The Appeal CommissionThe Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba

Preamble

The worker's estate is appealing the decision made by the Workers Compensation Board ("WCB") that it is not entitled to compensation for dependents. A hearing was held on March 6, 2025 to consider the worker's estate's appeal.

Issue

Whether or not the worker's estate is entitled to compensation for dependents.

Decision

The worker's estate is not entitled to compensation for dependents.

Background

The worker suffered a fatal injury at their workplace. The WCB accepted the claim, and a death benefit was paid to the worker's estate.

The WCB spoke with the employer, who advised the worker had been employed with them since August 2021, was single and had no dependents. The WCB also spoke with the worker's brother who was the executor for the worker's estate. The brother confirmed the worker was not married and had no dependents. The WCB advised they would provide a Dependent Application for Compensation form to be completed by the worker's family so the WCB could review for possible entitlement to dependent benefits.

The worker's brother, on behalf of their family, submitted a Dependent Application for Compensation, advising the WCB the worker had provided financial support to their parents and two of their younger siblings. The family provided a copy of an e-transfer receipt indicating the worker had sent money to their mother on January 15, 2022, and listed other dates the worker had provided money to the family in the form of cash. It was noted on the form that the worker would order food for themselves and their younger siblings when their parents were not home. On June 17, 2022, the WCB spoke with the worker's brother and advised further information regarding the worker's financial contributions to the family was required. As they had not heard from the worker's brother, the WCB sent a letter on January 13, 2023, advising of the further information required.

The worker’s estate’s representative submitted a document to the WCB on February 23, 2024, detailing the worker’s financial contribution to their family. The documentation provided that the worker’s immediate family relied on the worker’s income to pay household bills and noted the worker had provided money to their mother to pay a telephone bill. Also included were copies of receipts for meals the worker paid for, clothes the worker had purchased for their siblings, birthday celebrations for family members paid for by the worker and copies of receipts for exercise equipment for a sibling to help support their mental and physical wellbeing. On April 9, 2024, the WCB advised the worker’s estate the evidence submitted did not support the worker’s family was fully or partially dependent on the earnings of the worker for the necessities of life and as such, they were not entitled to compensation for dependents.

The worker’s estate’s representative requested reconsideration of the WCB’s decision to the Review Office on April 25, 2024. The representative presented the argument that the worker’s financial contributions to their family before their passing were used on the family’s ordinary necessities of life and their family would have continued to rely on their financial support if not for their passing. On June 5, 2024, the Review Office determined the worker’s estate was not entitled to compensation for dependents. The Review Office found that the worker’s family had not provided evidence the worker was responsible for basic costs of essentials such as mortgage/rent, groceries or utility bills. The Review Office further found the financial information provided by the worker’s estate indicated purchases made mostly for individual consumption such as single meals and clothing and were most likely purchases made for the worker themself. The Review Office found the evidence did not support the argument that the purchases made indicated the worker’s family was dependent on the worker’s earnings for the necessities of life.

The worker’s estate’s representative filed an appeal with the Appeal Commission on June 11, 2024 and a hearing was arranged. Following the hearing, the appeal panel requested additional information prior to discussing the case further. The requested information was later received and was forwarded to the interested parties for comment. On November 18, 2025, the appeal panel met further to discuss the case and render its final decision on the issue under appeal.

Reasons

Applicable Legislation and Policy

The Appeal Commission and its panels are bound by The Workers Compensation Act (the "Act"), any supporting regulations and policies established by the WCB Board of Directors.

Subsection 28(1) of the Act provide for payment of compensation on the death of a worker:

Compensation and costs payable on death of worker

28(1) Where an accident results in the death of a worker, compensation is payable in accordance with this section and sections 29 to 35.

Compensation payable to dependants

29(1) Compensation is payable to a dependant of a deceased worker as follows:

(a) to the spouse or common-law partner of the worker, 

(i) a lump sum of $45,500., and 

(ii) monthly payments equal to 90% of the worker's net average earnings before the accident, less any amount payable to another dependant under clauses (b) to (e); 

(b) in respect of each child of the worker under the age of 18 years, a monthly payment of $250; 

(c) in respect of each child of the worker who is 18 years of age or older, a monthly payment of $250., where the child 

(i) is applying himself or herself, to the satisfaction of the board, in a course of study that is acceptable to the board, and 

(ii) does not have a university degree and has not completed a course in technical or vocational training; 

(d) where a child referred to in clauses (b) and (c) is an orphan, or becomes an orphan within one year of the day of the death of the worker and is receiving compensation under those clauses, a monthly payment of $500.; 

(e) for a dependant not mentioned in clauses (a) to (d), a monthly payment the board determines to be reasonable and proportionate to the pecuniary loss of the dependant resulting from the death, but not exceeding $250. for each dependant, and a total of $1,000. for all such dependants.

The Act defines “dependants” as follows:

“dependants” means those members of the family of a worker who were wholly or partly dependent upon his earnings at the time of his death or who, but for the incapacity due to the accident of the worker would have been so dependent, but a person shall be deemed not to be partially dependent upon the earnings of another person unless he was dependent partially on contributions from that other person for the provision of the ordinary necessaries of life.

Position of the Estate of the Worker

The brother (and executor of the Estate) of the late worker was present at the hearing, along with a representative from the Worker Advisor Office. The representative made an oral submission at the hearing and relied on the written submission provided to the Review Office. The late worker’s brother provided testimony by answering questions posed by members of the appeal panel.

The position of the Estate of the Worker is that the evidence establishes that the late worker’s family was partially dependent on the worker’s earnings prior to the accident and such dependency would have continued after the worker’s passing.

The representative submits that the Act does not impose criteria or a dollar amount or threshold that must be met to establish whether a dependent is wholly or partly dependent upon a worker’s earnings. The representative also submits that the phrase “ordinary necessaries of life” is not defined and that this is therefore to the discretion of the panel.

It is the position of the Estate that the document prepared by the worker’s brother is sufficient to support the request for compensation. It is further submitted that the late worker’s contributions to the family were significant in relation to their income. In addition, the Estate argues that no set pattern of contributions is required as the Application for Compensation requests the “average monthly support” a worker provided, which implies varied or irregular contributions are acceptable to establish financial dependency.

The representative submits that the financial circumstances of the late worker’s family is such that the contributions from the late worker were necessary to meet the basic needs of a family of seven. The Estate is seeking compensation for the dependents of the late worker.

Analysis

The issue before the panel is whether members of the late worker’s family were wholly or partly dependent on the worker’s earnings at the time of their death and are therefore entitled to compensation.

The panel finds that in order to establish dependency, the evidence must demonstrate that the family members relied, either wholly or partially, on the worker’s earnings for the provision of the ordinary necessaries of life. The panel is of the view that the dependency must be actual and existing at the time of the worker’s death.

The panel acknowledges that the evidence from the late worker’s family is that financial contributions were provided to the worker’s mother and purchases were made by the worker to benefit their siblings. However, the existence of financial contributions alone is not sufficient to establish dependency under the Act. The panel must assess the nature, purpose, regularity, and significance of those contributions in relation to the family’s ability to meet the ordinary necessities of life.

After considering the evidence, the panel is not satisfied that the worker’s contributions were made on a consistent or regular basis such that the family relied on them to meet essential living expenses. The financial documentation provided shows sporadic and irregular contributions, rather than ongoing or predictable financial support. There is limited objective evidence demonstrating a pattern of regular monthly or weekly contributions directed toward necessary household expenses.

The panel finds that many of the documented expenses appear to have been primarily for the worker themselves, or for discretionary or incidental purposes, rather than for the family’s basic necessities. By way of example, the meals largely reflect single or individual food purchases, consistent with meals consumed by the worker. Similarly, expenditures on clothing, birthday celebrations, and exercise equipment, while supportive and generous, are not indicative of financial responsibility for essential household needs such as rent or mortgage payments, utilities, groceries for the household, or other recurring obligations.

The panel also notes that while the worker occasionally ordered food for themselves and their siblings when the parents were not home, this does not establish dependency on the worker’s earnings for sustenance. Rather, this reflects situational or convenience-based assistance, not a reliance on the worker to provide food as an ordinary necessity of life.

The estate submitted that the worker assisted with a telephone bill and that the family would have continued to rely on the worker’s income had they not passed away. However, the evidence does not demonstrate that the worker was responsible for paying this or other essential household expenses on a recurring basis, nor does it establish that the family was unable to meet these expenses without the worker’s contributions. The Act requires evidence of actual dependency at the time of death, not a speculative or anticipated future reliance.

The panel has also considered the argument that there is no minimum dollar threshold or requirement for fixed or regular contributions. While the panel agrees that the Act does not impose a specific monetary threshold, the requirement remains that the contributions must be such that the recipients were dependent on them, at least in part, for the ordinary necessities of life. In this case, the panel finds that the evidence does not meet that standard.

On a balance of probabilities, the panel finds that the worker’s financial contributions were infrequent, irregular, and largely discretionary, and that they were not of a nature or consistency that established the worker’s family was wholly or partially dependent on the worker’s earnings for the ordinary necessaries of life at the time of the worker’s death.

Accordingly, the panel finds that the worker’s estate is not entitled to compensation for dependents under the Act, and the appeal is denied.

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 29th day of December, 2025