 

iii. The information the plan was based on, including labour market analysis, has not substantially changed.

Worker's Position

The worker appeared in the hearing represented by a worker advisor. The worker advisor relied upon a written submission provided to the panel in advance of the hearing and also made oral submissions to the panel in the hearing. The worker provided oral testimony in answer to questions posed to him by the worker advisor and by members of the appeal panel.

The worker’s position is that it was not appropriate to implement a post-accident deemed earning capacity effective June 28, 2020 as the evidence does not support that the worker had completed the training part of the vocational rehabilitation plan designed to help the worker obtain new skills or improve current skills, that the worker was given reasonable job search assistance or that the information the plan was based on, including labour market analysis, had not substantially changed, as required by the Deemed Earning Policy.

With respect to the training outlined in the worker’s 2019 VR plan, the worker advisor noted for the panel that the assessment of worker’s skills and education completed in 2015 for the first VR plan confirmed the worker did not complete elementary school and required educational upgrading to achieve high school equivalency in order to be eligible for most employment opportunities. The worker advisor confirmed that the worker successfully completed 4 of 5 required high school equivalency examinations as part of the initial VR plan but was twice unsuccessful in completing the fifth examination. The Review Office in 2018 found that the worker’s inability to complete the fifth examination in order to obtain high school equivalency left the worker unable to meet the requirements of that VR plan and noted the statement of the VR consultant of August 17, 2015 that the worker would require upgrading to grade 10 level or completion of the high school equivalency examinations in order to be employable in any occupational classification.

The worker advisor also noted that the 2020 Review Office decision recognized that the incomplete fifth examination represented a significant gap in the worker’s completion of their training and noted that this would be required not only for the worker to attain high school equivalency but also to meet the minimum qualifications for employment in NOC 6623.

The worker advisor stated that although Review Office concluded the worker did not fulfill their obligation in completing the training required under the VR plan, in fact the reports provided by the worker’s tutoring program for the period from May 2019 through to September 2019 outline consistently positive comments as to the level of the worker’s effort and participation in their education. Where the worker was unable to participate fully in the tutoring program, the reports indicate that was the result of illness, unrelated to the worker’s compensable injury.

The worker advisor highlighted the worker’s efforts to attend and take examinations in September 2019 as outlined in the file evidence and the worker’s testimony. The worker missed the September 2019 examination as they experienced a significant and disabling non-compensable health issue on the route to the examination, resulting in a period of hospitalization and intensive care for 10 days. Further, the worker advisor noted the efforts of worker to attend and take a rescheduled examination in November 2019, approximately 6 weeks after being released from hospital against doctor’s orders after this significant health episode. On that date, the worker testified they arrived at the examination location on time, but there was a notice posted on the door that the location had changed. By the time the worker was able to locate and get to the new location, they were refused entry into the examination as the start time had already passed. The worker advisor argued that this confirms the worker made efforts to attend and take the examinations, on both scheduled dates, but was unable to do so due to factors outside the worker’s control.

The worker confirmed to the panel that they have not completed the training required under the 2019 VR plan and that when they spoke with the VR consultant after missing the November 2019 examination there was no conversation about rescheduling the remaining examination.

On the question of whether or not the worker was given reasonable job search assistance, the worker advisor noted that the WCB allowed the worker a 31 week period of job search, the minimum required, beginning immediately following the date of the November examination that the worker was not admitted into despite their best efforts. The job search assistance provided by the WCB VR consultant was limited to a letter sent to the worker in December 2019 confirming the dates of the job search period, and four further letters sent from January – April 2020, offering resume assistance and job search workshops, both of which the worker had availed themselves of in the course of the initial VR plan. Given the worker had not worked and had no new information to add to their resume since that time, it was not surprising that the worker did not follow up on the VR consultant’s offers of assistance, and the worker advisor noted there is no evidence of any other VR consultant contacts, attempted contacts or conversations with the worker during the job search period, until late May 2020 when a new VR consultant was assigned to the worker “for operational reasons”.

The worker described to the panel the nature of their job search, which included daily and sometimes more frequent searches of multiple web-based job posting databases, making in person visits to potential employers to drop off resumes and complete applications and making cold calls to inquire as to job openings. The worker confirmed that after late March 2020, most job postings for positions that the worker was qualified for had vanished and the worker believed this to be due to the closures and restrictions following declaration of the pandemic. 

When the new VR consultant was assigned in late May 2020, the file reveals more consistent outreach to the worker, but this VR consultant failed to discuss with worker their overall job search process and efforts made, asking only about previous the 3 months, all of which were during the initial period of pandemic-related economic disruption. Further the newly assigned VR consultant did not seriously consider the worker’s request for an extension despite evidence that the WCB had offered such extensions to other workers from March 9, 2020, ultimately through to June 9, 2020. The worker advisor noted that there was no consideration of extension in the worker’s case despite the May 20, 2020 email to the new VR consultant from the manager of that program, stating:

“I note there is an existing job search only based NOC 6623 plan on file to which the worker has not been responsive. Upon review, please proceed with [Case Manager] contact with a view to discussing potential plan conclusion in later June and or some form of job search amendment / extension in light of pandemic effects (i.e. from March 9th onward). Specific to this consideration, I am inclined to defer to the [Case Manager’s] decision on the matter in light of the worker’s relative absence of VR participation to date.”

With respect to the labour market analysis, the worker advisor outlined to the panel that there were significant changes in the labour market in Manitoba beginning mid-way through the worker’s job search period with the advent of the global Covid-19 pandemic in March 2020 and the resulting economic downturn. There is evidence that the WCB recognized the effect of the pandemic on labour markets, and therefore on job search claimants, as outlined in materials included in the worker’s submission provided to the panel. That submission includes a June 11, 2020 email from the WCB VR manager regarding VR services generally, that indicated:

“...in mid-March there were numerous workers who were either in Job Search or scheduled to start Job Search when the effects of COVD19 began to have a significant impact on the labour markets and levels of hiring activity within Manitoba. Thus, this is also to confirm that these impacted/applicable workers will be provided with a timely status update and a VR plan amendment, which will specify that any Job Search time that existed as of March 9th, 2020, will be applied to the resumption date of July 6th, 2020.”

The worker advisor stated that although the worker was not offered any such extension, they were nonetheless subject to the same labour market restrictions. This was not considered in the worker’s case, as the WCB understood that the worker was not actively participating in their VR plan and job search as outlined in the May 20, 2020 internal email to the newly assigned VR consultant.

Regarding the WCB decision to implement the deemed earning capacity after the 31 week job search, the worker advisor noted that the 31-week job period was a minimum, not a maximum as described by the Review Office in their 2020 decision. Further this was not a generous job search period, as implied by the VR consultant in response to the worker’s request for an extension.

The worker advisor submitted that the WCB has not met the onus upon it to establish that a deem was appropriate, under the provisions of the Deemed Earning Policy. The specific facts outlined in the June 17, 2020 Vocational Rehabilitation Deem Summary are not accurate or misrepresent the worker’s status and efforts. The file confirms the worker did access job search and resume assistance in 2015, and therefore had no need to do so again in 2020. Further, the VR consultant did not make frequent contact, but only sent a series of letters, some of which the worker does not recall receiving. Although the VR consultant sets out that the worker did not apply for any jobs during the job search period, this information is not on file as the worker was not asked about any job applications other than during the period of March – May 2020. The Deem Summary noted the worker’s lack of effort in respect of educational upgrading, when the reports from the tutor indicate otherwise and references the worker’s prior unsuccessful job search but does not note or qualify that this was related to the worker’s search for a position that Review Office in 2018 determined the worker was unqualified for. Further, the document fails to acknowledge that the worker spent a period of time in hospital in intensive care during the training period.

For these reasons, the worker’s position is that the WCB has not met the requirements to establish that implementing the deemed earning capacity was appropriate and further, that the worker’s job search period should have been extended beyond June 28, 2020 to take into account, at minimum, the extension broadly granted to other workers whose job search was affected by the pandemic-related labour market impacts.

Employer's Position

The employer did not participate in the appeal.

Analysis

The question for the panel to determine on appeal is whether it was appropriate for the WCB to implement a post-accident deemed earning capacity effective June 28, 2020. For the worker's appeal to be granted, the panel must find that the worker met their obligation to mitigate the effects of their compensable workplace injury by cooperating with the WCB in the implementation of the vocational rehabilitation plan and that they are not capable of earning more than they are actually earning. For the reasons that follow, the panel was able to make such findings.

The Act sets out, in s 22, the worker`s obligation to mitigate the effects of the compensable injury by taking reasonable steps to reduce or eliminate any loss of earnings resulting from an injury, and co-operating with the board in developing and implementing programs for returning to work, rehabilitation or disability management or any other program the board considers necessary to promote the worker's recovery. If a worker fails to comply with these obligations, the board may reduce or suspend the compensation payable to the worker pursuant to s 22(2).

The WCB is authorized, by s 27(20) of the Act, to provide academic, vocational, and rehabilitative assistance to an injured worker who could experience a long-term loss of earning capacity. The goal of vocational rehabilitation is to assist a worker to achieve a return to sustainable employment in an occupation which reasonably takes into consideration the worker's post-injury physical capacity, skills, aptitudes and interests. The Deemed Earning Policy allows the WCB to determine a worker is capable of earning more than they are actually earning where the WCB demonstrates the worker is capable of competitively finding, competing for, obtaining, and keeping employment in the occupation or group of occupations on which the earning capacity is based, and that the worker has the physical capacity, education, skills, aptitudes, interests, and personal qualities needed to obtain and keep employment in the occupation or group of occupations in the labour market. Further, the WCB must demonstrate that work exists for the occupation group on which the earning capacity is to be based.

In this case the panel reviewed the evidence as to the worker`s income earning capacity, personal capacity and labour market conditions to determine whether or not the WCB correctly determined the worker to be capable of earning an income in NOC 6623. The panel considered the following:

• In the August 15, 2015 Transferable Skills Analysis completed by the VR consultant in developing the first VR Plan for the worker, the VR consultant sets out that the worker “...has some mechanical aptitudes and very good people skills. [Their] education is very low...and would need to be upgraded to a formal grade 10 or GED to be employable in any NOC.” The rationale for the plan goes on to state that the worker “...possesses limited transferable skills, education and has limiting physical restrictions.” 

• On April 8, 2019, the VR consultant reviewing the worker’s earning capacity in NOC 6623 – Other Elemental Sales noted that the worker is physically capable of performing the duties of this occupational class, that there is a positive labour market for this occupation where the worker resides, that the worker possesses the necessary skills for such employment and that the worker will be capable of earning $454 per week at the completion of the VR plan. The earning capacity assessment considers the worker’s pre-accident experience, age, physical limitations and transferrable skills and notes that work in NOC 6623 usually requires some secondary school education, as well as basic computer skills. 

• On April 8, 2019, the VR consultant also documented that based upon the Review Office decision, the worker will need to attain their high school equivalency and needs to pass just one more examination in order to do so. 

• The VR Plan for the worker commenced May 1, 2019 with a planned end date of April 4, 2020. The plan sets out that the worker will receive tutoring services to rewrite the examination required to complete their high school equivalency from May 1, 2019 to August 30, 2019, followed by 31 weeks of job search time, including employment workshops. 

• In a November 15, 2019 file memo, the VR consultant confirms that for NOC 6623, requirements include some secondary school education and that high school graduation may be required by some employers, and then concludes that the worker’s educational attainment of 4 out of the 5 high school equivalency exams is “more than enough education to meet the educational requirements for the entry level occupation of NOC 6623.” 

• When the case manager called the worker on November 26, 2019, to inquire as to the outcome of the examination on November 23, 2019, the worker explained why they were unable to take the test and told the case manager that they would prefer to go into job search having been out of work too long and being anxious to return to work as soon as possible. 

• On November 29, 2019, the VR consultant contacted the worker and learned that the worker missed the November 23, 2019 examination. The VR consultant’s file note does not indicate that the VR consultant suggested or encouraged the worker to consider rescheduling the exam but indicates that the VR consultant told the worker that the job search period had now begun and that the end date would be confirmed by letter. 

• On May 20, 2020, the Manager responsible for Professional Services reassigned the worker’s VR services to a new VR consultant, suggesting that the worker had not been responsive and directed the VR consultant to consider a potential extension of the plan in light of the pandemic.

Despite repeated statements in the file that the worker would require completion of either grade 10 or high school equivalency to obtain work in NOC 6623, the WCB VR consultant does not appear to have considered rescheduling the one remaining examination required by the worker to successfully complete the GED program. The evidence in the claim file, as well as that provided by the worker in the hearing, does not support the statement by the Manager that the worker was not responsive to the VR process nor that the worker had a “relative absence” of participation in the VR plan; rather, the evidence supports a finding that the worker was an active participant in the 2015 VR plan implementation, successfully completing 4 out of 5 required high school equivalency examinations during that period. Further, there is evidence that in 2019, the worker demonstrated commitment to the goal of completing the 5th and final subject area required, with tutoring progress reports from April through August indicating the worker was an active participant and making progress in the subject matter under study.

The panel also notes the evidence of the worker’s significant efforts to attend the examination in September 2019, when the worker experienced vehicle trouble on their way to write the examination, and in the process of addressing that by pushing the vehicle off the road, the worker experienced a significant health issue requiring transport to hospital by ambulance and remaining there for some 10 days. Further, the worker testified that they attended for but were unable to write the rescheduled November 22, 2019 exam, having arrived at the relocated examination site too late to be permitted to sit for the exam.

The panel also notes the worker’s description of their job search efforts since late 2019 to the panel, which entail multiple applications, cold calls, web-based research and use of multiple job-search databases. We accept the worker`s evidence that after the onset of the pandemic and related restrictions upon business activity, jobs within the worker’s capabilities were no longer available for a period of months. This aligns with the information the worker advisor provided to the panel from the WCB, indicating “...the effects of COVD19 began to have a significant impact on the labour markets and levels of hiring activity within Manitoba” after March 2020.

This evidence supports a finding that the worker met their obligation to mitigate the effects of their compensable workplace injury by cooperating with the WCB in the implementation of the vocational rehabilitation plan. The evidence before us confirms that worker was not “relatively absent” from the process but was an active participant in both the training required and the job search process that was outlined in their VR plan.

The evidence before the panel does not support a conclusion that the worker has the physical capacity, education, skills, aptitudes, interests, and personal qualities needed to obtain and keep employment in the occupation or group of occupations in the labour market. Specifically, the worker was not able to complete their educational program, which was necessary for employment in NOC 6623. There is evidence that this was not due to the worker’s lack of effort or participation in the educational process, but due to a combination of factors outside the worker’s control and the WCB’s failure to provide further opportunity to the worker to complete that process.

The panel also considered the evidence with respect to the nature and extent of job search assistance provided by the WCB to the worker. From December through to May 25, 2020, there is no file record of any conversation between the VR consultant and the worker regarding progress on the job search or any other topic. There are only a series of 4 nearly identical letters sent advising the worker of the timeframe of the job search, that benefits would be reduced at the end of that period and that the worker should follow up if they required help with resume preparation or job search workshops. After the new VR consultant was assigned to the worker’s file on May 20, 2020, there were 3 telephone conversations with the worker in addition to correspondence sent from the WCB. On May 26, 2020, the VR consultant spoke with the worker and asked about their job search over the previous 3 months. The panel notes that this was the 3-month period following the declaration of a worldwide pandemic, when many workplaces in Manitoba were closed or functioning at limited capacity. As noted above, the worker explained to the VR consultant that they did not make applications during this period as there were very few jobs available within their limitations and occupational classification.

When, on May 26, 2020, the worker inquired about extending the job search period they were advised that an extension would not be granted due to the “long job search” following reinstatement of the claim by Review Office. The panel notes that the WCB established the worker’s job search period of 31 weeks and that this is the minimum required by Schedule A to the Deemed Earning Policy. There is no indication, either in the Deem Recommendation to the WCB Deem Committee or elsewhere in the file that the committee considered the worker’s age, request for extension or labour market environment given the pandemic, or that there was any consideration of extension based on WCB approach during pandemic, where extensions were broadly offered, essentially suspending the job search process from March 9 to July 6, 2020.

The worker advisor submitted that, at minimum, the worker should have been provided with a timely status update and a VR plan amendment, specifying that any job search time that existed as of March 9, 2020 will be applied to the resumption date of July 6, 2020, like others engaged in WCB-mandated job search when the effects of the pandemic began to impact labour markets and hiring activity in Manitoba. There is no evidence of such an offer in the worker’s case.

The panel finds that the evidence does not support that the WCB provided the worker with reasonable job search assistance given the circumstances outlined above, and in particular the interruption of the worker’s job search period by the pandemic and the resulting reduction in employment opportunities. There is no indication that the WCB case manager gave any consideration to the worker’s request for an extension nor to the broader WCB mandated extension of job search plans due to the Covid pandemic declaration.

Related to this point, the panel further finds there is no evidence that the WCB gave any consideration to whether and how the labour market conditions had changed since the implementation of the worker’s VR plan in May 2019 to May of 2020. There is no indication that a new labour market survey was conducted or considered at any point after the plan was implemented, despite significant labour market changes during this period.

In sum, the panel finds that the worker was an active participant in and cooperative with the WCB in the implementation of the VR plan but was not afforded opportunity to complete and attain the stipulated educational requirements for employment in the occupational group, NOC 6623 prior to the implementation of the deemed earning capacity. On this basis alone, the panel would have granted the worker’s appeal. Furthermore, the panel finds that the worker was not provided with reasonable job search assistance and the information the plan was based on, including labour market analysis, has substantially changed since the plan was developed.

The panel is therefore satisfied, on balance of probabilities, that it was not appropriate to implement a post-accident deemed earning capacity effective June 28, 2020. The worker’s appeal is granted.

Panel Members

K. Dyck, Presiding Officer
J. Peterson, Commissioner
M. Kernaghan, Commissioner

Recording Secretary, J. Lee

K. Dyck - Presiding Officer
(on behalf of the panel)

Signed at Winnipeg this 28th day of June, 2021