The Appeal CommissionThe Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba

Preamble

The worker appealed the Workers Compensation Board ("WCB") decision that their claim is not acceptable. The Appeal Commission held a videoconference hearing on September 3, 2025 to consider this appeal.

Issue

Is the claim acceptable?

Decision

The claim is not acceptable.

Background

On September 10, 2020, the worker submitted a Worker Hearing Loss Report to the WCB, reporting gradual hearing loss and tinnitus which they attributed to performing their job duties over 35 years of employment with the employer. The worker also noted exposure to two loud blasts. They reported wearing hearing protection when in loud noise areas, which the employer provided from 14 years previous. The worker also reported noise exposure outside of work, noting they flew in planes 1-12 times per year, went power boating, and played acoustic guitar. A Work History Summary submitted with the Report outlined the worker’s various jobs with the employer from 1986 to 2020 and indicated that from 1986-1990, they were exposed to drills and explosives for 10 hours per day and had mild hearing loss; from 1991-1998, they were exposed to generators and turbines for 9 hours a day with their hearing worsening; from 1999-2002, they were exposed to sand blasting equipment 10 hours per day, with worsening hearing; from 2003-2005, they experienced moderate to severe hearing loss from exposure to noisy equipment for 8 hours a day; and, from 2006-2020, they were exposed to air tools and heavy equipment for 12 hours a day, with moderate to severe hearing loss.

On September 16, 2020, the worker confirmed the information in the hearing loss report to the WCB and advised they first noticed bilateral hearing loss 15 to 20 years ago, which gradually worsened over time. The worker further advised of constant ringing in their ears and that their right hearing loss was worse than the left. The worker provided further information on the tools and equipment used while working and noted they began to wear ear plugs for hearing protection full time approximately 15 years previously. The worker stated they had hearing tests around 2015 and again in 2018. The worker noted they flew into job sites on turbo prop airplanes and did not wear hearing protection while flying. They also reported using a pontoon boat, some home power tool use, playing an acoustic guitar and noted they are a right-handed shooter when hunting. The worker advised they were exposed to two explosions while at work but had not made claims for those.

A report provided to the WCB by the worker’s treating audiologist on September 24, 2020 included audiograms for 2013 and 2018. The audiologist reported the January 8, 2013 audiogram indicated moderate-severe sensorineural hearing loss in the worker's right ear at 3000Hz and moderate-severe sensorineural hearing loss in their left ear at 6000Hz. The worker reported exposure to occupational noise and intermittent tinnitus in both ears. The May 31, 2018 audiogram indicated moderate-severe sensorineural loss at 3000Hz in both ears. The treating audiologist recommended bilateral hearing aids for the worker.

The employer submitted an Employer Hearing Loss Report to the WCB on November 2, 2020. The employer's report indicated the worker began their employment on November 26, 1985 and held various positions with the employer. The employer confirmed the worker would have been exposed to either varied amounts of loud noise or limited to up to one hour of exposure daily. The employer noted a hearing protection program was in place since 1985, but noise level testing had not been conducted. The employer provided the worker's jobsite hearing testing results from 1987 to 2018.

A WCB Ear, Nose, and Throat (ENT) specialist reviewed the worker's claim on November 6, 2020 and provided an opinion that the worker had noise-induced hearing loss ("NIHL") as indicated for the right ear by a 1995 audiogram and for both ears by a 2014 audiogram. The specialist noted the worker's hearing loss was not rateable. On November 19, 2020, the WCB advised the worker that the claim was not acceptable. The WCB concluded that while the worker was exposed to noxious noise in the workplace, the earliest evidence of bilateral NIHL was in 2014, and the worker confirmed use of fulltime hearing protection by 2006, which would have reduced the worker’s noise exposure below the accepted thresholds.

On December 8, 2020, the worker requested Review Office reconsider the WCB’s decision to deny their claim, noting in their submission that they worked 10-16 hours daily, 5-7 days weekly for 35 years in noisy environments with the employer. The worker described several job sites where they worked around generators, sand blasters and rock drills, among other equipment that was very loud and in noisy environments. On January 25, 2021, the employer’s representative provided a submission in support of the WCB’s decision. The worker provided their response on January 29, 2021.

Review Office upheld the WCB’s decision on February 1, 2021 and found the worker’s claim was not acceptable. Review Office accepted the worker was exposed to noxious noise while employed but noted the worker’s hearing loss until 2014 was asymmetrical whereas NIHL is typically symmetrical. Review Office further found the hearing testing indicated the worker’s hearing loss became bilateral during the time the worker reported wearing hearing protection that would have reduced their exposure levels. As such, Review Office found the worker’s claim was not acceptable.

On March 25, 2025, the worker appealed that decision to the Appeal Commission and a hearing took place on September 3, 2025. The worker attended the hearing and provided submissions and evidence in support of their appeal. The employer was represented in the hearing by an advocate who made submissions outlining the employer's position. Following the hearing, the appeal panel requested additional medical information, and upon receiving that information and providing it to the interested parties for comment, the panel met again on February 2, 2026 to consider and determine the worker's appeal.

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 accident apply.

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 established Policy 44.20.50.20, Noise-Induced Hearing Loss (the "Policy"), which provides, in part, 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’s position is that the evidence confirms their workplace exposure to noxious noise in the workplace throughout all their working years, and that due to that exposure, they developed noise induced hearing loss (“NIHL”). As such, the claim should be accepted.

Employer’s Position

The employer's position is that the evidence does not establish a causal relationship between the worker's hearing loss and their workplace exposure to noise. The employer's representative noted the evidence of asymmetrical hearing loss, with the worker's left ear hearing loss beginning significantly after their right ear hearing loss, and that such hearing loss is not likely to be related to occupational factors. The representative submitted that there is evidence that the worker had noise exposure both in the context of work and outside of work, but that hearing protection was compulsory in the workplace during the worker's employment. Further, the representative noted the hearing loss evidence points to age-related hearing loss. For these reasons, the employer's position is that the decision of Review Office should be upheld, and the worker's appeal denied.

Analysis

The issue under appeal is whether the claim is acceptable. For the panel to find the worker’s claim is acceptable, we would have to determine that the worker’s hearing loss is, on balance of probabilities, the result of exposure to noise in the workplace. The panel was not able to make such a finding based on the evidence before us, as outlined in the reasons that follow.

The panel noted there is evidence that the worker has bilateral hearing loss and that there was a history of workplace noise exposure, but not all hearing loss is caused by or the result of noise exposure in the workplace. Further, not all workers experience hearing loss because of noise exposure. As outlined in the Policy, for a claim to be accepted, there must be not only evidence of sensorineural hearing loss, but there must also be 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.

The panel noted the worker's testimony that their noise exposure continued through all their years of employment is not confirmed by the employer, who noted the worker would have had only variable or intermittent exposure, with hearing protection in place, from 2005 - 2020. Further we noted that the absence of any evidence that provides an occupational explanation for the worker's asymmetrical development of hearing loss.

The evidence in this claim includes workplace hearing test results from 1987 through 2019, the details of which are outlined in the opinion of the WCB Otolaryngology ("ENT") consultant of November 2025. The worker also had audiological testing outside of work on May 4, 2010, January 8, 2013, and May 31, 2018. The panel reviewed and considered these findings as well as the opinion of the WCB ENT consultant in relation to these findings. The panel considered the WCB ENT consultant's comments as to the asymmetrical development of the worker's bilateral hearing loss and the inconsistent workplace assessment findings, as well as their comment that the majority of NIHL occurs within the first 10-15 years of exposure. We note the consultant concluded that:

After review of all available hearing assessments/audiograms it is evident that [the worker] developed a right-sided hearing loss at an earlier age than [their] left-sided hearing loss. Eventually, by the final available audiogram of May 31, 2018, the hearing loss was fairly symmetric.

…In summary, i) the asymmetric nature of the audiometric notching between the right and left ears, ii) the late onset of audiogram evidence of noise-induced hearing loss at the left ear relative to when noxious noise began, and iii) the onset of noise-induced hearing loss at the left ear after 2006, when [the worker] was not exposed to further noxious noise in the workplace are collectively not in keeping with occupational noise-induced hearing loss.

The panel accepts and relies upon the opinion provided by the WCB ENT consultant after review of all the audiological and hearing assessment findings in evidence.

Based on the evidence before the panel, and on the standard of a balance of probabilities, we cannot find that the worker’s bilateral hearing loss is the result of noise exposure at work. We therefore conclude the claim is not acceptable, and the worker’s appeal is dismissed.

Panel Members

K. Dyck, Presiding Officer
M. Jordan, Commissioner
M. Kernaghan, Commissioner

Recording Secretary, J. Lee

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

Signed at Winnipeg this 6th day of February, 2026