2012 NBCA 97, 2012 NBCA 97

COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW BRUNSWICK 43-12-CA BRUCE EPTON APPELLANT BRUCE EPTON APPELANT - and - - et - WORKPLACE HEALTH, SAFETY AND COMPENSATION COMMISSION RESPONDENT COMMISSION DE LA SANTÉ, DE LA SÉCURITÉ ET DE L’INDEMNISATION DES ACCIDENTS AU TRAVAIL INTIMÉE Epton v. Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission, 2012 NBCA 97 Epton c.

Commission de la santé, de la sécurité et de l’indemnisation des accidents au travail, 2012 NBCA 97 CORAM: The Honourable Justice Robertson The Honourable Justice Bell The Honourable Justice Green CORAM : L’honorable juge Robertson L’honorable juge Bell L’honorable juge Green Appeal from a decision of the Appeals Tribunal established under the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission Act : February 3, 2012 Appel d’une décision du Tribunal d’appel établi en vertu de la

Loi sur la Commission de la santé, de la sécurité et de l’indemnisation des accidents au travail : Le 3 février 2012 History of Case: Historique de la cause : Decision under appeal: Unreported Décision frappée d’appel : Inédite Preliminary or incidental proceedings: N/A Procédures préliminaires ou accessoires : s.o. Appeal heard: October 24, 2012 Appel entendu : Le 24 octobre 2012

Judgment rendered: November 22, 2012 Jugement rendu : Le 22 novembre 2012 Counsel at hearing: Bruce Epton appeared in person For the respondent: Matthew R. Letson Avocats à l’audience : Bruce Epton a comparu en personne Pour l’intimée : Matthew R. Letson THE COURT The appeal is dismissed without costs. LA COUR L’appel est rejeté sans dépens. The following is the judgment delivered by THE COURT [ 1 ] In 1997, the appellant suffered a work related accident. In 1999, the Commission determined that he was capable of performing “light” and “sedentary” duties.

In 2009 and 2010, the Commission refused to reopen the appellant’s claim with respect to “loss of earnings’ benefits”. The appellant was unsuccessful in appealing those decisions to the Appeals Tribunal. [ 2 ] We are of the view there is no basis for interfering with the decision of the Appeals Tribunal. All of the issues raised involve a question of fact for which the review standard is generally expressed in terms of a “palpable and overriding error”. We have not been persuaded that such an error on the part of the Appeals Tribunal has been established.

As to the motion to adduce fresh evidence on this appeal, it must fail as the evidence is only confirmatory of facts already known. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without costs. _____________________________________ J.T. ROBERTSON, J.A. ______________________________________ B. RICHARD BELL, J.A.

_______________________________________ BRADLEY V. GREEN, J.A.