The Appeal CommissionThe Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba

Preamble

The employer is appealing the decision made by the Workers Compensation Board ("WCB") that the worker's claim is acceptable. A videoconference hearing was held on May 6, 2026 to consider the employer's appeal.

Issue

Is the claim acceptable?

Decision

The claim is acceptable.

Background

The worker has an accepted WCB claim for injuries they sustained due to falling down stairs at work on November 15, 2024. The injuries included a left shoulder fracture and left wrist injury. The employer submitted an Employer's Accident Report to the WCB on November 20, 2024 to report the workplace accident. The employer noted their objection to the worker receiving any benefits on the claim as they described the worker being on break, stepping outside when they slipped and fell down the stairs. It was further noted the worker admitted to consuming alcohol prior to the incident and the worker's manager advised they smelled alcohol on the worker.

The worker was taken to a local hospital for examination then later transported to the emergency department in a larger community for treatment on November 17, 2024. The report from the local hospital dated November 15, 2024, notes the worker reported slipping and falling down stairs while intoxicated, and landing on the anterior aspect of their left shoulder. They reported anterior left shoulder pain and no other injuries. The treating physician noted the worker smelled of alcohol and on examining the worker, found tenderness over the mid clavicle. It was recommended that the worker attend for an x-ray of their shoulder to rule out a left clavicle break. The x-ray was conducted on November 17, 2024 and found a "…comminuted, mildly distracted fracture involving the greater tubercle of the proximal humerus. No dislocation is demonstrated. There is no definite evidence of an acute clavicular fracture." With respect to the worker's left wrist, there was note of "…irregularity of the radial styloid…" but no acute fracture was visible. The worker was then sent to a regional hospital for further treatment by an orthopedic surgeon.

On November 21, 2024, the employer contacted the WCB to provide further details regarding the worker's claim. The employer confirmed the worker was working rotational shifts in a remote location, with the expectation they were to stay in the location while on rotation. At the time of the November 15, 2024 workplace incident, the worker was on a scheduled break. The employer again noted their objection to the worker's claim being accepted by the WCB as they believed the worker's accident was solely caused by the worker's intoxication, after they consumed alcohol while on their break. They included a copy of their drug and alcohol policy that had been signed by the worker. On the same date, the employer advised the WCB that the worker's employment had been terminated with cause.

The WCB contacted the worker on November 27, 2024 to discuss their claim. The worker confirmed that on November 15, 2024, they were "Coming off the steps, and cleats got caught on the metal stairway and fell forward". The worker further confirmed they were going back inside after they were on a break and that they had consumed a "couple of drinks" during their break. The worker noted they were advised they had sustained a concussion and were placed off work for 12 weeks. A sick note from the worker's treating orthopedic surgeon was received by the WCB on November 29, 2024 and indicated that due to the worker's broken shoulder and injured wrist they were to remain off work for 10 to 12 weeks. On December 9, 2024, the worker and the employer were advised by a decision letter from the WCB the worker's claim was accepted and the payment of various benefits including wage loss and medical aid commenced.

The worker continued to receive wage loss and medical aid benefits until a decision letter dated May 16, 2025 advising it had been determined, based on recent medical information placed to their file, that the worker had recovered from the effects of their workplace injuries and their entitlement to benefits would end as of May 11, 2025.

The employer requested reconsideration of the WCB's decision to accept the worker's claim to the Review Office on May 8, 2025. The employer submitted copies of 4 documents that noted the worker was under the influence of alcohol and intoxicated when the November 15, 2024 incident occurred, which the employer believed was the cause of the worker's fall, further noting the stairs were not a hazard. In addition, the employer noted all positions at the remote location were "…safety sensitive positions, which means that no one is supposed to be under the influence of drugs & alcohol." On May 20, 2025, the Review Office determined the worker's claim was acceptable. The Review Office found the evidence on file supported the worker was in the process of returning to work, on the employer's premises, when the workplace accident occurred. As well, the Review Office further found the treating emergency room physician recorded the incident occurred while the worker was at work and reported it as a workplace injury.

The employer filed an appeal with the Appeal Commission on December 24, 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. The provisions of the Act in effect as of the date of the worker’s accident are applicable.

A worker is entitled to benefits under Section 4(1) of the Act when it is established that a worker has been injured as a result of an accident arising out of and in the course of employment.

“Accident” is defined in s 1(1) of the Act as follows:

"accident", subject to subsection (1.1), includes 

(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…

WCB Policy 44.05, Arising Out of and in the Course of Employment (the “Policy”), and its Administrative Guidelines provides, in part, the following:

A worker’s accident arises in the course of their employment when it occurs at or during work. 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 worker’s accident arises out of their employment when employment related activities or exposures cause the accident.

The WCB interprets the concept of “employment related activity” broadly, to include activities that are both directly and incidentally related to the worker’s employment. In other words, the activities causing the worker’s injury need not be directly related to a specific job task. If the activity is reasonably incidental to the obligations and expectations of the employment, then the WCB will consider it to be an employment related activity.

…

Where the evidence establishes that the worker’s accident not only arose out of their employment (i.e. that work activities or exposures caused the accident), but also that it arose in the course of employment (i.e. that the accident occurred at or during work), the legal test of “arising out of and in the course of employment” is met. The accident is related to their employment in both ways.

The Guidelines to the Policy state that there can be instances where one or more non work-related factors contribute to cause a worker's accident. The examples provided are:

- pre-existing conditions (i.e. medical conditions of the worker that existed prior to their workplace injury); 

- serious and wilful misconduct (i.e. voluntary acts of the worker that demonstrate a reckless disregard for the worker's own safety, and which the worker should have recognized as being likely to result in a personal injury); and 

- intoxication.

However, the Policy provides that even if such factors contribute to a worker's accident, it is important to note that this is insufficient to rebut the presumption. The presumption will not be rebutted unless the evidence demonstrates that work activities and exposures were not a contributing cause of the accident (e.g. the pre-existing condition, serious and wilful misconduct or intoxication caused the accident, and the fact that the injury happened at work was merely co-incidental).

Employer’s Position

A representative for the employer was present at the hearing and made an oral submission to the panel. The representative answered questions posed by the panel members and confirmed their position that the level of toxins in the worker’s body was the cause of the injury.

The evidence was that the worker was on break, and consumed alcohol with their co-workers. The worker was wearing cleats on their shoes and was walking downstairs that were grated when they slipped and fell.

The employer argues that but for the toxins the worker would not have fallen as the cleats, along with the grated stairs provided sufficient grip for the worker. The employer notes that the medical evidence confirms the worker was intoxicated when treated following the injury.

The employer’s position is that it was not the work environment or the work itself that caused the injury. It was the combination of the worker’s medications and substantial consumption of alcohol that caused the worker to fall. The employer submits that the evidence before the panel is clear that the worker was intoxicated.

The employer is asking the panel to find that the claim is not acceptable and that the worker is not entitled to benefits.

Worker’s Position

The worker did not participate in the appeal.

Analysis

The issue before the panel is whether the claim is acceptable. For the employer’s appeal to succeed, the panel would have to determine, on a standard of a balance of probabilities, that the worker’s injury did not result from an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. The panel is unable to make that finding based on the evidence before it, and therefore the employer’s appeal is denied, as outlined in the reasons that follow.

There is no dispute that the worker sustained significant injuries on November 15, 2024, including a fracture of the greater tubercle of the left proximal humerus and an injury to the left wrist, after falling while descending the exterior stairs at the employer’s remote worksite. The central issue is whether the worker’s intoxication was the sole cause of the accident such that the employment connection is rebutted.

The panel accepts that the worker had consumed alcohol prior to the incident. The medical evidence from the treating physician, the worker’s own statements, and the employer’s evidence all support that the worker was intoxicated when examined following the accident. The panel also accepts that consuming alcohol while working at a remote, safety-sensitive worksite was contrary to the employer’s policies and ultimately resulted in the worker’s termination of employment. However, those facts are not determinative of whether the claim is compensable under the Act.

The Act requires that the worker establish they suffered an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of their employment. The evidence supports that the accident occurred while the worker was on the employer’s premises, during a scheduled work break, and while returning to the worksite to resume their duties. The worker was at a location where they were reasonably expected to be as part of their employment. The panel therefore finds that the accident occurred in the course of employment.

The remaining question is whether the accident also arose out of the worker’s employment. In this regard, the panel places significant weight on the circumstances of the fall itself. The worker consistently reported that their cleats caught on the grated metal stairs, causing them to fall forward. This explanation was provided shortly after the accident and remained consistent throughout the claim. There is no evidence before the panel that contradicts this mechanism of injury.

The employer argued that the grated stairs and the worker’s cleats should have provided sufficient traction and that, but for the worker’s intoxication and the presence of medications in their system, the fall would not have occurred. While the panel accepts intoxication may have been a contributing factor, there is insufficient evidence to conclude, on a balance of probabilities, that intoxication alone caused the accident.

The Policy and Guidelines specifically contemplate circumstances where non-work-related factors, including intoxication, contribute to an accident. Importantly, it is noted that intoxication does not, by itself, rebut the presumption that an accident arising at work is compensable. Rather, the presumption is only rebutted where the evidence demonstrates that work activities or workplace exposures were not a contributing cause of the accident and that the occurrence of the injury at work was merely coincidental.

The panel is not satisfied that this threshold has been met. The evidence establishes that the worker fell while negotiating the employer’s exterior metal staircase, a feature of the workplace that the worker was required to use to access and leave the building. Regardless of whether intoxication may have affected the worker’s judgment or balance, the workplace stairs and the interaction between the worker’s cleated footwear and those stairs formed part of the circumstances giving rise to the accident. The employment environment was therefore a contributing cause of the fall.

The panel also notes that the injury was caused by the worker’s fall, not by the presence of alcohol or other substances in their system. Intoxication does not, in itself, produce a fractured shoulder. The compensable event was the worker falling down the employer’s stairs. On the evidence before the panel, the worker’s intoxication may have contributed to the occurrence of the fall, but it was not established to be the sole or dominant cause such that the employment connection is displaced.

The panel is therefore unable to conclude that the accident occurring at work was merely coincidental. Rather, the worker’s presence at the remote worksite, their use of the employer’s stairs while returning from an authorized work break, and the mechanism of the fall all establish a meaningful employment connection. The accident both arose in the course of and arose out of the worker’s employment.

Accordingly, on a balance of probabilities, the panel finds that the worker sustained an injury as a result of an accident arising out of and in the course of their employment. The worker’s claim is therefore acceptable, and the employer’s appeal is dismissed.

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 June, 2026