Public Decisions

To help refine your searches, follow these rules to get more accurate results.

  • Limit the Dates - Set a date range to limit the number of results to be within that range.
  • If a term must be in all results, prepend +. (e.g. +required)
  • If a term must not be in any results, prepend -. (e.g. -banned)
  • If matches can start with a term or partial word, append *. (e.g. partial*)
  • Search for an exact word match of words or phases, enclose them in ". (e.g. "exact phrase")
  • Limit the Decision Type - Restricts the search to only the Decisions of that type.
  • Decision # 22/09

    Issue: Whether or not the worker’s psychological symptoms are related to the April 4, 2006 compensable accident.

  • Decision # 21/09

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss benefits from June 30, 2008 to July 9, 2008.

  • Decision # 20/09

    Issue: Whether or not the injured worker should be considered an independent contractor or an employee of the employer.

  • Decision # 19/09

    Issue: Whether or not the vocational rehabilitation plan with an occupational goal of working within National Occupational Classification (“NOC”) 6421 (Retail Salesperson and Salesclerk) was appropriate; andWhether or not a deemed post-accident earning capacity of minimum wage should have been implemented as of November 22, 2006.

  • Decision # 18/09

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss benefits and medical treatment beyond May 16, 2001.

  • Decision # 17/09

    Issue: Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

  • Decision # 16/09

    Issue: Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

  • Decision # 15/09

    Issue: Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

  • Decision # 14/09

    Issue: Whether or not a Medical Review Panel should be convened pursuant to subsection 67(4) of the Act; andWhether or not the worker is entitled to benefits and services after July 27, 2004.

  • Decision # 13/09

    Issue: Whether or not a deemed post-accident earning capacity of minimum wage based on a 40 hour week should have been implemented effective October 27, 2004.

  • Decision # 12/09

    Issue: Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

  • Decision # 11/09

    Issue: Whether or not the worker’s current problems are related to the April 21, 2003 compensable injury.

  • Decision # 10/09

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss benefits beyond February 25, 2005.

  • Decision # 09/09

    Issue: Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

  • Decision # 08/09

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to an increase in the cosmetic impairment rating.

  • Decision # 07/09

    Issue: Whether or not the employer should be considered a compulsory firm under the Act.

  • Decision # 06/09

    Issue: Whether or not the worker’s wage loss benefit rate is correct.

  • Decision # 05/09

    Issue: Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

  • Decision # 04/09

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss benefits for time that he missed from work after July 11, 2008.

  • Decision # 03/09

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss benefits beyond April 5, 2002.

  • Decision # 02/09

    Issue: 1988 ClaimWhether or not responsibility should be accepted for home renovations; andWhether or not responsibility should be accepted for a walker.1999 Claim Whether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss benefits and medical treatment; and Whether or not the worker is entitled to a permanent partial impairment award.

  • Decision # 01/09

    Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss benefits beyond January 19, 2007.

  • Decision # 01/09

    Issue: Whether or not the time for making an appeal should be extended; andWhether or not the application is acceptable.

  • Decision # 166/08

    Issue: Issues and Decisions:Dermatitis Claim:1. Whether or not National Occupational Classification code (NOC 6411) sales representatives (wholesale trade) non-technical, is an appropriate vocational rehabilitation goal.Decision: Based on the worker’s changed circumstances, National Occupational Classification code (NOC 6411) sales representatives (wholesale trade) non-technical is not an appropriate goal.2. Whether or not the WCB should support National Occupational Classification code (NOC 4112) lawyers and Quebec notaries, as a vocational rehabilitation goal.Decision: That the WCB should support National Occupational Classification code (NOC 4112) lawyers and Quebec notaries, as a vocational rehabilitation goal.3. Whether or not it is appropriate to implement a post-accident deemed earning capacity effective January 22, 2007.Decision: That it is appropriate to implement a post-accident deemed earning capacity of minimum wage on a full time basis, effective January 22, 2007, until commencement of law school in September, 2008.4. Whether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss benefits from May 9, 1997, to October 25, 1999, in relation to his dermatitis claim.Decision: The WCB is instructed to adjudicate the worker’s entitlement to wage loss benefits from May 1997 to October 1999 in the context of both his dermatitis and inhalation claims given that his inhalation claim is now considered an accepted claim.Inhalation Claim:5. Whether or not the claim is acceptable.Decision: That the claim is acceptable.

  • Decision # 165/08

    Issue: Whether or not the claim is acceptable.