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 August 28, 2024 to consider the worker's appeal.

Issue

Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

Decision

The claim is not acceptable.

Background

The employer filed an Employer’s Incident Report with the WCB on May 3, 2022, indicating that on April 7, 2022, the worker reported they sustained a psychological injury at work on August 23, 2019 when “Conflict occurred during care provided on a critical call.” The employer outlined the dates when the worker missed work after the incident, using sick time, and that the worker stated they continued to “…struggle with symptoms related to this and to events still stemming from the call.”

The worker submitted their Worker Incident Report on May 16, 2022 with notes outlining the details of the incident and subsequent related events. The worker indicated that on August 23, 2019, they attended a work site as part of their regular duties but were advised by a superior not to enter the premises. The worker nonetheless entered and found another superior providing care to an individual, who was soon afterward transported for further care accompanied by the worker. Afterward, the worker sought direction from their supervisor as to how to reference the superior in their report, and the supervisor directed the worker to email the supervisor setting out the details of the incident, which the worker did. Later, the worker learned the employer would investigate the event, and the worker was interviewed in that investigation, but was not advised of the outcome nor informed of related events or meetings, which caused the worker anxiety. The worker learned from their union that an investigation report was produced but not placed in their human resources file, and that the report potentially blamed the worker for the incident of August 23, 2019. The worker stated that as a result, they experienced stress and anxiety which resulted in time off work, as this stress and anxiety negatively impacted their ability to continue with their job duties. The worker further noted their fear that they would be singled out due to their involvement in the incident.

In discussion with the WCB on May 25, 2022, the worker confirmed the information in their Report and advised that their supervisor recently requested a meeting with them, their union and the investigator, but that meeting had not yet taken place. The worker further noted that their superior, who replaced one of the superiors present on August 23, 2019, provided them with an apology letter. The worker indicated they continued to feel uneasy as the investigator remained in their position, which made them feel that they were being “blamed” for the incident. The worker described experiencing a high amount of stress and anxiety, loss of sleep, and physical pain including a clenched jaw, sore neck and shoulders and headaches because of the incident and advised they sought treatment through the employer’s employee assistance program and recently began seeing a psychologist. The worker also noted a prior diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder.

The WCB requested further information from the employer and the employer confirmed that the worker’s two superiors were on the scene during the August 23, 2019 call; however, there was no individual grievance related to the worker arising from that event. The employer also advised there were no ongoing investigations, and they considered the matter closed. The employer confirmed the worker was not involved in any hearings or disciplinary actions, did not report any difficulties or take time off work immediately following the incident, and did not report the incident until April 7, 2022.

The WCB advised the worker by letter dated June 27, 2022 that the claim was not acceptable as it determined the worker’s psychological difficulties were a result of employment-related issues that are not compensable under the WCB’s policies and legislation.

On November 1, 2023, the worker’s representative submitted additional information and asked the WCB to reconsider whether the claim was acceptable. The representative included a copy of the worker’s August 25, 2019 email to their supervisor describing the August 23, 2019 incident which included an email conversation between the worker’s supervisor and the investigator, a copy of the January 31, 2020 investigation report, a copy of the March 7, 2022 letter of apology, and a copy of an October 30, 2023 report from the treating psychologist. The representative submitted that this information indicated the employer’s actions directly led to the worker developing psychological difficulties and as such, the worker’s claim should be accepted. The WCB reviewed the information and advised the worker on November 20, 2023 that the claim was not acceptable.

On November 24, 2023, the worker’s representative requested Review Office reconsider the WCB’s decision, submitting that the information provided on November 1, 2023 and the evidence on file supported a finding that the worker developed a psychological injury because of the wilful and intentional actions of the employer, or as an acute reaction to a traumatic event. On January 26, 2024, the employer provided a submission in support of the WCB’s decisions, and the worker’s representative provided a further submission in response on February 1, 2024.

Review Office determined on March 1, 2024 that the worker’s claim was not acceptable as the worker’s interactions with their superiors during the August 23, 2019 incident did not involve malice or bad faith, and as such were not a wilful or intentional act as set out in the WCB’s policies and legislation. Further, Review Office found the worker did not experience an acute reaction to a traumatic event related to the incident. Review Office further determined the worker experienced stress and psychological issues because of the investigation and the way the employer handled the investigation related to the August 23, 2019 incident, which was not compensable as a labour relations issue, in accordance with WCB policy and legislation.

The worker’s representative filed an appeal with the Appeal Commission on March 1, 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 decide 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 before 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 with a union representative who provided an oral submission on behalf of the worker and relied upon their written submission provided in advance of the hearing. The worker provided testimony through answers to questions posed to them by the union representative 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 representative submitted 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’s representative submitted that the way the worker’s superiors interacted with the worker at the work site on August 23, 2019 and the way the employer investigated that incident were wilful and intentional actions that fall within the definition of accident as defined in the Act and WCB policy. Further, the behaviour of the superiors at the incident and the employer’s later efforts to shift blame to the worker are traumatic events from the perspective of the worker.

The worker’s representative submitted that the specific circumstances in evidence deviate from typical workplace behaviours to such a degree that they cannot reasonably be considered as ordinary workplace conflict, which is excluded from the definition of an accident as labour relations matters. The worker’s representative submitted that the employer showed bad faith or malice toward the worker in the actions of the superiors on August 23, 2019, which the superiors knew or ought to have known was offensive or objectionable to the worker. The first superior met by the worker at the work site intentionally recommended that the worker not enter the building to do their job, in breach of the worker’s obligation to assess the situation, thereby undermining the worker’s authority and forcing the worker to act contrary to those instructions. The second superior at the work site forced the worker into a situation where they either failed in their professional obligations or acted insubordinately, showing indifference to the worker’s authority and responsibility in the circumstances. These actions, the representative submitted, should not be construed as part of the daily pressures of work in the worker’s profession.

The worker’s representative further submitted that the employer’s conduct of the investigation of the incident of August 23, 2019, including the failure to advise the worker of the completion of that process and to share the report with the worker, amount to bad faith or malice in the employer’s conduct toward the worker and as such, amounts to a wilful and intentional act that falls within the definition of an accident. The representative further submitted that the employer’s investigation was not sufficient in that not all of those present at the work site were interviewed, with the result that the worker was unfairly scrutinized as noted in the letter of apology of March 7, 2022.

The worker’s representative submitted that the conduct of the employer and the worker’s superiors at the time of the incident should be considered traumatic events that were deeply disturbing or distressing to the worker, as confirmed by the evidence of the treating psychologist who concluded that the worker’s psychological symptoms were “…in response to the manner in which [their] employer both contributed to the incident that occurred on August 23, 2019, and subsequently handled the investigation regarding this incident.”

Employer’s Position

The employer was represented in the hearing by a 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 that the worker’s injury is not the result of an accident but rather the result of a series of employment-related events and incidents, including the events of August 23, 2019 and the employer’s later investigation of those events.

The employer’s representative noted the definition of accident in the Act excludes any change in respect of the employment of a worker, including promotion, transfer, demotion, layoff, or termination, and that the Psychological Injuries Policy indicates that this includes other employment related matters. The representative submitted that the events described by the worker are excluded from the definition of accident as employment related matters. While the worker may disagree with the scope and findings of that investigation, the employer must investigate such events and is entitled to do so as it sees fit. The representative further noted that the investigation report findings do not lay blame on the worker as alleged by the worker, but rather conclude communication barriers and errors by others created a lack of psychological safety, making it challenging for the worker to meet their professional obligations.

The employer’s representative further submitted that the Psychological Injuries Policy indicates that psychological injuries that occur as a result of the burn-out or daily pressures or stressors of work will not give rise to a compensable claim, as there is no chance event, no wilful and intentional act and no traumatic act. In this case, the evidence does not support the worker’s position that as a result of a wilful and intentional act of, or on behalf of the employer, the worker sustained a psychological injury, nor that the worker was exposed to a traumatic event that caused an acute trauma response in the worker. The representative submitted that the letter of apology provided to the worker in March 2022 is not evidence of a wilful and intentional act that meets the definition of an accident, noting the absence of any evidence of malice or bad faith. Furthermore, the evidence confirms the worker was not disciplined in relation to these events.

The employer’s representative also reviewed the evidence in relation to the worker’s subsequent claims for psychological injury. The representative noted that during the worker’s 2020 accident claim, the worker provided information to the WCB and to their treatment provider indicating an absence of other stressors, and that the worker was considered recovered from the associated psychological injury within two months of the injury occurring and returned to their regular pre-accident duties. In the 2021 accident claim, the worker provided no information about a 2019 accident nor any impacts of such an event on their ongoing psychological health. In the 2022 accident claim, the treating psychologist noted the worker’s reference to an increase in workplace organizational stress and recent workplace stressors but does not specifically indicate that these in any way related to an event in 2019.

As the evidence does not support a finding that the worker was injured as a result of a wilful and intentional act, undertaken with malice or bad faith toward the worker, nor that the worker was injured as the result of an acute reaction to a traumatic event, and the evidence does support a finding that the events and incidents described are excluded from the definition of an accident as other employment related matters, the worker’s claim should not be accepted.

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 that as a result of an accident arising out of and in the course of their employment, the worker sustained an injury. 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.

The panel noted the worker’s position that their psychological injury is the result of a series of events, any one of which could be described as traumatic to the worker or as a wilful and intentional act by the employer that caused the worker to experience psychological distress. These events as described include incidents at the work site on August 23, 2019; the employer’s subsequent investigation of the August 23, 2019 incidents; and the employer providing a letter of apology and investigation report to the worker on March 7, 2022.

The panel considered the definition of an accident, as outlined in s 1(1) of the Act, 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.” In a claim relating to a psychological injury, the panel must also consider and apply the Psychological Injuries Policy, which sets out that the panel must first decide whether there is evidence of the occurrence of an accident as defined in the Act.

The Psychological Injuries Policy includes Administrative Guidelines that further clarify and expand upon the application of the policy provisions. While the panel is not bound by these Administrative Guidelines, we note the parties’ reliance upon the Guidelines in their submissions and therefore also considered the application of those provisions in this appeal. The panel noted the Guidelines describe a “wilful and intentional act” as an act involving malice or bad faith, which may be found when the person who committed the act knew, or a reasonable person would know, the act was offensive or objectionable to the worker. The Guidelines outline that in such claims, the decisionmaker must first consider if the act occurred as described by the worker, and if it did, was it wilful and intentional. For claims arising out of an acute reaction to a traumatic event, the Guidelines clarify that “acute” references the severity of the reaction, whenever it occurs and that traumatic event is defined as in the WCB’s Policy 44.20, Disease/General, being 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 therefore considered the evidence before us in respect of each of these events to determine if there was an accident, whether a wilful and intentional act involving malice or bad faith, or an acute reaction to a traumatic event.

The events of August 23, 2019 

The panel reviewed the evidence relating to the incidents on August 23, 2019. There is evidence that the worker arrived at a worksite to provide services but was at first, advised by an onsite superior not to enter the site as it was chaotic, and then, upon entering the site in accordance with the worker’s professional obligations, the worker was greeted by another superior who was providing services to an individual in distress. The worker testified that they were unable at first to assess and support the individual but a short time later they were able to do so. The worker further testified that in later reporting this incident to their direct supervisor, they experienced some confusion and concern on learning the superior providing services was not authorized to deliver such services and was advised to communicate the details of the entire incident to the direct supervisor by email, which the worker did on August 25, 2019, as confirmed by the evidence. The panel reviewed the worker’s August 25, 2019 email, in which they described their confusion and uncertainty upon unexpectedly finding two superiors at the work site upon arrival and noted some reluctance to ask who was in charge onsite for fear of being disrespectful; however, the worker also noted that they “forwent instruction” and proceeded into the premises to undertake their responsibilities. The worker described the incident as “difficult and unsettling due to being confused” and that they felt the incident could have been managed differently, noting uncertainty both as to their own role in the presence of the superiors and as to the reason for the superiors’ presence.

In reviewing this event, the panel considered that other than the presence of the superiors and various onlookers, this was an incident in the ordinary course of the worker’s duties. While in the hearing the worker stated they did not learn the outcome of the incident as relates to the individual requiring assistance until much later, there is no indication that this was a concern of the worker at that time. Further, we noted that the worker carried out their responsibilities by entering the premises as required and attempting to assist although others were already assisting the individual when the worker arrived. As noted below, there is also evidence that the worker later received a letter of apology in relation to this event acknowledging that the superior ought not to have helped the individual and confirming that as a result the worker was initially impeded carrying out their job duties. These facts are not disputed.

The panel considered as well that there is no evidence that in the days, weeks or months immediately following this event, the worker requested any time off because of this incident nor that they sought any supports or treatment, although there is evidence of a subsequent investigation and a union grievance procedure arising out of and related to this event. We acknowledge that the worker interpreted this event as indication that their authority was intentionally undermined or questioned by their superiors but find that is no more than speculation on the part of the worker. The worker’s representative submitted the superiors knew or ought to have known that the worker would find their actions to be offensive or objectionable and relied upon the letter of apology as supporting that assertion, but the panel does not find the evidence supports that position. It is not clear from the evidence before us that the worker’s superiors considered the worker at all in taking the steps and actions undertaken on August 23, 2019, nor that they did so with intention and malice or bad faith toward the worker. The panel finds that at the time of this event, the superiors were focused on the individual requiring assistance, whether appropriately or not, and not at that time on the potential impact of the events upon the worker who only arrived at the scene after the incident and events were already underway, which finding is supported by the conclusions reached in the investigation report as detailed below.

The panel further noted that after the incident, the worker continued with the regular job duties, participated in the investigation of the incident and did not seek any supports in relation to exposure to a traumatic event until 2020 when they made a claim to the WCB in relation to a psychological injury arising from a different event. In the reporting in relation to that file, the worker did not indicate any prior traumatic exposures, and the panel noted the worker was treated and returned to regular duties within two months of the 2020 event. The evidence further indicates that in May 2022, the worker sought psychological support in relation to “an increase in workplace organizational stress” and an increase in trauma-related symptoms arising from the 2020 event. The panel does not find that the evidence supports the worker’s position that they experienced the August 2019 incident as a traumatic event, neither at that time nor in the years following and leading up to this claim.

Based on the evidence before us, the panel finds that the August 23, 2019 incident was not a traumatic event for the worker, and further that this incident does not amount to a wilful and intentional act by or on behalf of the employer toward the worker.

Investigation of the events of August 23, 2019 

The panel next considered whether the employer-led investigation process in relation to the events of August 23, 2019 can be considered an accident as defined in the Act and Policy. The evidence before the panel indicates that the employer undertook this investigation as is required under its governing legislation and policies, and in that process, appointed an investigator who spoke with both the worker and the second superior at the work site during September 2019. The evidence indicates the investigation was initiated based upon the worker’s August 25, 2019 email report to their supervisor, that the worker was interviewed in early September 2019, and then the worker heard nothing further from the employer about the investigation findings until March 7, 2022 as detailed below. The worker, however, also testified that they were aware in the intervening period that colleagues were discussing this incident, that they believed based on information provided by their union that they were blamed for the incident, and that they felt targeted in the investigation.

The panel does not dispute the employer’s assertion that it has the right to investigate a workplace incident or event as it determines appropriate, and that this investigation falls squarely within the realm of “employment related” events such as are specifically excluded from the definition of an accident under the provisions of the Act and the Psychological Injuries Policy. The panel finds that this exclusion from the definition of accident is not subject to any limit as to degree or extent, such as the worker’s representative has argued; rather, that Policy explicitly sets out that “Discipline, promotion, demotion, transfer or other employment related matters are specifically excluded from the definition of accident.” The panel is satisfied that the employer’s investigation of the incident of August 25, 2019 falls within the parameters of “other employment related matters” and as such, cannot be found to be an accident under the provisions of the Act.

The panel further finds that the evidence does not support a finding that this investigation was a traumatic event for the worker as contemplated by the Act and policies. We note that although the worker testified that they were not previously involved in an incident investigation process, it is a mandated workplace process that the worker would have general knowledge of. Further, the worker’s personal involvement in the investigation amounted to no more than participating in an interview with the investigator, and there is no indication in the evidence that the worker experienced this as a traumatic event at the time, nor subsequently, although the panel acknowledges that the fact the worker did not receive the report until more than one year after it was completed was likely stressful to the worker, particularly given the information provided to the worker by their union.

There is also no evidence before the panel to indicate that this investigation amounts to a wilful and intentional act directed toward the worker, by or on behalf of the employer. Rather, the evidence indicates it was an investigation undertaken by the employer in the ordinary course and as mandated. The fact that the investigation did not include all of those present and involved in the incident of August 23, 2019, and the fact that the employer later acknowledged the worker was “unfairly scrutinized” in the investigation does not change the nature of the process, in the panel’s view, which was to ascertain what happened in that incident and what could be learned from it.

Based on the evidence before us, the panel is satisfied that the employer’s investigation of the August 23, 2019 incident was not a traumatic event for the worker, that the investigation was not a wilful and intentional act toward the worker, and further, that the investigation is in any event excluded from the definition of “accident” as an employment related matter.

March 7, 2022 Receipt of Letter of Apology and Investigation Report 

The panel also considered whether the employer’s provision of a letter of apology and a copy of the investigation report to the worker on March 7, 2022 amounts to an accident as defined in the Act.

The evidence before the panel includes a copy of the letter of apology from the employer to the worker which outlines that the first superior at the incident of August 23, 2019 “should not have communicated any direction” to the worker and that having done so, the worker’s authority at the work site was undermined. The panel finds that this validates the worker’s perception and understanding of those events. Further, the letter of apology confirms that the second superior who was helping the individual should not have been doing so, which again validates the worker’s perspective. Finally, the letter confirms that the investigation and subsequent report “unfairly scrutinized” the worker’s actions on August 23, 2019 and were not communicated to the worker when the report was completed as should have been the case. The letter concludes with reference to proposed “restorative actions” and invites the worker to participate in those.

The evidence also includes a copy of the investigation report assessment dated January 31, 2020. In that report, the investigator reviewed the information provided to them by the worker and the second superior, considered the applicable procedures and policies and determined that the incident was the result of a “communication breakdown” and confusion at the work site due to the absence of “psychological safety” experienced by the worker in the presence of their superiors. The report further acknowledged the worker’s “bravery” in reporting their concerns particularly in the context of the involvement of their superiors and noted the worker’s actions were “reasonable and understandable in the context of the situation.” The report goes on to conclude that “Neither employees (sic) purpose was in any way to cause harm and no harm can be confirmed to have occurred….” The report further finds that the second superior did “not perceive in the moment the impact of [their]…presence on scene was having on effective team communication related to the psychological safety of [workers], and subsequently did not take steps to improve the communication.” The report further noted that “There was no evidence of disrespectful behavior or other negative team dynamics.” The panel does not find that this report assigns blame to the worker or recommends any repercussions toward the worker as a result of their actions. To the contrary, the panel finds that the report commends the worker for their bravery in coming forward and in acting to carry out their responsibilities despite confusing circumstances and communication issues at the time.

The panel considered whether the evidence indicates that the receipt of this letter of apology and investigation report constituted a traumatic event for the worker. The worker testified that they were uncomfortable with the delivery of this information to them while they were at work, but there is also evidence that the worker continued with their regular job duties after that date until later in 2022, following a further traumatic exposure. There is also evidence that in May 2022, the worker sought psychological assistance in relation to the 2020 traumatic exposure, and that the worker sought further psychological assistance later in 2022 after they witnessed another traumatic event. The evidence does not indicate, however, that the worker experienced the receipt of these documents as a traumatic event.

Further, while the provision of this report to the worker was delayed, as is acknowledged in the letter of apology, the panel does not find that this means the delay was an intentional and wilful act involving malice or bad faith toward the worker. The worker’s personal belief that the delay in sharing the investigation report involved malice, or bad faith is not sufficient evidence to establish that to be the case, and while there may be other reasons why the report was not immediately shared with the worker, those are not in evidence before us. The evidence only indicates that the report ought to have been shared by the employer sooner but was not.

The panel further finds that the employer’s disclosure of the incident investigation report to the worker, albeit not on a timely basis, is, like the investigation itself, as an employment related matter, that is explicitly excluded from the definition of accident by the Act and the Psychological Injuries Policy.

Based on the evidence before us, the panel is satisfied that the employer’s delivery of the investigation report and letter of apology was not a traumatic event for the worker, nor a wilful and intentional act undertaken with malice or bad faith toward the worker, and further, that the sharing of the investigation report in any event is excluded from the definition of “accident” as an employment related matter.

Having determined that the evidence does not support a finding that an accident as defined in the Act and policies occurred, it is unnecessary for the panel to consider whether the worker’s psychological condition is an injury resulting from those events.

On the evidence before the panel, and on the standard of a balance of probabilities, we are unable to find that the worker was involved in an accident arising out of and in the course of their employment as a result of which they sustained an injury. Therefore, the worker’s claim is not acceptable, and the appeal is denied.

Panel Members

K. Dyck, Presiding Officer
J. Peterson, Commissioner
S. Briscoe, Commissioner

Recording Secretary, J. Lee

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

Signed at Winnipeg this 20th day of September, 2024