The Appeal CommissionThe Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba

Preamble

The firm is appealing the decision made by the Workers Compensation Board (“WCB”) that the firm is not entitled to relief from paying the $500.00 administrative penalty for contravening s 18(3) of The Workers Compensation Act (the Act). A file review was held September 4, 2025 to consider the firm's appeal.

Issue

Whether or not the firm is entitled to relief from paying the $500.00 administrative penalty for contravening s 18(3) of The Workers Compensation Act.

Decision

The firm is entitled to relief from paying the $500.00 administrative penalty for contravening s 18(3) of The Workers Compensation Act.

Background

On January 27, 2025, the WCB's Compensation Services requested the WCB's Compliance Services review the employer's lack of response to requests for information on a worker's time loss to attend medical appointments, which Compliance Services advised on January 28, 2025, they would review. On January 28, 2025, the firm contacted Compensation Services and provided the requested information, advising the person responsible for providing the information had been out of the office for the last two months.

The WCB's Compliance Services provided the firm with a Notice of Findings and Administrative Penalty on February 11, 2025, finding the firm had failed to provide the WCB with the worker's time loss and had breached subsection 18(3). The Notice indicated the firm was required to pay an administrative penalty of $500.00. On March 14, 2025, the firm requested Compliance Services' reconsider the decision to impose the penalty, with Compliance Services advising the firm on March 17, 2025, the previous decision was upheld.

On April 2, 2025, the firm requested reconsideration of the decision to the Review Office. The firm noted the delay in responding was due to an unexpected leave by the staff member responsible for the reply and noted the firm had a limited number of penalties in the previous five years. On April 9, 2025, the Review Office determined the firm was not entitled to relief from paying the administrative penalty of $500.00. The Review Office acknowledged the information provided by the firm regarding the delay however, found the firm was aware of the importance of submitting information requested by the WCB in a timely manner and that failure to do so could result in consequences.

The firm filed an appeal with the Appeal Commission on May 7, 2025 and a file review was arranged.

Reasons

Applicable Legislation and Policies

The Appeal Commission and this panel are bound by the Act, regulations made under that Act and the policies established by the Workers Compensation Board of Directors. The following sections of the Act are applicable:

Further reports

18(3) The employer shall make such further and other reports respecting the accident and worker as may be required by the board.

Offence

18(4) An employer who fails to make a report required under this section commits an offence.

Administrative penalty

109.7(1) The board may impose an administrative penalty in accordance with this Act and the regulations on

(d) a person who contravenes any of the following provisions: 

(v) subsection 18(1) or (3) (employer to report accident).

Notice of administrative penalty

109.7(1.1) The board may impose the administrative penalty by issuing to the person referred to in subsection (1) a notice of administrative penalty that sets out

(a) the amount of the penalty determined in accordance with the regulations; 

(b) when and how the penalty must be paid; and 

(c) a statement that the person may appeal the matter to the appeal commission within 30 days after being served with the notice.

Relief from penalty

109.7(3) The board may, if it is satisfied that a person has a reasonable explanation for the contravention, relieve the person in whole or in part from the payment of a penalty under this section.

WCB Policy 22.20, Compliance and Enforcement, provides:

When the WCB determines that a party under investigation has contravened the Act, it may impose an administrative sanction or refer the matter to Manitoba Justice for prosecution. Sanctions include administrative penalties, and decisions to terminate, suspend or reduce compensation.

Administrative Penalties

The WCB may impose administrative penalties for contraventions. Penalty amounts are set out in the Administrative Penalty Regulation.

The WCB will impose the set penalty for a contravention unless there are mitigating factors that warrant a reduction or waiver of the penalty.

Appellant's Position

The appellant’s position was contained in written submissions requesting reconsideration of the decision to issue an administrative penalty. The appellant argues that the circumstances surrounding the delay in reporting the claim are such that discretion ought to be employed to waive the late reporting penalty.

The appellant’s evidence contained in an email to the Review Office dated April 2, 2025 is that they received the initial email from the WCB after a period of vacation when they had a multitude of emails and were unexpectedly out of office two days later for a two-week period.

The appellant states they had an auto-reply message which set out an alternate contact and argues that the WCB had access to the contact information for the employer’s administrator, who was not contacted.

The appellant noted that they understand the importance of reporting responsibilities and complying with WCB requirements, but states that there were unforeseen circumstances in this particular instance that ought to be taken into consideration.

The appellant is seeking that the penalty be waived.

Analysis

The issue before the panel is: Whether or not the firm is entitled to relief from paying the $500.00 administrative penalty for contravening s 18(3) of The Workers Compensation Act. In order for the employer’s appeal to be successful, the panel must consider the circumstances of the delay and whether there are mitigating factors that warrant a reduction or waiver of the penalty. If we find that the delay can be explained satisfactorily, we have the discretion to waive the penalty. After reviewing the circumstances of the claim, we find that said discretion should be exercised in this case.

While the provisions of the Act impose an obligation upon employers to "make such further and other reports respecting the accident and workers as may be required by the board", the Act further stipulates that, if there is a reasonable explanation for a contravention of this reporting requirement, the payment of a penalty may be waived.

The panel is satisfied that the evidence provided by the appellant adequately accounts for the delay in responding, and that the circumstances were such that a reasonable person could have failed to observe the email in question due to the many emails in their inbox after returning from a vacation. The worker also had a second absence from work, which was unexpected and had them away for two weeks. The panel is of the view that the employer responded promptly after their return to work on January 27, 2025.

The individual the WCB contacted by email from the outset of the claim was the consultant for workplace injuries. The panel notes that, prior to the email of January 8, 2025, this individual responded timely to all emails from the WCB in connection with this file. For example, an email sent by the adjudicator on May 27, 2024 was responded to within 1 hour and an email sent on June 11, 2024 was responded to that same day.

The panel also notes that there was an authorized contact for the employer that the WCB had been in contact with on this claim. The WCB addressed their letters to this authorized contact person, however they did not attempt to contact this representative when it became apparent that their communications with the consultant had gone unanswered.

The panel acknowledges that the WCB’s evidence is that there was no auto-reply email response in place and agrees that proper measures and staffing should be in place to ensure that all emails are responded to but also notes that unforeseen circumstances do arise and therefore, it must look at the consequences of the delay to determine if the delay was such that requires a penalty. The information requested was not in relation to reporting an injury. The injury was reported, and the claim was accepted. The information requested was in relation to time loss by the worker. The email from the WCB on January 23, 2025 indicated that they required a response by January 24, 2025, and if they did not receive a response they would assume the hours are correct and issue this to the worker. Additionally, the panel finds there was no prejudice to the worker in the delayed WCB payment as the worker had already been paid by the employer.

The panel finds that in this instance the explanation provided for the delay is sufficient. The penalty is waived. The appeal is granted.

Panel Members

R. Lemieux Howard, Presiding Officer
J. Peterson, Commissioner
M. Kernaghan, Commissioner

Recording Secretary, J. Lee

R. Lemieux Howard - Presiding Officer
(on behalf of the panel)

Signed at Winnipeg this 31st day of October, 2025