The Appeal CommissionThe Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba

Preamble

The worker is appealing the decision made by the Workers Compensation Board ("WCB") that their claim is not acceptable. A hearing was held on June 15, 2023 to consider the worker's appeal.

Issue

Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

Decision

The claim is acceptable.

Background

The worker filed a Worker Incident report with the WCB on May 14, 2015 detailing several incidents at work beginning in 2010 which the worker described as harassment by a co-worker, and which resulted in psychological injury to the worker. The date of incident was reported as March 17, 2015, reported to the employer on April 17, 2015. The worker noted in their Report that at a meeting with the employer, the coworker, their supervisors, the employer’s human resources representative and their union on April 23, 2015, they were advised that no evidence of harassment was found by the employer.

When the WCB spoke with the employer on May 15, 2015, the employer confirmed the worker made a harassment complaint on March 27, 2015, which the employer investigated, and that both parties were advised that no evidence of harassment was found pursuant to the employer’s policies. The day after the employer advised the parties of the outcome, the worker provided a doctor’s note to the employer advising that the worker could not work for an indefinite period.

In response to the claim, the WCB contacted the worker on May 19, 2015. The worker confirmed the details noted in their Report and provided the WCB with copies of supporting documents for the incidents noted and included a copy of a human rights complaint they had made against the employer. On May 26, 2015, the worker provided the WCB with a contact list for the witnesses mentioned in their documentation.

Between May 27, 2015 and June 16, 2015, the WCB contacted the witnesses provided by the worker. Some declined to provide statements to the WCB, and others made statements, some noting conflict between the worker and the coworker. On May 27, 2015, the employer provided a letter to the WCB summarizing the worker’s two complaints against the coworker. The employer noted both complaints resulted in investigations. The first complaint, made on April 27, 2011, was investigated by the employer’s human resources department and a manager with several witnesses interviewed and no findings of harassment. As a result of that investigation, the employer gave the coworker a “…coaching letter under our non punitive discipline policy about fostering respect in the workplace”. The second complaint was made on March 27, 2015, and the resulting investigation found no evidence of harassment. A meeting with the parties took place on April 23, 2015 “…to review the findings of the investigation and to communicate the expectations for their behavior going forward.”

The worker sought treatment from their family physician on June 2, 2015 reporting harassment by a coworker at the worksite and complaining of stress and anxiety. The physician noted that on examination on April 23, 2015, the worker’s mood was good, affect appropriate, the worker made good eye contact and had no suicidal thoughts. The physician indicated that working with the coworker may affect the worker’s recovery and recommended the worker remain off work for one month, following which the worker could return to work in another department.

On June 18, 2015, the WCB provided a decision letter to the worker advising it determined the worker’s claim was not acceptable as it could not establish the coworker was willfully and intentionally acting maliciously towards the worker and the evidence did not support the worker was being harassed at work by the coworker.

On July 11, 2016, the worker contacted the WCB to advise them they would submit further information and on August 9, 2016, the worker submitted detailed information and a chronology of the events to the WCB.

On December 27, 2018, the worker submitted further detailed information regarding their claim and a chronology of the events with their coworker and requested reconsideration of the WCB's decision to Review Office. On January 2, 2019, Review Office returned the worker's file to the WCB's Compensation Services for further review and investigation. The WCB contacted the worker on January 3, 2019 to request further information, which the worker provided on February 4, 2019 and April 2, 2019. When the WCB spoke with the worker on July 15, 2019, the worker provided contact information for their union representative. The WCB contacted the representative on July 26, 2019 and again on September 9, 2019.

In a narrative report from the worker's treating mental health counsellor, received on October 9, 2019, the counsellor indicated they had met with the worker on three occasions in 2016 and the worker reported experiencing workplace harassment. The counsellor indicated:

[The worker] reported a constellation of symptoms including feeling unsafe, experiencing frequent violent and frightening dreams associated with panic, chronic sleep problems, feeling exhausted and struggling with concentration and focus as well as short-term memory problems. These symptoms are frequently associated with post-traumatic stress. [The worker] had been previously diagnosed by [their] psychiatrist with Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Depression, as well as Adjustment Disorder. I did not spend enough time with [the worker] to make a clear diagnosis but did feel that [the worker] was suffering with some symptoms of post-traumatic stress related to [their] work-related issues.

The WCB received a copy of an initial psychiatric assessment dated January 19, 2017 on November 5, 2019. The psychiatrist noted the worker was referred by their family physician for review of anxiety/depression symptoms. The worker described deficits in their short-term memory and losing periods of time, decreased concentration, and mental fog, which they attributed to the harassment by their coworker. The psychiatrist noted the worker's reporting of inability to leave their house whereas previously they had been social and engaged in their community, as well as insomnia and decreased quality of sleep, decreased interest in hobbies, energy level and decreased ability to concentrate. The worker also reported symptoms including decreased appetite, significant anxiety, irritability, muscle tension, multiple panic attacks, and avoidance behavior. The psychiatrist provided a diagnosis of Generalized Anxiety Disorder, with associated Social Anxiety and Depression and noted the worker also had "…features of PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder)."

On December 19, 2019, the WCB responded to the worker with a further decision letter advising them that the new information was reviewed but there would be no change to the earlier decision that the claim was not acceptable.

The worker contacted the WCB on November 3, 2020 and submitted additional information they believed outlined the harassment they experienced at work. The new information included copies of the grievance reports filed with the employer, copies of notes taken during interviews and copies of the investigation reports relied on. On November 8, 2021, the WCB again provided the worker with a decision letter advising the new information was reviewed and the earlier decisions to deny the worker’s claim were not changed.

On June 29, 2022, the worker requested reconsideration of the WCB's decision to deny their claim to Review Office. The worker submitted a further detailed chronology of the events of their claim and noted their belief they had been subjected to workplace harassment by their coworker and that their claim should be accepted. The employer provided Review Office with a letter outlining its support of the WCB's decision on August 17, 2022, which was shared with the worker, who provided a further submission on August 26, 2022.

Review Office found on September 1, 2022 that the worker's claim was not acceptable. Review Office considered all the evidence provided on the worker's file and found the situations and interactions with the coworker since 2011 did not meet the definition of an accident under the Act and WCB policy. Review Office therefore determined the worker's claim is not acceptable.

The worker's representative filed an appeal with the Appeal Commission on January 17, 2023 and a hearing was arranged.

Reasons

Applicable Legislation and Policy

The Appeal Commission and its panels are bound by the provisions of The Workers Compensation Act (the “Act”), regulations under the Act and the policies established by the WCB's Board of Directors. The provisions of the Act in effect at the time of the accident are relevant.

The Act sets out the definition of an accident in s 1(1) as follows: 

"accident" means a chance event occasioned by a physical or natural cause; and includes 

(a) a wilful and intentional act that is not the act of the worker, 

(b) any 

(i) event arising out of, and in the course of, employment, or 

(ii) thing that is done and the doing of which arises out of, and in the course of, employment, and 

(c) an occupational disease, 

and as a result of which a worker is injured…. 

The Act defines an occupational disease as including a disease arising out of and in the course of employment and that results from causes and conditions that trigger post-traumatic stress disorder but does not include an ordinary disease of life or stress, other than an acute reaction to a traumatic event. Section 1(1.1) limits the definition of accident exclude any change in respect of the employment of a worker, including promotion, transfer, demotion, lay-off or termination.

A worker is entitled to benefits under s 4(1) of the Act when it is established that a worker has been injured as a result of an accident at work.

The WCB has established Policy 44.05.30, Adjudication of Psychological Injuries (the “Policy”), to outline how the WCB will decide claims for psychological injury. The Policy confirms that such claims will be decided in the same way as claims for physical injuries. The WCB will first determine whether there has been an accident arising out of and in the course of employment and if so, whether the worker has suffered an injury, and if so, whether the injury was caused by the accident. The Psychological Injury Policy specifically excludes psychological injuries that occur because of burn-out or the daily pressures or stressors of work because the daily pressures or stressors of work do not fall within any part of the definition of accident, as there is no chance event, no wilful and intentional act, and no traumatic event.

Worker’s Position

The worker was represented in the hearing by a worker advisor who made an oral submission and relied upon a written submission provided to the panel in advance of the hearing. The worker offered testimony through answers to questions posed by members of the appeal panel.

The worker’s position is that they sustained a psychological injury due to incidents of workplace harassment arising out of and in the course of their employment and therefore, the claim should be acceptable. The worker advisor outlined that the file evidence confirms a number of incidents that took place in the workplace, involving the worker and a coworker, and submitted that each of the incidents described, of itself, could constitute an accident under the definition set out in the Act, as chance events with a physical or natural cause, or as the wilful and intentional acts of a third party, specifically, the coworker against whom the worker made their various complaints. The worker’s position is that these events, whether singly or in combination, caused the worker to sustain a psychological injury and therefore, the claim should be acceptable.

The worker advisor submitted that the workplace incidents identified and described by the worker are not changes in respect of a worker’s employment, which are excluded from the statutory definition of “accident” and by the Policy reference to “other employment related matters”. The worker advisor noted that while there may be multiple factors that contribute to the worker’s injury, including work-related and other factors, the test of causation that the panel must apply is that “but for” the work activities or exposures, the worker’s injury would not have occurred. Applying that test, then, to find that the worker’s claim is acceptable, the panel need only determine that at least one of the identified incidents fits within the definition of “accident” and resulted in injury to the worker. In respect of the statutory definition of “accident”, the worker advisor submitted that there is no need to reference or consider the occupational disease criteria as the identified incidents constitute chance events or wilful and intentional acts, or both. For example, the worker advisor noted the driving incident in which the worker fell out of their seat as an example of a chance event as well as a wilful and intentional act of a third party.

The worker advisor noted that the Act excludes from the definition of an accident any change in respect of the employment of a worker, including promotion, transfer, demotion, lay-off or termination and that the Policy goes further than the Act, in that it defines any change in respect of the employment of a worker as including discipline, promotion, demotion, transfer or other employment related matters. The worker advisor stated that the WCB’s decision that the worker’s claim was not acceptable was based on their determination that the worker’s injury occurred as a result of employment related matters, which could not be an accident based on the Policy. The worker advisor submitted that this goes beyond the exclusion set out in the Act and that the panel is bound to apply the Act.

The worker advisor further submitted that once the panel has determined that there is an event that meets the statutory definition of accident, the panel must then determine whether the worker was injured as a result, noting that a specific diagnosis is not required for a psychological injury to be compensable but there must be a causal connection between the accident and the injury. The worker advisor noted that the Policy acknowledges that symptoms of such an injury may be unrecognized until long after the event where the injury occurred and that an event need not be objectively serious to be an accident, although that may make it more difficult to determine causation. The worker advisor submitted that the fact the worker continued working through April 2015 and only then sought medical attention does not prove that the psychological injury to the worker occurred at that time, nor that it was unrelated to incidents that occurred previously.

The worker advisor relied upon the documents the worker provided to the WCB including an April 15, 2015 letter from a human resources staff member of the employer outlining the findings of their investigation into the worker’s complaints of harassment by the co-worker. While the staff member did not find that the harassment complaint was substantiated, they did find that the co-worker had expressed views that the worker received preferential treatment from the employer on the basis of the worker’s gender, and the co-worker had also exhibited a lack of respect for the worker, made negative comments regarding the worker’s role, parked the work vehicle in an alternate location to “mess with” the worker and questioned the worker’s skills and abilities in front of other colleagues.

In responding to questions from panel members, the worker testified as to the details of the erratic and dangerous driving events involving the coworker and confirmed that they did not sustain any physical injury as a result of those events, although in one circumstance they fell off their seat onto the floor of the vehicle and in another, landed on the seat with sufficient force to break the seat.

The worker confirmed that they continued to seek treatment from their counsellor and psychiatrist until 2021 on a regular basis and that they did not seek any treatment prior to 2015. The worker confirmed they first saw the social worker on March 17, 2015, on a walk-in basis.

The worker noted that most of their relationships and interactions with colleagues in the workplace were positive and acknowledged that the employer validated and supported them when they raised concerns about the relationship with the co-worker, offering other duties, and moving their desk to another location, for example. The worker noted that although they have described some specific incidents of harassment by the co-worker in this claim, there were daily incidents and if the worker did not experience those incidents directly, they were aware of those events because their supervisors reported the co-worker’s actions and statements to them.

The worker advisor, in their written submission, concluded:

The worker carried on for years working in difficult circumstances hoping that the co-worker at issue would cease their behaviors and actions. It appears the ‘final straw’ incident was the co-worker intentionally parking the [vehicle] in an abandoned area…. Whether wholly or partly caused by the accumulation of all or some of the identified incidents/events, or by any individual incident/event, on the standard of a balance of probabilities, we submit that the worker was injured by an “accident”, and [their] appeal should therefore be approved.

Employer’s Position

The employer did not participate in the worker’s appeal.

Analysis

The question on appeal is whether the worker’s claim is acceptable. For the appeal to succeed, the panel would have to determine that the worker sustained injury as a result of an accident arising out of and in the course of their employment. As outlined in the reasons that follow, the panel was able to make such a finding and therefore, the worker’s appeal is granted.

The worker’s claim arises out of a series of incidents described in significant detail in the documents provided to the WCB by the worker and the employer, including the worker’s own notes and investigation notes from the employer’s investigations, as well as other reports and documents on file. The panel reviewed a number of incidents in which the coworker was alleged to have caused the worker to feel fearful and disturbed. The details of each are set out in the voluminous file materials as well as in the worker’s testimony in the appeal hearing and will not be repeated here. For the present purposes, the panel focused its attention on the events summarized as follows:

• Ongoing name-calling and derogatory comments about the worker by the coworker made to the co-worker and to other colleagues, who reported back to the worker; 

• Dangerous driving of a work vehicle in which the worker was a passenger, on multiple occasions; 

• Office calendar monitoring of the worker by the coworker; and 

• Parking a shared work vehicle where the worker could not easily access it on at least two occasions.

In addition, the worker also referenced the workplace environment as being hostile to the worker and persons of their gender, in general. The worker’s evidence is that these incidents began soon after hiring and increased after the worker’s promotion in 2012. This evidence is supported by the information provided by the employer as to the worker’s 2011 harassment complaint against the coworker and the evidence of the worker’s subsequent complaints to supervisors and management, culminating in the 2015 harassment complaint and the worker’s departure from work on medical leave in late April 2015.

The Policy requires that in considering claim acceptance where there is an allegation of psychological injury, the panel must determine whether any of the incidents described amount to an accident under the provisions of the Act. The panel noted that the Policy explicitly sets out that an event need not be objectively serious to be an accident. The panel further noted that the definition of accident excludes any change in respect of employment.

The panel is satisfied that the evidence does not support a finding that there was any change in respect of the employment of the worker, including promotion, transfer, demotion, lay-off or termination, which changes are explicitly excluded from the statutory definition of an accident.

Of the various incidents described by the worker, the panel finds that only the dangerous driving events could amount to a chance event occasioned by a physical cause, but the panel also considered whether any of the incidents could meet the definition of accident as “…a wilful and intentional act that is not the act of the worker” as we noted that a common thread in the incidents described is that the worker perceived the incidents as having occurred due to the malicious and intentional actions of the coworker. The evidence before the panel supports the worker’s allegation that the coworker would drive the work vehicle in a dangerous manner, such that on at least one occasion, some damage occurred to the passenger seat when the worker was bounced up and landed hard on the seat, although the panel also noted the evidence that the coworker generally drove in this manner when agitated or upset, regardless of who was a passenger. Although demonstrating poor judgment and potentially unsafe behaviour on the part of the coworker, the panel does not find that there is evidence of malicious intent, or bad faith directed specifically toward the worker in respect of these events.

In respect of the allegations of ongoing name calling and derogatory comments about and to the worker, the panel considered that there is evidence corroborating the worker’s allegations that the coworker called them names and made derogatory comments about the worker to others, who then reported back to the worker about those comments. This evidence includes statements made by colleagues and the information confirmed by the employer in their investigation of the harassment complaint. The panel agrees that the coworker’s name-calling could constitute a wilful and intentional act, in that their derogatory comments and name-calling demonstrate a malicious intent, or bad faith on the part of the coworker and as a reasonable person would find that at least some of these statements were offensive or objectionable to the worker.

In respect of the office calendaring monitoring, there is evidence that the coworker made notations on the office calendar regarding the presence or absence of various staff members including the worker, and that the coworker ceased to do so when the employer brought to their attention that this was not appropriate. While these actions were more likely than not wilful and intentional on the part of the coworker, the evidence does not support a finding that these actions demonstrate a malicious intent or bad faith directed at the worker, although the panel acknowledges that the worker perceived that they were the target and found these actions of the co-worker to be objectionable.

With respect to the parking of the shared vehicle, there is evidence to confirm the incidents occurred and that the coworker parked the shared vehicle in a location that was challenging for the worker to access. In the first case, the panel is unable to find that the evidence demonstrates the coworker’s intention to be malicious, as there is no indication that the coworker was aware that the worker needed the vehicle left in a different location. With respect to the second occasion, however, there is evidence to support the worker’s allegation, corroborated by another colleague and by the employer’s own investigation findings, that the coworker intentionally parked the vehicle in a difficult to access location with intent to spite the worker, having stated their intention to do so at an outside-of-work event with other colleagues present in the days leading up to this incident. The panel finds that this event demonstrates a wilful and intentional act by the coworker with malicious intent.

As such, the panel is satisfied that the coworker, on at least some occasions, undertook wilful and intentional acts that they knew, or a reasonable person would have known would be offensive or objectionable to the worker.

The panel does not find that all of the actions complained of and described by the worker are accidents under the provisions of the Act, and in particular, does not find that the allegations in respect of office calendaring and the inhospitable workplace environment maintained by the employer meet the definition of accident in this case.

The panel next considered whether the evidence establishes that the worker sustained an injury as a result of the wilful and intentional acts of the coworker or by the chance event (dangerous driving) as the definition of an accident requires that there be an injury as a result.

The evidence indicates and the worker confirmed that they first sought medical treatment on April 23, 2015. The panel noted the treating family physician recorded “mood good, affect appropriate, good eye contact, no suicidal thoughts” and assessed the worker as experiencing “stress”, recommending one month away from work and that the worker see a mental health counsellor. At that time, the worker reported that their injury was the result of “harassment by co-worker at work site”. In the treating family physician’s March 29, 2016 report to the worker’s disability insurer the physician confirmed treating the worker on April 23, 2015 for “Work related stress started April 2015 progressed to anxiety and depression.” When the worker next saw the family physician on May 5, 2015, the physician recorded that the worker was off work “due to stress and harassment” and noted the worker to be tearful and with low mood, but not in distress, with a “well” appearance and no suicidal ideation. At that appointment, the physician assessed “acute stress disorder” and recommended they continue mental health counselling. When the worker again sought medical attention on June 17, 2015, they reported poor sleep, poor concentration, anxiety at night, low mood, and no suicidal thoughts. The physician recorded that the worker appeared “well and anxious tearful” but not in distress and with good eye contact and appropriate affect. The physician again noted acute stress disorder, prescribed medication, and referred the worker to a psychiatrist.

The panel noted that the psychiatric assessment did not take place until July 13, 2015 at which point the worker described “a significant work related difficulty with a superior colleague” who “harassed and intimidated” the worker to the point that they became afraid and uncomfortable working with this person, noting that the worker made a complaint to the employer but “felt that the complaint was not properly addressed and …felt that this colleague got away with the offences….” The psychiatrist noted the worker’s past psychiatric history and the worker’s current depressed mood and restricted affect, appearing “intermittently teary at review…anxious and agitated….” The psychiatrist diagnosed adjustment disorder and ongoing work-related difficulties, suggesting antidepressants which the worker refused. At follow-up on August 10, 2015, the psychiatrist again assessed the worker and offered a diagnosis of generalized anxiety disorder, with secondary depression which they related to the worker’s “work related difficulties, harassment, intimidation by a colleague”. The treating psychiatrist later provided a medical certificate on November 23, 2015, indicating the worker would be off work until March 30, 2016, related to “Generalized anxiety due [to] work related issues and stress. Attending therapy and gradually responding [to] treatment.”

There is also evidence that the worker saw a psychologist beginning in April 2016, who provided in their June 20, 2016 report that the worker was struggling with “anxiety and depression as well as symptoms of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder resulting from a considerable experience of harassment.” The psychologist reported to the WCB on October 9, 2019 that the workplace harassment experienced by the worker caused the worker to feel “emotionally overwhelmed and unsafe” and that the worker reported “…a constellation of symptoms including feeling unsafe, experiencing frequent violent and frightening dreams associated with panic, chronic sleep problems, feeling exhausted and struggling with concentration and focus as well as short-term memory problems.” The psychologist noted that these symptoms are “frequently associated with post-traumatic stress” but allowed that they “did not spend enough time with [the worker] to make a clear diagnosis”.

The panel also noted that a second psychiatrist assessed the worker on January 19, 2017, and reported the worker previously “…saw a different psychiatrist regarding this symptom prodrome, but had a negative experience of feeling threatened by certification and forced medication. As such [they were] initially adamant in [their] denial of medication, and extremely apprehensive about diagnostic labeling.” The second psychiatrist reviewed the worker’s psychiatric history, which the panel noted as including different information than was outlined by the first psychiatrist and offered a diagnosis of generalized anxiety disorder with associated social anxiety and depression as well as features of PTSD, noting that these diagnoses lead the worker to panic attacks, and were all currently undertreated.

Finally, the panel also considered the July 12, 2016 narrative report from the treating social worker who reported working with the worker since March 2015. The social worker outlined their clinical impression that the worker was experiencing “complex stress brought on by prolonged exposure to workplace harassment and violence which trigger earlier traumatic life experiences. Probable Post Traumatic Stress Disorder with Dissociative tendencies”. The social worker stated their opinion that the worker’s “prolonged exposure to workplace harassment and violence brought on sleeplessness, fear, and paranoia which led to [them] feeling overwhelmed, triggering past traumatic experiences led to depression and anxiety….” They stated that on initial assessment their impression that the worker was overwhelmed, exhausted, and distressed over their workplace experiences such that the social worker recommended the worker see their family physician and “look at ‘stress leave’”.

On reviewing all the medical reporting, including that of the treating social worker, the panel finds that the evidence establishes that the worker was initially diagnosed with a stress-related condition, which later progressed into more generalized anxiety and depression, with features of PTSD. The present evidence does not confirm a diagnosis of PTSD and the panel noted there is no evidence of any specific traumatic incident that could have supported such a diagnosis, but the evidence does link the development of the worker’s stress directly to their report of harassment by a colleague in the workplace. While there are few details of those allegations noted in the initial medical reporting, the reporting does confirm that the worker indicated there was a particular co-worker involved and the later reporting by the treating psychiatrist provides additional support. The panel further noted that the treating medical professionals relied upon the worker’s reports to substantiate the diagnoses offered.

The panel noted that the Policy outlines that “Psychological injuries that occur as a result of burn-out or the daily pressures or stressors of work will not give rise to a compensable claim. The daily pressures 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.” The panel noted that this provision appears to have been relied upon by the WCB in their adjudication of this claim. While we agree that some of the incidents and events described by the worker could be categorized as the daily pressures or stressors of work, the panel does not find that to be the case with respect to all of the incidents described by the worker, particularly not those events where the panel has found that the co-worker was acting wilfully and intentionally, with malicious intent toward the worker.

The panel also noted, as detailed in the later medical reporting, the worker may have had a pre-existing vulnerability to a psychological injury, given their previous psychological diagnoses; however, the panel is satisfied that but for the actions of the co-worker toward the worker, the worker likely would not have sustained or developed a further psychological injury in 2015. Further, the panel noted that the initial psychological diagnosis provided appears to have developed into a more significant injury over time without appropriate treatment as noted by the second treating psychiatrist. The panel makes no findings as to the specific compensable diagnosis arising from the workplace events nor as to the worker’s specific entitlements under the Act as these issues have not yet been decided by the WCB.

The panel is not satisfied that the evidence before us supports a finding, on a balance of probabilities, that the worker sustained any injury as a result of the described dangerous driving incidents, neither physical nor psychological; however, the panel does find that there is evidence supporting the worker’s position that they sustained a psychological injury arising out of the wilful and intentional acts of their coworker, in terms of the name-calling and deliberate vehicle placement which caused the worker to have to travel into an area of the worksite that they considered dangerous and unsafe in order to retrieve the vehicle. These actions occurred arising out of and in the course of the worker’s employment and as such, entitle the worker to compensation as the WCB determines is appropriate.

On the basis of the evidence before us and on the standard of a balance of probabilities, we are satisfied that the worker sustained a psychological injury as a result of accidents arising out of and in the course of their employment. Therefore, the worker’s claim is acceptable, and 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 July, 2023