The Appeal CommissionThe Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba

Preamble

The firm is appealing the decision made by the Workers Compensation Board (“WCB”) that:

1. The firm committed claim suppression under section 19.1(1) of The Workers Compensation Act; and 

2. The firm is required to pay a $4,000.00 administrative penalty.

A hearing was held March 26, 2026 to consider the firm's appeal.

Issue

1. Did the firm commit claim suppression under section 19.1(1) of The Workers Compensation Act; and 

2. Is the firm required to pay a $4,000.00 administrative penalty.

Decision

1. The firm did not commit claim suppression under section 19.1(1) of The Workers Compensation Act; and 

2. This issue is moot given the decision on Issue #1.

Background

On August 6, 2025, the WCB's Compliance Services provided the firm with a Notice of Allegation alleging the firm had contravened s 19.1(1) of The Workers Compensation Act (the “Act”) by discouraging a worker from making a claim for compensation. After an investigation by the WCB’s Compliance Services, the WCB advised the firm on December 22, 2025 that it determined the firm committed claim suppression against a worker contrary to s 19.1(1) of the Act and the firm was required to pay an administrative penalty of $4,000.00.

The firm filed an appeal with the Appeal Commission on January 21, 2026 and a hearing was arranged.

Reasons

Applicable Legislation and Policy

The Appeal Commission and its panels are bound by the Act, regulations under the Act, and policies established by the WCB's Board of Directors.

Section 19.1 of the Act prohibits employers and their representatives from taking action to discourage making claims under the WCA. Section 19.1 provides as follows:

Discouraging worker from claiming compensation

19.1(1) No employer or person acting on behalf of an employer shall take any action that prevents or discourages or attempts to prevent or discourage a worker from applying for compensation, pursuing an application that has been made or receiving compensation under this Part. 

…

Subsection 19.1(4) provides that a person who contravenes section 19.1 of the WCA commits an offence and is subject to an administrative penalty under subsection 109.7(1).

Where a person commits an offence under s 19.1, section 109.7(1) provides that the panel may impose an administrative penalty. Manitoba Regulation 71/2021 sets out the amount of $4,000.00 for the first offence. The relevant portions of section 109.7(1) are as follows:

Administrative penalty

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

(a) a person who makes a false statement to the board

…

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

…

(viii) subsection 19.1(1) or (2) (prohibitions re claim suppression),

WCB Policy 22.20, Compliance and Enforcement (“the Policy”) and the accompanying Administrative Guidelines provide available defences to an offence under Section 19.1 of the Act. The relevant portion of the Administrative Guidelines is as follows:

C. CONTRAVENTIONS FOR WHICH DEFENCES ARE AVAILABLE

…

In the case of most contraventions of the Act and regulations, if the WCB is satisfied, on the basis of the evidence it has gathered, that the person under investigation has committed the prohibited act or omission, the WCB will determine that a contravention has occurred.

In some cases however, more is required. For certain contraventions, even when there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the person under investigation committed the prohibited act of omission, the WCB will determine that they have not contravened the Act where the evidence also demonstrates, on a balance of probabilities, that they:

• took all reasonable care to avoid committing the contravention; or 

• reasonably believed in a mistaken set of facts which, if true, would have rendered the act innocent.

Contraventions where these defences are available:

• false statements affecting a person's entitlement to compensation or an employer's assessment, or false statements made to obtain payment for goods and services (clause 109.7(1)(a) of the Act); 

• failure to inform the WCB of a material change in circumstances affecting a worker's entitlement to compensation (clause 109.7(1)(b) of the Act); 

• prohibitions against claim suppression and discriminatory action (subclause 109.7(1)(d)(viii) of the Act); 

• breach of re-employment obligations (subclause 109.7(1)(d)(x) of the Act); and 

• failure to destroy documents (subclause 109.7(1)(d)(xvii) of the Act.

Evidence that the person under investigation took all reasonable care to avoid the contravention or reasonably believed in a mistaken set of facts frequently comes from that person, but may also come from other sources.

Employer’s Position

The employer was present at the hearing and made an oral presentation to the appeal panel and answered questions posed by members of the panel.

The employer states that the investigation by the WCB was superficial and they did not contact past workers to see if the employer was prone to this behaviour. The employer states that they not only advise but encourage and ensure their workers make claims when they are injured. The employer argued that their character is not consistent with someone who would suppress a claim.

The employer noted that the amount of money that would be saved by their company by suppressing a claim would be negligible.

The employer’s position is that they did not prevent or discourage or attempt to prevent or discourage a worker from applying for compensation, pursuing an application that has been made or receiving compensation. The employer therefore states that their firm should not be required to pay an administrative penalty.

Analysis

The first issue before the panel is whether or not the employer committed claim suppression under Section 19.1(1) of the Act. The second issue before the panel is whether or not the employer should be assessed a $4,000.00 penalty for contravening section 19.1(1.) of the Act. For the employer's appeal to be successful, the panel must find, on a balance of probabilities, that either the employer did not contravene the Act, or if they did contravene the Act, can avail themselves of the defences under the Administrative Guidelines to have the administrative penalty reduced or waived.

The panel has carefully considered all of the evidence and submissions before it. For the following reasons, the panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the employer did not commit claim suppression contrary to s 19.1(1) of the Act.

The panel acknowledges that section 19.1(1) of the Act prohibits an employer or a person acting on behalf of an employer from taking action that prevents, discourages, or attempts to prevent or discourage a worker from applying for compensation, pursuing a claim, or receiving compensation. The panel further recognizes that a contravention of this provision may result in the imposition of an administrative penalty pursuant to s 109.7(1) of the Act.

In considering this matter, the panel has reviewed the investigation materials gathered by the WCB’s Compliance Services, including the information relied upon in determining that the employer engaged in claim suppression. The panel notes, however, that the investigation did not identify direct evidence that the employer instructed the worker not to file a claim, discouraged the worker from seeking benefits, or otherwise attempted to interfere with the worker’s entitlement to compensation. The evidence before the panel does not establish any explicit communication or conduct by the employer directing the worker not to pursue a claim.

The panel notes that the WCB relied significantly upon a photograph posted by the employer. The panel accepts that the photograph and accompanying circumstances may reasonably have been viewed as inappropriate or in poor taste. However, the panel is unable to find that the existence of the photograph, on its own, establishes that the employer took action to prevent or discourage the worker from making or pursuing a claim for compensation.

The panel places weight on the absence of corroborating evidence supporting an allegation of claim suppression. No additional evidence was presented demonstrating that the employer pressured the worker not to report the injury, threatened repercussions for filing a claim, offered incentives not to file, or otherwise engaged in conduct prohibited by s 19.1(1) of the Act.

The panel also considered the employer’s evidence that the firm generally encourages workers to report workplace injuries and pursue WCB claims where appropriate. The employer submitted that suppressing claims would be inconsistent with their normal practices and character. While the panel does not base its decision solely on these submissions, the panel accepts that there was insufficient evidence before it to establish conduct amounting to claim suppression.

The panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the employer did not contravene s 19.1(1) of the Act. As the panel has determined that no contravention occurred, the issue of the $4,000.00 administrative penalty is moot.

The employer’s 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 25th day of May, 2026