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 July 17, 2024 to consider the worker's appeal.

Issue

Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

Decision

The claim is not acceptable.

Background

On October 3, 2022, the worker submitted a Worker Incident Report to the WCB reporting a psychological injury sustained as a result of an incident at work on December 9, 2021. The worker described that a coworker threatened them, but the worker was suspended from work based on a report they assaulted the coworker. The worker noted further investigation took place regarding the incident. The worker described that the incident caused them a lot of stress, weight loss and sleep difficulties, and that after seeking medical treatment, they went on leave on July 26, 2022. The worker reported they tried to deal with their symptoms on their own and contacted their employee assistance program. The worker also noted they started eating and sleeping better while on leave but continued to experience increased anxiety.

The employer's representative contacted the WCB on October 5, 2022 to discuss the worker's claim. The representative confirmed the worker was involved in an incident on or around December 9, 2021, that the worker was suspended to December 20, 2021 as result, and that the worker returned to regular duties thereafter until providing a medical note in July 2022 removing them from work. The representative noted the worker did not advise the employer of a psychological or other injury related to their job duties and noted the employer's concerns about a relationship between the worker's symptoms and the incident. The WCB requested further information from the employer regarding the December 9, 2021 incident.

On October 11, 2022, the employer submitted an Employer's Incident Report indicating the employer was not aware of an injury and noted the worker was away from work on a leave since July 27, 2022, and the employer was not aware of the reasons for that leave. The employer further indicated their belief the worker's time away from work was related to labour relations issues following the disciplinary action against the worker after the incident in December 2021.

The WCB received a Doctor's First Report on October 11, 2022 for the worker's July 26, 2022 appointment, in which the physician noted the worker’s report of difficulty sleeping, weight loss, anxiety, and hyperfocus on the December 9, 2021 incident, and referred to the worker witnessing an incident in 2019 involving the death of pedestrian. The physician reported they placed the worker off work, recommended counselling and anti-depressant medication, and diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) and depression.

When the WCB contacted the worker on October 11, 2022, the worker advised their symptoms related to two incidents that occurred on December 8, 2021. The first incident involved the worker having a discussion with a colleague who became upset and angry, and the worker stated this interaction left them feeling disappointed and worthless. The second incident was as they described in the Worker Incident Report. The worker noted that after investigation of the second incident, they were suspended for 7.5 days and returned to work on December 21, 2021. The worker confirmed that after filing a grievance, the suspension was reduced to 4 days. The worker noted they disagreed with the outcome of the investigation and disciplinary action by the employer, and that they filed a police report against the coworker in relation to the incident. The worker confirmed they were not physically injured in the December 8, 2021 incident but felt sick to their stomach and had difficulty eating and sleeping, no energy, and reduced quality of life. The worker stated they did not seek medical treatment specifically for those symptoms but at an appointment with their family physician in relation to other medical issues in July 2022, the physician noted a change in their appearance, at which time the worker advised of the December 2021 incident. The treating physician placed the worker on leave and prescribed medication, and the worker contacted their employee assistance program. The worker confirmed they were on sick leave since July 26, 2022 but provided the employer with detail regarding the incident on December 8, 2021. The worker advised that they felt dealing with the employer increased and caused their mental health issues and they were unsure if those symptoms were a direct result of their involvement with the employer’s human resources (“HR”) department over the past 9 months. The worker also noted they were unsure if their mental health symptoms would have continued had there been a different outcome of their meeting with HR in December 2021. The WCB advised the worker that further investigation was required.

In an October 5, 2022 email, the employer noted the December 8, 2021 incident related to an employee relations matter, and that an investigation by their HR department resulted in the worker receiving discipline for their actions on that date. The employer further noted the worker returned to work on December 21, 2021 and continued to work at regular duties until July 27, 2022 at which time they provided a medical note to be off work. The employer advised that the medical note did not indicate the reason for the worker’s absence from work and the worker did not advise that their absence was related to work. The employer further noted the worker had not returned to work by that time.

In discussion with the WCB on November 23, 2022, the worker advised their treating physician recommended they could return to work but in another department, as their current assignment was a trigger for their PTSD. The worker further noted the employer contacted them regarding the return to work program and the treating physician responded to the employer’s medical questions regarding the worker.

On November 29, 2022, the WCB received a narrative report from the treating physician dated November 8, 2022, in which the physician reported seeing the worker on July 26, 2022 at which time the worker indicated they were having “…emotional struggles around workplace issues” that were increasing. The treating physician noted the worker reported that in 2019 the worker witnessed a fatal injury between a pedestrian and a motor vehicle, which the worker had not received treatment for. The physician noted this was the first time the worker had disclosed the 2019 incident to them. The treating physician indicated that on August 5, 2022 and September 2, 2022, the worker reported ongoing symptoms of flashbacks, sadness, mood swings, sleep disturbance with nightmares, persistent anxiety and weight loss, and that the worker reported “work issues” involving a confrontation with a coworker, an accusation of assault and the worker’s suspension from work. The physician noted the worker’s report that surveillance video showed the worker was themself assaulted, and that the worker advised they were struggling with the unfairness from the employer’s handling of the incident. The physician further reported that at appointments on September 26, 2022, September 30, 2022, October 2, 2022 and October 27, 2022, they noted improvements in the worker’s symptoms and after the October 27, 2022 appointment, the physician recommended a return to work at an alternative worksite.

On December 7, 2022, the WCB received a copy of the police report, including the worker’s own statement regarding the December 8, 2021 incident. The attending police officer indicated the worker attended at the police headquarters on December 20, 2021 to report being assaulted by their coworker in an incident on December 8, 2021 and provided a written statement. The officer further noted they attended the employer’s office and received a copy of the surveillance video of the incident, which they viewed on December 23, 2021. Upon review of the video, the officer advised the worker that the evidence did not support the allegation of assault, and they would not proceed with charges against the coworker. The police officer also advised the employer of their decision.

In further discussion with the WCB on February 1, 2023, the worker confirmed there was no event or incident around July 26, 2022 that caused them to go off work; rather, it was the cumulative effect of all the events since December 8, 2021 including losing weight and breakdown of a personal relationship that caused the absence from work. The worker noted they had not yet returned to work, but the employer wanted them to return on February 6, 2023. The worker noted concern with returning to the same work site and possibly seeing the coworker involved in the December 8, 2021 incident.

On February 23, 2023, the employer provided notes from the July 21, 2022 meeting between the worker and their supervisor, and copies of medical notes dated September 30, 2022 and December 27, 2022. The meeting notes taken by the supervisor recorded a discussion of work assignments and flexible work schedule with the worker, and that the supervisor advised the worker their position was not approved to work from home as they were required to visit various job sites and were not located at a specific office. Different work locations were discussed, and the worker advised they could not attend two of the locations where there was a group of people aware of the December 8, 2021 incident and the worker advised they did not want to attend the locations where the group worked. The supervisor advised the worker they were not aware of a restriction on the location or locations where the worker could work and would need to discuss that with their supervisor and the HR department. The supervisor clarified that the worker had not requested accommodation for a medical condition. The supervisor also clarified with the HR department that there was no restriction on where the worker could work. The supervisor noted the worker attended on July 26, 2022 and provided a medical note to be off work but did not provide any details of that leave. The medical notes from the worker’s treating physician indicated the worker was experiencing ongoing symptoms and required further time off work.

The employer’s HR specialist confirmed to the WCB on March 21, 2023 that in December 2021, the worker was suspended for 7.5 days and required to complete further online training in relation to workplace misconduct. The specialist also confirmed who was shown on the surveillance video and that witness statements were taken from each of those individuals. The employer later provided those statements to the WCB.

On April 26, 2023, the WCB advised the worker the claim was not acceptable as the evidence did not support the worker’s difficulties were related to an accident arising out of and in the course of their employment. The WCB noted that matters such as disagreements between coworkers are specifically excluded from the definition of an accident under the Act.

The worker submitted additional information to the WCB on June 1, 2023, including a copy of an independent medical examination they underwent at the request of the employer and a copy of the statement from the coworker involved in the December 8, 2021 incident, highlighting that the coworker stated they pushed the worker. The worker noted their belief these documents confirmed an incident occurred and that they suffered a psychological injury as a result and requested WCB reconsider the earlier decision. On June 7, 2023, the WCB advised the worker the new information was reviewed and there was no change to the decision the claim was not acceptable.

On November 22, 2023, the worker’s representative requested Review Office reconsider the WCB’s decision. The employer provided a submission in support of the WCB’s decision to Review Office on January 17, 2024, with the worker’s representative submitting a response on February 8, 2024. Review Office determined on February 14, 2024 that the worker’s claim was not acceptable.

The worker’s representative filed an appeal with the Appeal Commission on February 26, 2024 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 defines accident in s 1(1) as “a chance event occasioned by a physical or natural cause” that 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 are peculiar to or characteristic of a particular trade or occupation, or are peculiar to the particular employment, or 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. Further, s 1(1.1) of the Act excludes from the definition of accident any change in respect of the employment of a worker, including promotion, transfer, demotion, lay-off or termination. The Act provides that a worker is entitled to benefits under s 4(1) when it is established that a worker has been injured as a result of an accident at work.

The WCB established Policy 44.05.30, Adjudication of Psychological Injuries (the “Psychological Injuries Policy”) to outline how the WCB will decide claims for psychological injury. The Psychological Injuries 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 Injuries 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.

The WCB also established Policy 44.20, Disease/General (the “Occupational Disease Policy”) which sets out the definitions related to an occupational disease. This Policy defines an “acute reaction to a traumatic event” as a reaction that creates a condition that is clearly discrete from the condition previous to the event. The traumatic event is “an identifiable physical or psychological occurrence, occurs in an identifiable time frame that is of brief duration, is not a series of minor occurrences, and is capable of causing serious physical or psychological harm consistent with the acute reaction.”

Worker’s Position

The worker appeared in the hearing represented by a worker advisor. The worker advisor made an oral submission on behalf of the worker and relied upon their prior written submissions to Review Office, in support of the worker’s appeal. The worker provided testimony through answers to questions posed to them by the worker advisor and by members of the appeal panel.

The worker’s position is that the evidence supports a finding that the worker sustained a psychological injury as a result of an accident arising out of and in the course of their employment, and therefore the worker’s claim is acceptable. The worker's advocate submitted that the evidence supports a finding that the injury was caused by a wilful and intentional act of a coworker, or in the alternative, that the injury is an occupational disease arising from an acute reaction to a traumatic event.

The worker advisor explained that the worker sought medical care after a meeting with a new supervisor who indicated the worker would have to return to the worksite where the incident with the coworker took place, noting the worker indicated they had not attended there since the incident, with the support of the employer, so that the worker could avoid seeing the coworker and other employees. The worker advisor stated that the worker believes this was an employer-supported accommodation. On learning they would have to return to that worksite, the worker experienced symptoms and sought medical attention from their family doctor, who diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder and depression, and removed the worker from work. The worker advisor relied upon the medical reporting from the treating family physician and the consulting psychiatrist retained by the employer in support of the worker’s position.

The worker advisor submitted the evidence supports a finding that there was physical contact between the worker and the coworker, noting the admission by the coworker that they pushed the worker, and that this supports the worker’s position the coworker assaulted the worker, which is a wilful and intentional act by the coworker. The worker advisor further submitted that the evidence supports a finding that the worker found this incident to be deeply disturbing and distressing, and that it caused their subsequent psychological difficulties.

The worker advisor further noted the worker had a pre-existing traumatic psychological injury from a non-compensable incident in 2019 which made the worker vulnerable to further injury and as such, predisposed the worker to further psychological injury.

The worker advisor submitted that but for the reported incident in December 2021, the worker would been able to continue working, and as such, the claim should be accepted.

Employer’s Position

The employer was represented in the hearing by its Workers Compensation Coordinator who made an oral submission on behalf of the employer.

The employer’s position is that the claim is not acceptable as the evidence does not support a finding that the worker sustained a psychological injury as a result of an accident, as defined in the Act.

The employer’s representative submitted the evidence does not support a finding that the worker sustained injury as a result of an assault, noting the police review of the worker’s statement and the video evidence did not result in any charges against the coworker. The employer’s representative pointed out that the worker stated they did not know that the coworker assaulted them until they saw the video, but the representative submitted that the video surveillance evidence is inconclusive in relation to whether or not the coworker pushed the worker at all.

The employer’s representative noted the worker’s statements to the WCB, and their medical care providers indicate that it was dealing with the employer’s HR department that caused them stress and submitted that this kind of workplace stress is specifically excluded from the definition of accident in the Act.

The employer’s representative questioned whether the worker’s description of the incident is reliable, noting there is no evidence that the worker was “held hostage” by the coworker in the vestibule, and that the worker intentionally walked into the vestibule after the coworker, and exited the vestibule ahead of the coworker, who appears, in the video, to be holding the door for the worker. The employer’s representative further submitted that the incident as captured by the surveillance video, and described by the worker and the coworker in their initial statements does not rise to the level of a traumatic event capable of causing an acute psychological reaction. Rather, this was a very minor occurrence, which the worker did not report to the WCB until nearly one year later when their sick leave benefits were exhausted.

Analysis

The question on appeal is whether the worker’s claim is acceptable. For the worker’s appeal to succeed, the panel would have to determine the worker sustained a psychological injury as a result of an accident arising out of and in the course of their employment. As detailed in the reasons that follow, the panel was not able to make such a finding and therefore the worker’s appeal is denied.

In considering the worker’s claim for a psychological injury, the panel applied the Psychological Injuries Policy, which requires us to determine firstly, whether there is evidence of the occurrence of an accident as defined in the Act. The panel noted the Act defines an accident as “…a chance event occasioned by a physical or natural cause” that includes a “wilful and intentional act that is not the act of the worker”, any “event arising out of, and in the course of, employment, or thing that is done and the doing of which arises out of, and in the course of, employment” and “an occupational disease” but excludes “…any change in respect of the employment of a worker, including promotion, transfer, demotion, lay-off or termination.”

The Psychological Injuries Policy also contains Administrative Guidelines, which further clarify the application of these provisions. While the Administrative Guidelines do not bind the panel, we note that the parties relied upon these Guidelines in making their argument and therefore the panel has also considered these provisions. Here, the worker submitted there is evidence of a “wilful and intentional act” by a coworker, and that there is also evidence that the worker sustained injury as a result of an occupational disease, specifically an acute reaction to a traumatic event. The Guidelines set out that a “wilful and intentional act” is one which involves malice or bad faith, and that malice or bad faith will be found when the person who committed the act actually knew, or a reasonable person would know, the act was offensive or objectionable to the worker. The Guidelines outline that when determining such claims, the WCB considers first whether the act occurred as described by the worker, and then, if it did, whether the act was wilful and intentional. Further, for claims relating to an acute reaction to a traumatic event, as a kind of occupational disease, the Guidelines set out that acute refers to the severity of the reaction, whenever it occurs and traumatic event is defined with reference to the WCB’s Policy 44.20, Disease/General which sets out that a traumatic event “is an identifiable physical or psychological occurrence, occurs in an identifiable time frame that is normally of brief duration, is not a series of minor occurrences, and is capable of causing serious physical or psychological harm consistent with the acute reaction.”

The panel noted the October 2022 Worker Incident Report outlines the worker’s claim arising from an event at work on December 9, 2021, but on first contact with the WCB adjudicator, the worker described two workplace events, both of which occurred that day. The worker described a negative interaction with a coworker who spoke angrily to the worker and said the worker’s department was racist, which the worker indicated made them feel disappointed and worthless, and described another incident which was the basis for the employer’s disciplinary action against the worker. In relation to the second incident, the worker stated they followed another coworker into the vestibule of a work building, and as they entered, reminded the coworker to mask. When the coworker objected to the need to have a mask on before entering the building, a dispute ensued, which the worker described as beginning outside the building, continuing in the vestibule and in the entry hallway of the building. The worker reported the coworker yelled and spit at them and shoved them in the back, making threats to the worker. In speaking with the WCB adjudicator, the worker described that after viewing the employer’s security video of the entryway, they could see that the coworker pushed them. In the Worker Incident Report of October 3, 2022, the worker also commented that the employer investigated the incident and “I was proven innocent and that the [co]worker was the one who assaulted me. However this is still ongoing regarding the matter of my suspension…. This whole ordeal has turned my life upside down and has caused a lot of stress.”

The panel also reviewed the employer’s notes of interviews with various staff present or in the area at the time of the second incident, including with the coworker directly involved. The panel noted the coworker first reported this incident to their supervisor, describing that the worker followed them into the vestibule, while yelling at the coworker to put on their mask and while in the vestibule, the worker came towards them, chest bumped the coworker, and passed them to open the door and exit the vestibule into the hallway. On further questioning, the coworker described that as the worker tried to get past them, the worker “bumped me, wasn’t a violent bump, I pushed [them] away, and said are you kidding? What are you doing? Get out of my personal space, then [the worker] was rambling, bumped me a second time to get past me.” The coworker further described pushing the worker away using their hands to the worker’s chest. The coworker also set out in an email to their supervisor that after the worker chest bumped them, they pushed the worker and the worker “again stuck [their] chest at me and bumped me.” The panel reviewed the other statements taken by the employer but noted none of those interviewed witnessed the incident.

The panel also reviewed notes from the worker’s interview with the employer before they saw the security video of the incident. The worker stated that the coworker was in the vestibule as they entered, not wearing a proper mask, “…standing facing me, just trying to get to the door…. [The coworker] was facing me trying to get to door to open it. I’m trying to get to door, can I get through. Leaned in to get to door, felt like [the coworker] nudged me or push me, trying to grab handle. [The coworker] was yelling no mask on, keeping me hostage against my will.” The worker further stated that at no point in the interaction did they touch the coworker but “I think bottom of coats touched, trying to squeeze through [the coworker], felt like they leaned into me, might have pushed me, not sure, had back to [the coworker], not sure what [they] did. Not sure if [the coworker] leaned, nudged or pushed….” The worker stated that they were pretty close to the coworker, noting the door opens inwards and the coworker was blocking access to the door such that the worker had to squeeze through.

The panel also reviewed the security video evidence, which the worker and employer both describe as supporting their position; however, we do not find that it provides as clear a picture of what occurred between the worker and coworker as argued. We further note the video has no audio feed or time stamp. From the video evidence, it is clear to the panel that the coworker approached the external door and entered the vestibule ahead of the worker, briefly holding the door to allow the worker to also enter. It is also clear that the worker followed the coworker into the building entry. The video evidence further indicates two individuals standing in the vestibule, with the coworker positioned with their back to the wall between the doors and the worker appearing to move around the coworker’s left side to open the door and exit the vestibule. As the worker moved around the coworker, a hand, presumably the coworker’s, is placed on the worker’s right arm, and the worker swung that arm back toward the coworker while opening the door with their left hand. The video also shows the worker entering a hallway from the vestibule, followed by the coworker who appears to be adjusting a mask as they walk down the hall behind the worker, with the worker stopping at the end of the hall and the coworker passing by to enter another room off the hallway. The video shows the worker then followed the coworker into that room and appears to use their phone to take a photo of the coworker from behind, with the coworker exiting into another room and the worker reversing their steps and exiting from the same door where they entered. The panel noted the video does not suggest any chest bumping or pushing or spitting by either the worker or coworker.

The panel also noted the worker’s evidence that they did not know the identity of the coworker, and therefore took a photo of them as they walked away. We further noted the coworker advised the employer that they had little prior interaction with the worker but described their previous encounter on another job site as “pretty good.” The panel accepts this evidence as confirming that the worker and coworker had no prior relationship and limited previous contact with one another.

The panel also considered that the worker was subject to disciplinary action by the employer arising out of the vestibule incident, including a suspension, and resulting in a grievance filed by the worker and reduction of the suspension from 7.5 to 4 days. Nonetheless, the evidence indicates the worker continued to feel that they were treated unfairly. The medical reporting from the treating family physician described the worker as “struggling with “unfairness”” in relation to the workplace discipline, and the psychiatrist retained by the employer to assess the worker also noted the worker was “…embroiled in some sort of dispute with another coworker, and the administrative system may have arguably treated [the worker] a bit unfairly.” In their initial interview with the WCB on October 11, 2022, the worker commented that they were unsure if their symptoms were directly related to their involvement with the employer’s HR department over the previous months, if their symptoms were caused by HR or the coworker, and if their symptoms would have resolved if there was a different outcome from the HR meeting in December 2021. The panel finds that the evidence confirms the worker did not agree with or accept the workplace discipline when imposed and continued to hold that view when they made their claim to the WCB some ten months later.

The panel accepts that the worker believes the events occurred as they recounted to the panel in the hearing, but we do not find that the evidence supports the worker’s description of those events. For example, we noted the worker did not initially report to the employer that they were assaulted by the coworker, and in fact, the basis for the employer’s investigation was the coworker’s complaint that the worker assaulted them. It was only after later reviewing the security video that that worker recalled they were assaulted by the coworker. There are also discrepancies in the descriptions of those events over time, which are not confirmed by the security video, as outlined above.

Further, given that the worker intentionally entered the small vestibule space immediately after the coworker and then moved around and past the coworker to get to the door into the hallway, the panel finds that some degree of physical contact or jostling as between the worker and coworker was likely to have occurred. Not all physical contact, however, amounts to assault, which the panel understands as an act that necessarily includes an aspect of intentionality. Based on the evidence, including the security video, the panel is not able to determine that the coworker’s behaviour during the vestibule incident amounts to a “wilful and intentional act” involving malice or bad faith. There is no evidence here to support a finding of bad faith or malice, as between the coworker and the worker, who were largely unknown to each other prior to this event. As such, the panel is satisfied that the coworker’s behaviour toward the worker, after entering the vestibule with the worker following, until exiting that space, does not meet the definition of an accident as a wilful and intentional act.

Further, the panel does not find that the circumstances as described by the worker or the coworker, nor as shown in the security video, amount to a traumatic event as defined in the Occupational Disease Policy. We find that this incident is not “capable of causing serious physical or psychological harm consistent with the acute reaction.” In support of this finding, the panel noted that the worker did not seek any treatment or care in relation to this incident until more than seven months after it occurred, while continuing to work their regular duties in the interim. Further, the initial report to the family physician was more focused on an unrelated event from several years earlier, as being the cause of their injury, and the reporting from the treating physician and the consulting psychiatrist focus largely on the worker’s struggles with the perceived unfairness of the employer’s response to the incident. As noted by the psychiatrist, this was a “fairly mundane dispute” with a coworker and “...the administrative system may have arguably treated [them] a bit unfairly” such that the worker “…seems to have lost a broader perspective of the situation….”

The panel acknowledges there is evidence that the worker has a psychological condition which they relate to the December 2021 incident and which their treatment providers also related to those events as reported to them by the worker; however, as noted above, the worker’s reports of these incidents do not fully align with the totality of the evidence. As such, the panel gives less weight to the conclusions drawn by the treatment providers as to a causal relationship between the worker’s psychological condition and the workplace events. We are satisfied that even if the worker had an acute reaction to a workplace incident, that incident itself was not a traumatic event as defined by the Act and policies, and as such the panel finds that the evidence does not establish an occupational disease as an accident in this case.

Based on the evidence and applying the standard of a balance of probabilities, the panel finds that the worker did not sustain a psychological injury as a result of an accident arising out of and in the course of their employment. Therefore, the claim is not acceptable, and the worker’s appeal is denied.

Panel Members

K. Dyck, Presiding Officer
D. Rhoda, Commissioner
P. Kraychuk, Commissioner

Recording Secretary, J. Lee

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

Signed at Winnipeg this 16th day of August, 2024