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 February 24, 2026 to consider the worker's appeal.

Issue

Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

Decision

The claim is not acceptable.

Background

The worker filed a Worker Incident Report with the WCB on April 8, 2025 to report they were injured at work on February 14, 2025. The worker described working with a client on February 13, 2025 and February 14, 2025 and when they finished their shift on February 14, 2025, went home and began to experience "…cold, flu-like symptoms" and their spouse advised they had a high temperature. The following day, the worker noted they received a call from a coworker asking them to transport the client to the hospital as they were very ill. The worker further noted they advised the coworker they were also sick and asked for the coworker to arrange for someone else to take the client. On February 17, 2025, the worker advised they felt their whole body was in "severe pain" and they sought medical treatment from their physician. The worker advised their physician found they had a very high temperature and had contracted a "very strong virus" likely from being in contact with someone who was sick. The worker was provided with antibiotics and on February 18, 2025, advising their supervisor their physician had recommended they remain off work. The worker further noted their spouse was also prescribed antibiotics as they had contracted the virus as well. The worker advised they returned to work on February 24, 2025.

A Doctor's First Report was received by the WCB on April 10, 2025, with an unclear date of examination, which was later clarified by the physician's office to be February 19, 2025. The report indicated the worker's reporting of having a cough, fever, feeling fatigue and a decreased appetite. The physician found the worker's temperature was high, diagnosed them with a lower respiratory tract infection and prescribed antibiotics for the worker. The worker was placed off work until February 21, 2025.

The employer submitted the Employer Injury Report to the WCB on May 26, 2025, noting the worker reported assisting a client who was sick with a cold then becoming infected themselves, which infection also spread to their family members. The employer also submitted a copy of a doctor's note that placed the worker off work from February 18, 2025 to February 21, 2025. An email from the employer to the WCB on the same date noted the worker was not paid for 5 of those sick days as they had exceeded their sick leave entitlement.

On June 5, 2025, the WCB advised the worker that their claim was not acceptable as it had been determined their illness was considered an ordinary disease of life as set out in the WCB's policies and as such, was not compensable.

The worker requested reconsideration of the WCB's decision their claim was not acceptable to the Review Office on August 7, 2025. The worker noted in their submission they had already used their allotted sick time when they contracted a virus, "…likely because of direct exposure during a work-related client meeting", which resulted in them missing work due to illness, supported by their treating physician placing them off work from February 18, 2025 to February 21, 2025. The worker further noted this work-related exposure caused them to go without pay and they also exposed their family to the virus, resulting in their whole household going without income. The worker also submitted a June 19, 2025 note from their treating physician confirming the worker had been infected with a bacterial chest infection that required them to be off work form February 14, 2025 to February 23, 2025 and which also infected their family. The physician further confirmed they placed the worker off work to allow them to rest and to "…prevent the spread of infection." The Review Office found the worker's claim was not acceptable on September 4, 2025. The Review Office determined the file evidence did not support the worker suffered an injury as the result of an accident that arose out of or in the course of their employment. The Review Office found the worker's report did not indicate the client they were with on February 13, 2025 and February 14, 2025 was exhibiting signs of illness during the limited time they were together and that the worker was not aware the client was ill until February 15, 2025 when they were advised they required transportation to a hospital. In addition, the Review Office found the medical report from the worker's treating physician did not indicate a relationship between the worker's diagnosis of a bacterial chest infection and their workplace and noted the worker's entire family had fallen ill to the same infection.

The worker filed an appeal with the Appeal Commission on November 27, 2025, and a hearing was arranged.

Reasons

Applicable Legislation

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 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 Section 1(1) as follows:

(a) a chance event occasioned by a physical or natural cause, 

(b) a wilful and intentional act that is not the act of the worker, or 

(c) an event or condition, or a combination of events or conditions, related to the worker's work or workplace,

that results in personal injury to a worker, including an occupational disease, post-traumatic stress disorder or an acute reaction to a traumatic event.

The Act sets out at Section 4(4) that, where an injury consists of an occupational disease that is due in part to the employment of the worker and in part to a cause or causes other than employment, the board may determine that the injury is the result of an “accident arising out of and in the course of employment only where, in its opinion, the employment is the dominant cause of the occupational disease.”

The Act also sets out situations where there is a presumption that a worker’s employment is the dominant cause of the worker’s disease (unless the contrary in proven).

The WCB has established Policy 44.05, Arising Out of and in the Course of Employment (the “Arising Policy”), that focuses on the reasoning process the WCB uses to determine whether an accident arose out of and in the course of employment. The Policy states, in part:

In determining whether a worker's accident arose in the course of employment, the WCB generally focuses on evidence regarding the time and location of the accident. If the event(s) that caused the worker's injury occurred during work, at a place where the worker is reasonably expected to be, the accident arose in the course of employment.

A Regulation to the Act, Regulation 69/2023, Occupational Diseases Regulation (the “Regulation”) sets out, in a schedule to the Regulation, occupational diseases and industries, trades or process. If a worker (a) has an occupational disease listed in column 1 of the schedule to the Regulation; and (b) was employed as described opposite in column 2 of the schedule in relation to that disease; then the worker's employment must be presumed to be the dominant cause of the worker's disease, unless the contrary is proven.

Policy 44.20, Adjudication of Occupational Disease Claims (the "Occupational Disease Policy"), outlines how the WCB adjudicates occupational disease claims. The Occupational Disease Policy identifies the two different adjudicative approaches that are used to determine whether a worker's occupational disease was caused by work; describes how the rebuttable presumption for occupational disease works; outlines the types of evidence the WCB will gather to assess and determine causation in the circumstances where the presumption does not apply; and determines the timing of impairment ratings for occupational diseases claims.

The Occupational Disease Policy outlines two different adjudicative approaches used by the WCB in the case of occupational disease claims such as this. However, occupational disease claims must meet the Act’s basic criteria to be compensable. The criteria are as follows:

• there was an accident; 

• the worker suffered an injury; and 

• the injury was caused by the accident.

For the purposes of the Occupational Disease Policy, it is assumed that these three criteria are met. The only thing left for the WCB to determine is whether the worker's occupational disease arose out of and in the course of their employment.

The Occupational Disease Policy also provides specific guidance as it relates to ordinary diseases of life. It is noted that the definition of "occupational disease" in subsection 1(1) of the Act specifies that an ordinary disease of life is not an occupational disease. An ordinary disease of life is a disease that is common in the general population and often attributable to non-work related factors.

The Occupational Disease Policy however provides that in rare circumstances, the WCB may accept claims made by workers who contract an ordinary disease of life when it determines that the disease in question did, in fact, arise out of and in the course of employment. The WCB applies the "but for" standard of causation to these claims.

Worker’s Position

The worker was present at the hearing. They made an oral presentation to the panel and provided testimony in the hearing through answers to questions posed by members of the appeal panel.

The worker’s evidence is that during the course of their employment, they were transporting and interviewing an individual. They noted the individual was coughing but was otherwise not showing any signs of illness. The worker states that after spending several hours with this individual they returned home and started feeling unwell. The worker believed it to be the flu and eventually was seen by a doctor, who diagnosed them with an infection and prescribed antibiotics.

The worker states that they learned the individual they had been in contact with was also ill and had to be taken to the hospital.

The position of the worker is that they contracted their illness while at work and engaging in their work duties and therefore they should be compensated for their time loss.

The worker is seeking that the decision be overturned and their claim be accepted.

Employer’s Position

A representative of the employer was present at the hearing. They made an oral presentation to the panel and provided testimony in the hearing through answers to questions posed by members of the appeal panel.

The employer advised that they were there in support of the worker and confirmed that the worker is exposed to travelers, who occasionally have illnesses or viruses.

The employer noted that their workers are vulnerable as they spend many hours with individuals coming from various locations, including refugee camps. The employer noted that the information provided to the worker prior to their arrival does not always indicate if they have illness or mention their condition.

The employer’s position is that the worker’s claim should be accepted.

Analysis

This appeal arises from the WCB’s decision that the worker’s claim is not acceptable. For the worker’s appeal to succeed, the panel would have to determine that the worker was injured as a result of an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. As detailed in the reasons that follow, the panel was unable to make such a finding and therefore the worker’s appeal is denied.

The panel is unable to establish that the worker suffered an accident or sustained an injury arising out of or in the course of their employment with the employer. The panel does not have any medical information from the worker’s treating health care professionals to support a conclusion that the worker’s illness arose out of and in the course of employment.

There is no dispute that the worker experienced an illness in mid-February 2025 which resulted in a brief period of disability from work. The medical evidence supports that the worker was diagnosed with a lower respiratory tract infection or bacterial chest infection and was temporarily unable to work. As such, the panel accepts that the worker suffered an injury in the form of an illness.

The central issue for determination is whether that illness can be found to have arisen out of and in the course of the worker’s employment. In this regard, the panel has considered whether the worker’s illness constitutes an “accident” within the meaning of the Act, and if so, whether there is a causal connection between the worker’s employment and the development of that illness.

The panel finds that the worker’s illness is properly characterized as an ordinary disease of life. The symptoms described, including fever, cough, fatigue, and decreased appetite, together with the diagnosis of a respiratory infection, are conditions commonly seen in the general population and are not, in and of themselves, specific to any particular workplace or occupation. The definition of “occupational disease” set out in the Act specifically excludes ordinary diseases of life, however the Policy provides that in rare circumstances where the evidence establishes that the disease arose out of and in the course of employment the WCB may accept a claim involving an ordinary disease of life.

The panel has therefore considered whether this is one of those rare circumstances where the “but for” test of causation is met; that is, whether the worker would not have contracted the illness but for their workplace exposure.

The worker’s position is that they contracted the illness from a client with whom they spent several hours on February 13 and 14, 2025. The panel acknowledges the worker’s evidence that the client was coughing during their interaction and that the worker later learned the client required hospitalization. The employer also confirmed that workers in this role may come into contact with individuals who are ill.

However, the panel finds that the evidence does not establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the worker contracted their illness as a result of this workplace exposure. In particular, the panel notes that at the time of the interaction, the client was not known to be significantly ill, and there is no medical or other evidence confirming that the client was suffering from the same infection as the worker or that the client was contagious at the time of contact.

Further, the panel places weight on the fact that the worker’s illness was not isolated to the workplace. The evidence indicates that the worker’s spouse, and possibly other household members, also contracted a similar illness.

The panel also notes the absence of medical evidence establishing a causal link between the worker’s employment and their diagnosis. While the treating physician confirmed the worker was ill and required time off work, the medical reporting does not attribute the illness to a workplace exposure or identify the workplace as the probable source of infection.

While it is certainly possible that the worker may have been exposed to illness in the workplace, the panel is not satisfied that it is more likely than not that this exposure was the cause of the worker’s condition. Given the common nature of the illness and the presence of other potential sources of exposure in the community and household, the evidence does not meet the threshold required to establish work-related causation.

Accordingly, the panel finds that the worker has not established that they suffered a personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of their employment. The claim is therefore not acceptable.

Panel Members

R. Lemieux Howard, Presiding Officer
D. Rhoda, Commissioner
M. Kernaghan, Commissioner

Recording Secretary, J. Lee

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

Signed at Winnipeg this 24th day of April, 2026