2013 NBCA 14, 2013 NBCA 14

COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW BRUNSWICK 22-12-CA ROBERT B.P. CAMPBELL APPELLANT ROBERT B.P. CAMPBELL 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 Campbell v. Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission, 2013 NBCA 14 Campbell c.

Commission de la santé, de la sécurité et de l’indemnisation des accidents au travail, 2013 NBCA 14 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 Appeals Tribunal under the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission Act : December 20, 2011 Tribunal d’appel constitué en vertu de la

Loi sur la Commission de la santé, de la sécurité et de l’indemnisation des accidents au travail : Le 20 décembre 2011 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: January 31, 2013 Appel entendu : Le 31 janvier 2013

Judgment rendered: February 14, 2013 Jugement rendu : Le 14 février 2013 Counsel at hearing: Robert B.P. Campbell appeared in person For the respondent: Charles A. LeBlond, Q.C. Avocats à l’audience : Robert B.P. Campbell a comparu en personne Pour l’intimée : Charles A. LeBlond, c.r. THE COURT The appeal is dismissed.

The following is the judgment delivered by THE COURT [ 1 ] The central issue on this appeal is whether the majority of the Appeals Tribunal erred in concluding that the appellant’s back injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment; a requirement imposed under s. 7(1) of the Workers’ Compensation Act , R.S.N.B. 1973, c. W-13. As the issue is essentially one of fact, the applicable standard of review is “palpable and overriding error”: The City of Saint John v.

The Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission of New Brunswick and Rowe , 2008 NBCA 83 , 338 N.B.R. (2d) 213. [ 2 ] The appellant, who is self-represented, raised three grounds of appeal: (1) the Appeals Tribunal failed to consider all of the evidence: (2) and, in particular, a report of a physiotherapist; and (3) the claims process was unfair. Having regard to the arguments presented and the documentary record, we have not been persuaded that any of the grounds of appeal warrant intervention.

In short, the appellant was unable to identify palpable and overriding error or to establish that there was a breach of the fairness duty. The majority of the Appeals Tribunal weighed all of the relevant evidence, as did the minority, and reached a conclusion that the injury was not work-related.

It is not the role of this Court to reweigh the evidence and reach its own conclusion; one that would mirror that of the dissenting member of the Appeals Tribunal. [ 3 ] We also acknowledge the appellant’s argument that s. 7(2) of the Act raises a presumption that an accident is work-related, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. However, s. 7(2.1) goes on to provide that, where there is any evidence that the accident was not work-related, the Commission must weigh all of the evidence before reaching a conclusion.

In the present case, there was “some evidence” that the accident was not work-related and, therefore, the presumption in s. 7(2) was displaced. [ 4 ] For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.

_______________________________________ J.T. ROBERTSON, J.A. ________________________________________ B. RICHARD BELL, J.A. _________________________________________ BRADLEY V. GREEN, J.A.