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 June 11, 2026 to consider the worker's appeal.

Issue

Is the claim acceptable?

Decision

The claim is acceptable.

Background

On March 14, 1995, the worker submitted a Worker Incident Report to the WCB indicating they injured their left eye on February 23, 1995 while polishing a truck with a power grinder and grinding compound. The worker reported that a piece of the grinding compound flew off and hit them in the eye, causing bleeding and loss of vision in the eye. The employer submitted an Employer’s Report on March 15, 1995, which similarly described the incident.

In a discussion with the WCB on March 17, 1995, the worker advised they had been driving a shipment from one province to another and stopped at their residence where they performed general maintenance on their truck. The worker noted they arrived at home on February 22, 1995 and the incident occurred the following day.

On March 22, 1995, the WCB provided the worker with a decision letter advising their claim was not acceptable. It was determined the injury did not occur in the course of the worker’s employment as they had chosen to stop at their home overnight and because there was no emergency which necessitated the maintenance of the vehicle.

The worker requested reconsideration of the WCB’s decision to Review Office on January 2, 2026. In their submission, the worker noted they had recently undergone cataract and lens replacement surgery to address issues caused by the February 23, 1995 workplace accident. The worker noted that their contract with the employer included worker responsibility for maintenance of the vehicle, which they were performing in the shop building at their residence when the incident occurred. As such, the worker noted their belief that their claim should be accepted.

On March 24, 2026, Review Office determined the worker’s claim was not acceptable. Review Office found the worker did sustain an injury to their left eye on February 23, 1995 but determined that because the worker chose to stop at their residence while on route for the employer, they were removed from the course of their employment. Further, Review Office found that while the worker advised “washing, greasing and waxing” their vehicle was part of their regular job duties, those activities were not required by the employer and were not work-related activities.

The worker filed an appeal with the Appeal Commission on April 10, 2026 and a hearing was arranged.

Reasons

Applicable Legislation and Policies

The Appeal Commission and its panels are bound by the provisions of The Workers Compensation 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” was defined in s 1(1) of the Act at the relevant time 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 relevant WCB Policy 44.10.50.50, Travelling on the Job, and its Administrative Guidelines provided, in part, the following:

A. POLICY 

Workers are generally considered to be in the course of their employment from the time they arrive on the employer’s premises until the time they leave. When travelling is a requirement of the worker’s employment, compensation coverage is extended to include travel during working assignments, as well as travelling to and from work assignments.

Any deviation from a reasonable and recognizable route, for personal or non-work related reasons, will constitute removal from employment and any injury arising out of or in the course of such deviation will not be compensable.

…

C. ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES 

1. Workers who are regularly required to use a vehicle in the course of their work are considered to be in the course of their employment from the time they enter the vehicle at home to the time they return, providing that they are on a route directly associated with their employment. This would include employees such as salesmen and community or field workers, etc.

2. Generally, workers who travel as a requirement of their employment will be deemed to be in the course of their employment during any work-related activities for which the employer is willing to reimburse the worker. However, if the activity is of a purely personal nature (i.e., an after-hours social activity), there is no entitlement to compensation if the worker is injured.

3. A worker is considered to be in the course of employment when the worker is being paid for the time spent in transit, or is subject to the control and direction of the employer.

Worker’s Position

The worker appeared at the hearing in person. The worker gave oral testimony which included answering questions posed by members of the panel. The worker also relied on written submissions provided to the panel in advance of the hearing.

The worker’s position is that the decision of the Review Office should be overturned. The worker submits that they were injured at work in the course of their duties.

The worker described an arrangement with the employer in which the employer leased equipment owned by the worker (truck and trailer). The worker was then responsible for maintenance of the equipment as well as loading, driving and unloading freight. The worker could not use the equipment to take on work for other employers.

The worker testified that their maintenance responsibilities for the equipment included washing, polishing and greasing equipment as well as conducting oil changes and repairs. The worker gave evidence that the employer regularly inspected the equipment to ensure that the worker was fulfilling the maintenance duties of the contract.

The worker indicated that they were directly performing their work duties when their eye was injured while polishing the equipment.

The worker noted that their home, where they had a full shop building, was located on the route between the freight pick-up and drop-off locations for this particular load, perhaps half a mile off road. The worker testified that it was more logical for them to perform required maintenance of their equipment in their own shop building than, for example, on the side of a road or in a parking lot.

Employer’s Position

The employer did not participate in the appeal.

Analysis

The issue before the panel is claim acceptability. For the worker’s appeal to succeed the panel must find, on a balance of probabilities, that the worker sustained an injury as a result of an accident which arose out of and in the course of employment. For the reasons that follow, the panel is able to make such a finding.

The details of the worker’s eye injury, including the manner in which it occurred, are not in dispute. The question at issue is whether the worker’s eye injury was causally related to the performance of their job duties while at work.

In reaching our decision, the panel considered the worker’s evidence that their employment duties, by contract, included maintenance of their equipment. While the contract was not provided to the panel, we accept the worker’s evidence that they were required to keep their equipment in serviceable and presentable condition.

We note the worker’s evidence that the employer’s logo was displayed on their equipment, and that the employer inspected the worker’s equipment every three months to ensure maintenance had been conducted, in addition to requiring monthly maintenance reports from the worker. We accept the worker’s assertion that if the equipment had not met the employer’s maintenance standards the worker’s employment would not have continued.

We do not place significance on the fact that the injury occurred in the shop building located at the worker’s home. The maintenance was work-related even though it occurred at the worker’s home shop building.

Further, the panel finds that the route taken by the worker was both reasonable and recognizable. We note that the half mile off road deviation described by the worker was likely similar to what would have been required if the worker had decided to perform maintenance at some other point on the journey.

For these reasons the panel is satisfied, based on the evidence before us, that the worker’s injury sustained February 23, 1995, occurred as a result of a workplace accident which arose out of and in the course of the worker’s duties. The claim is therefore acceptable. The worker’s appeal succeeds.

Panel Members

M. Murray, Presiding Officer
R. Hambley, Commissioner
M. Kernaghan, Commissioner

Recording Secretary, J. Lee

M. Murray - Presiding Officer
(on behalf of the panel)

Signed at Winnipeg this 15th day of July, 2026