The Appeal CommissionThe Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba

Preamble

The employer appealed the Workers Compensation Board ("WCB") decision that the worker is entitled to benefits after September 13, 2024. On June 3, 2026, the panel considered the employer's appeal in a teleconference hearing.

Issue

Is the worker entitled to benefits after September 13, 2024?

Decision

The worker is not entitled to wage loss benefits after September 13, 2024.

Background

On September 18, 2024, the WCB received a report from a physician who treated the worker on September 17, 2024 in relation to a reported left ankle injury that occurred at work on September 7, 2024 when the worker stepped on a rock, twisting their ankle. On examining the worker, the physician recorded finding swelling and tenderness at the left ankle and diagnosed ankle strain.

The WCB received an Employer’s Accident Report on September 25, 2024, reporting the worker injured their left ankle at work on September 7, 2024. The employer noted they could accommodate the worker either with an automatic transmission vehicle for driving tasks or with office-based clerical work. The employer indicated they offered light duties to the worker, which the worker declined, and that the worker left their employment.

When the WCB contacted the employer on September 25, 2024, the employer advised that the worker returned to work after the injury on modified duties, driving a vehicle with an automatic transmission but advised the employer at the end of their shift, they found the driving duties too difficult. The employer stated they then advised the worker of sedentary duties available in their office, but the worker resigned instead of accepting those duties.

The same day, the WCB contacted the worker who confirmed returning to modified duties on September 9, 2024. The worker stated that they found it difficult to get in and out of the work vehicle numerous times throughout the day and be on their feet, and their ankle was extremely swollen and painful as a result. The worker stated they advised their field supervisor and dispatcher that they could not continue to drive that vehicle due to their symptoms and indicated they requested a different vehicle, which would allow them to stay in the vehicle for most of their shift. The worker indicated the employer stated no other vehicle was available, and that sedentary duties were not offered at that time. The worker remained at home and provided their letter of resignation to the employer on September 14, 2024. The worker reported that after resigning, the employer contacted them, asking the worker to reconsider and offering sedentary duties.

On October 1, 2024, the WCB accepted the worker's claim and advised the worker they are entitled to wage loss benefits from September 10, 2024 to September 13, 2024.

On October 22, 2024, the worker advised the WCB that their left ankle was still painful, weak and was not improving, and may require surgery. The worker asked about wage loss benefits, and the WCB confirmed the worker was not entitled to further wage loss benefits as they resigned their position. The worker noted they requested accommodation by the employer due to their ankle difficulties and were told they could not be accommodated. On October 24, 2024, the WCB confirmed the decision in a letter to the worker.

The worker requested reconsideration of the WCB's decision to Review Office on November 8, 2024. In their submission, the worker noted the employer did not accommodate them with modified duties after the September 7, 2024 workplace accident so they resigned their position. The worker advised they sustained more than a sprain injury and they continued to receive treatment.

On January 15, 2025, Review Office contacted the worker for further information relating to the time from the accident on September 7, 2024 through to September 13, 2024. On February 4, 2025, the worker provided Review Office with a chronology of events from September 7, 2024 to September 14, 2024. Review Office determined on April 10, 2025, that the worker is entitled to benefits after September 13, 2024. Review Office found the worker could not participate in the modified duties offered by the employer, had not recovered from the workplace accident, and despite their resignation, is entitled to further benefits after September 13, 2024.

The employer filed an appeal with the Appeal Commission on September 3, 2025 and a hearing was arranged.

Reasons

Applicable Legislation and Policy

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.

A worker is entitled to benefits under s 4(1) of the Act when it is established that they sustained injury as a result of an accident at work. Under s 4(2), a worker injured in an accident is entitled to wage loss benefits for the loss of earning capacity resulting from the accident, but no wage loss benefits are payable where the injury does not result in a loss of earning capacity during any period after the day on which the accident happens. When a worker has a loss of earning capacity, an impairment or requires medical aid because of a workplace accident, compensation is payable under s 37 of the Act. Section 39(2) of the Act sets out that wage loss benefits are payable until the worker's loss of earning capacity ends or the worker attains the age of 65 years.

Employer's Position

The employer appeared in the hearing represented by its president and a safety officer. The employer representatives outlined their position through their submissions to the panel and in answering questions posed by members of the appeal panel.

The employer appealed the decision of Review Office that the worker is not entitled to benefits after September 13, 2024 focusing specifically on wage loss benefits. The employer's position is that the worker should not be entitled to wage loss benefits after that date as the reason for the worker's loss of earning capacity after September 13, 2024 is that the worker resigned from their employment as of September 14, 2024. Therefore, the worker's loss of earnings is not a result of the worker's compensable injury of September 7, 2024.

The employer outlined that it offered meaningful alternate work that accommodated the worker's injury, but the worker refused that offer and instead decided to leave their employment. The employer representatives relied on the text message conversations between the worker's supervisor and the worker taking place in the week following the injury to support this position.

The employer representatives also described to the panel their processes in relation to workplace injuries indicating that they support employees who have injuries by offering appropriate alternate work when needed and participating in WCB claim processes.

Worker's Position

The worker, although advised of the date and time of the hearing, did not attend the hearing.

Analysis

This appeal considers whether the worker is entitled to benefits after September 13, 2024. For the employer's appeal to succeed, the panel would have to find that the worker did not sustain a loss of earning capacity beyond September 13, 2024 as a result of the workplace accident.

The panel noted that the issue under consideration in this appeal is broadly framed as entitlement to benefits, but Review Office, in its decision, addressed only the question of entitlement to wage loss benefits and this is the specific finding appealed by the employer. The panel therefore considered this appeal only in respect of the worker's entitlement to wage loss benefits after September 13, 2024.

The panel considered the employer's position that the worker is not entitled to wage loss benefits because the worker's loss of earning capacity was the result of the choices the worker made and was not the result of the injury sustained in the workplace accident. We noted that there is evidence that the employer offered alternate work to the worker following the accident, initially offering alternative driving duties and when the worker advised that did not work, suggesting that office duties were available in the safety department. The panel accepts the employer's statements that these duties were of a sedentary nature which the worker ought to have been able to undertake despite their ankle injury. At the point of these offers, the panel noted the worker had not sought any medical attention and therefore the employer relied solely on information from the worker in offering alternative employment duties. While it is unclear if the worker received any further detail about the proposed office duties, the panel noted the worker did not seek out further information after the initial inquiry into whether a vehicle with automatic transmission was available and the worker declined the alternative office-based duties offered on or about September 12, 2024. This is evident from the text message conversation between the worker and their supervisor in which the worker clearly stated that the alternative duties would not work for them. Later evidence the worker provided to Review Office indicates that by September 12, 2024, the worker was already contemplating both resigning and applying for employment insurance benefits. The evidence further confirms that the worker submitted a letter of resignation on September 14, 2024 after advising their supervisor on September 13, 2024 that they would do so. By these actions, the worker made it impossible for the employer to accommodate any disability arising out of their injury. As the WCB was not yet advised of the accident at this point, there was no opportunity for it to intervene in the process to facilitate an accommodation or the offer of alternative work.

The panel also considered the concern outlined in the claim file documents that the worker may not have been well-informed about the WCB's benefits and processes, having never submitted a claim previously. The employer confirmed the worker submitted an incident report after the injury, but the panel noted the worker did not seek any medical attention until more than a week after the injury and only after already having resigned from this employment. We also note there is no evidence that the employer advised the worker to seek medical attention or to report their injury to the WCB and in fact, the employer did not report this incident until after being contacted by the WCB, despite having received an incident report from the worker and knowing the worker was not able to continue with their regular duties because of the injury. Nonetheless, we are satisfied, considering the worker's previous work experience, that the worker would have known about the importance of reporting an injury arising out of an accident at work on a timely basis as they are not a naïve, inexperienced or youthful worker.

Based on the evidence before the panel, and applying the standard of a balance of probabilities, the panel finds that the worker did not sustain a loss of earning capacity beyond September 13, 2024 as a result of the accident; rather, the reason for the worker's loss of earning capacity after that date is the worker's choice to resign from their employment instead of continuing with the offered alternative job duties. Therefore, the worker is not entitled to wage loss benefits after September 13, 2024 and the employer's appeal is granted.

Panel Members

K. Dyck, Presiding Officer
J. MacKay, Commissioner
M. Kernaghan, Commissioner

Recording Secretary, J. Lee

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

Signed at Winnipeg this 18th day of June, 2026