The Appeal CommissionThe Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba

Preamble

The worker appealed the Workers Compensation Board ("WCB") decision that their claim is not acceptable. A videoconference hearing took place on September 24, 2025 to consider the appeal.

Issue

Is the claim acceptable?

Decision

The claim is not acceptable.

Background

On April 30, 2018, the worker filed a Worker Hearing Loss Report with the WCB, reporting gradual hearing loss and exposure to noise at work, with use of hearing protection. The worker described their work duties as requiring them to fly in small aircraft, operate snowmobiles and boats, use firearms, and use farm machinery and power tools, and noted they worked in noisy environments throughout their career. The Work History Summary listed the worker's employment since 1986 and described their noise exposure in those jobs. The worker noted they were employed outside Manitoba from 1995 to 2003.

When the WCB contacted the worker on May 11, 2018, the worker provided further details about their job duties and noise exposure, stating they attributed their hearing loss to the various job duties performed over the years. The worker described having intermittent tinnitus over the previous 6 - 12 months and seeking medical treatment, with hearing testing in July 2017. In a memo to file of May 11, 2018, the WCB noted the worker decided not to pursue a hearing loss claim in Manitoba. By letter of the same date, the WCB confirmed the claim was not acceptable as they did not have sufficient exposure to noxious noise.

The worker submitted another Worker Hearing Loss Report to the WCB on October 3, 2023, noting hearing testing on July 27, 2023. Soon after, the WCB received a copy of the July 27, 2023 audiogram which indicated the worker had mild, sloping to severe sensorineural loss in the right ear and in the left ear, moderate conductive loss below 1000 Hz, sloping to a severe sensorineural loss. The audiologist also noted the worker's chronic bilateral tinnitus.

On October 23, 2023, the worker advised the WCB that they filed a claim in another province, but that claim was not accepted. The worker provided details of their noise exposure while employed in Manitoba, noting they wore hearing protection, but only in the last 5 years when flying in or working around planes.

The WCB received a July 19, 2017 audiogram report which indicated the worker had mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss on the right at 6,000 Hz and mild to moderate sensorineural loss on the left at 4,000 to 8,000 Hz with a history of tinnitus. The report included a note that the worker's hearing loss was most likely due to their right-handed firearm use and recommended bilateral hearing aids.

The Employer Hearing Loss Report provided to the WCB on November 13, 2023 noted the worker did not formally advise of their hearing difficulties but mentioned having difficulties and related their issues to driving and working around heavy equipment, generators and all-terrain vehicles. The employer outlined that the worker began working fulltime on April 1, 2013 and before that, worked seasonally from 2008 - 2012. The employer confirmed the worker's exposure to noise from generators, snowmobiles and heavy equipment at work but did not confirm the duration of such exposure. The employer advised that hearing protection was provided.

On November 16, 2023, the WCB outlined in a memo to file that the worker met the criteria for exposure to noxious noise but noted the need for further medical information from the treating healthcare providers. The WCB received an April 16, 2018 report from the treating ENT specialist noting the worker attended for assessment in relation to a two-year history of bilateral high-pitched tinnitus and indicating the worker's reporting of a history of noise exposure from small aircraft, chainsaws and firearms. Audiologic testing at that time indicated normal hearing in both ears with "…a mild to mild-moderate sensorineural loss in the right ear between 6000 and 8000 Hz and in the left ear, a mild-to-moderate sensorineural loss between 4000 and 8000 Hz." The specialist concluded "It is difficult to know if the hearing loss is related to previous noise exposure or early presbycusis." A second ENT specialist outlined in a November 17, 2023 report that the worker had "…bilateral moderate downsloping to severe sensorineural hearing loss", which they diagnosed as progressive sensorineural hearing loss. Audiological testing from November 20, 2023 indicated normal to moderate-severe sensorineural hearing loss in the right ear and mild to moderate-severe sensorineural hearing loss in the left ear and recommended bilateral hearing aids.

A WCB audiology consultant reviewed the worker's file on February 12, 2024 and concluded the July 2017, July 2023 and November 2023 audiograms were not indicative of noise-induced hearing loss. Regarding the July 2023 audiogram, the consultant noted the presence of conductive hearing loss on the left, at multiple frequencies, resulting in a mixed hearing loss, which is not consistent with noise-induced hearing loss. The audiology consultant also performed calculations related to the November 2023 audiogram to determine if any audiometric bulge was present that would indicate an excess of loss of hearing in the 3000-6000 Hz range, the frequencies most affected by noise exposure, in comparison to other frequencies. The consultant noted that such an excess loss of hearing differentiates NIHL (noise-induced hearing loss) combined with presbycusis from hearing loss due to presbycusis only and concluded that the evidence did not support a "…material component of NIHL in either ear."

On February 15, 2024, the WCB wrote to the worker advising that their claim was not accepted. On March 27, 2025, the worker requested Review Office reconsider the WCB's decision, noting their belief that they sustained hearing loss because of working in industries with high levels of noise. The worker also noted they provided details of prior employment to the WCB, but the WCB only received information from their most recent employer. On April 7, 2025, Review Office determined the worker's claim was not acceptable. The worker appealed to the Appeal Commission on May 27, 2025 and a hearing took place on September 24, 2025.

Reasons

Applicable Legislation and Policy

The Appeal Commission panels are bound by the provisions of The Workers Compensation Act (the "Act"), regulations under that Act, and the policies established by the WCB's Board of Directors. The provisions of the Act in effect as of the date of the worker’s accident are applicable.

Section 4(1) of the Act provides that where a worker suffers personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment, compensation shall be paid. The Act defines “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 WCB's Board of Directors has established Policy 44.20.50.20, Noise-Induced Hearing Loss (the "Policy"), which provides that noise induced hearing loss occurs gradually and most such claims do not involve a loss of earnings. For the purposes of the Policy, the date of accident will be the date a loss of earnings occurred, or the date of an audiogram which shows evidence of noise-induced hearing loss. The Policy notes that:

Not all hearing loss is caused by exposure to noise at work. A claim for noise-induced hearing loss is accepted by the WCB when a worker was exposed to hazardous noise at work for a minimum of two years, based generally upon an average of 85 decibels for 8 hours of exposure on a daily basis. For every increase in noise level of 3 decibels, the required exposure time will be reduced by half.

Worker’s Position

The worker appeared in the hearing and made a submission in support of their appeal. The worker offered testimony in answer to questions posed by members of the appeal panel.

The worker’s position is that the evidence confirms their workplace exposure to noxious noise throughout their working years, both in Manitoba and when working outside of Manitoba. Further, the worker submits that because of that exposure, they developed noise induced hearing loss (“NIHL”) and as such, the claim should be accepted.

The worker argued that their exposure to noise throughout their working years should be considered, regardless of where in Canada they were working. The worker further submitted that their treatment providers have outlined in their reports that the worker's hearing loss is the result of noise exposure. The worker noted they have no family history of hearing loss.

Employer’s Position

The employer did not participate in the appeal.

Analysis

For the worker's appeal to succeed, the panel would have to determine that the worker’s hearing loss is, on balance of probabilities, the result of their exposure to noise in the workplace. As detailed in the reasons that follow, the panel was unable to make such a finding based on the evidence before us.

In reviewing the claim file and considering the worker's submissions and evidence, the panel noted the worker has bilateral hearing loss identified as early as 2017 and has a history of workplace noise exposure; however, not all hearing loss is caused by or the result of noise exposure in the workplace, and not all workers experience hearing loss because of such noise exposure. As outlined in the Policy, for the WCB to accept a claim of noise induced hearing loss, there must be not only evidence of sensorineural hearing loss due to noise exposure, but also evidence of noise exposure in the workplace above the threshold established. Generally, the WCB will accept a claim for NIHL if there is evidence that a worker was exposed to hazardous noise at work for a minimum of two years, based upon an average of eighty-five decibels for eight hours of daily exposure.

In the worker's claim, the WCB accepted that the worker had occupational noise exposure in Manitoba sufficient to meet the noise level threshold established in the Policy. This is set out in the memo to file dated November 16, 2023. As this evidence is not disputed, the panel accepts and relies on the WCB's finding that even considering the worker's "…use of hearing protection at times, on a balance of probabilities exposure to noxious noise has been met."

The panel also reviewed and considered the audiological testing results and medical reporting as to the nature and extent of the worker's hearing loss. The panel noted that contrary to the worker's assertion in the hearing, most of their treatment providers did not indicate in their reports that the worker's hearing loss is noise induced, although noting that the worker had some degree of occupational noise exposure. The panel noted that there is a comment by a hearing assessment technician, in a report dated August 19, 2017 that the worker's hearing loss is "most likely due to firearm use" noting the worker is a right-handed shooter but this is not confirmed by either of the two treating ENT specialists, nor the February 12, 2024 opinion of the WCB audiology consultant. On reviewing the 2017 audiological tests, the WCB audiology consultant noted that the pattern of the worker's hearing loss at that time was "typical of presbycusis (i.e. age-related hearing loss)" and was not in keeping with NIHL and the treating ENT specialist in April 2018 indicated that "It is difficult to know if the [worker's] hearing loss is related to previous noise exposure or early presbycusis."

The panel also noted that the July 2023 audiological testing indicated a degree of conductive hearing loss in the worker's left ear, although this was not evident in the November 2023 test findings. The testing audiologist concluded in July 2023 that the worker had mixed hearing loss in that ear and sensorineural loss in the other ear. We note that the WCB audiology consultant, on reviewing these findings commented that NIHL is purely sensorineural hearing loss and as such a diagnosis of mixed hearing loss is not consistent with NIHL.

The panel also considered that the most recent hearing test results, of November 20, 2023 indicate bilateral sensorineural hearing loss, stable in the right ear from July 2023 and improved in the left ear from that date. As noted in the review by the WCB audiology consultant, the pattern of hearing loss indicated in the worker's audiograms is not consistent with NIHL and may be attributed to presbycusis, and therefore also considered whether the worker's hearing loss includes a component of NIHL that is obscured or masked by the presbycusis findings. The WCB consultant undertook calculations to determine if there was an "audiometric bulge" which describes an excess of loss of hearing in the 3000-6000 Hz range in comparison to other frequencies. Based on their calculations, the WCB consultant found there was no evidence of any excess hearing loss in the 2023 audiological testing and as such, the evidence does not support a finding of NIHL as a component of the worker's hearing loss in either ear. The panel accepts and relies upon these findings of the WCB audiological consultant in their interpretation and understanding of the worker's audiological testing results.

Based on the evidence before us, and applying the standard of a balance of probabilities, we are satisfied that the worker's bilateral hearing loss is not the result of exposure to noxious noise in the workplace. Therefore, the worker's appeal is denied, and the claim is not acceptable.

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 9th day of October, 2025