Hyra v The Workers Compensation Board of Manitoba et al, 2023 MBCA 79

Citation: Hyra v The Workers Compensation Board of Manitoba et al, 2023 MBCA 79 Date: 20230911 Docket: AI22-30-09718 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Coram: Madam Justice Freda M. Steel Madam Justice Holly C. Beard Madam Justice Diana M. Cameron BETWEEN : JASON JOSEPH HYRA ) D. Chornopyski ) for the Appellant (Applicant) Appellant ) ) S. R. Paul and - and - ) E. E.

Milner ) for the Respondents THE WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD ) OF MANITOBA and THE APPEAL COMMISSION ) Appeal heard and ) Decision pronounced: (Respondents) Respondents ) September 11, 2023 On appeal from 2021 MBQB 249 Steel JA (for the Court) : [ 1 ] This is an appeal from the dismissal of an application for judicial review of a decision of the respondent, the Appeal Commission, affirming the decisions of the respondent, the Workers Compensation Board of Manitoba (the WCB). [ 2 ] The Appeal Commission dismissed three claims by the applicant for benefits under The Workers Compensation Act , CCSM c W200 [the Act ], concluding that his claims did not fall within the definition of “accident” in section 1(1) of the Act and Manitoba, Workers Compensation Board, Benefits Administration — Adjudication and Compensation, (Adjudication of Psychological Injuries), Policy 44.05.30 (WCB, 2012) online: <wcb.mb.ca/sites/default/files/44.05.30%20Adjudication%20of%20Psychological%20Injuries%20April%202021_1.pdf> [the policy] but, rather, were excluded by section 1(1.1) of the Act , which states: Restricted meaning of “accident” 1(1.1) For the purposes of this Act , “ accident” does not include (

a) any change in respect of the employment of a worker, including promotion, transfer, demotion, lay-off or termination; or (

b) an event or condition, or a combination of events or conditions, that results in mental stress unless (

i) the mental stress is an acute reaction to a traumatic event, or

(ii) subsection 4(5.8) applies. [ 3 ] The relevant parts of the policy state: . . . Psychological injuries that occur as a result of burn-out or the daily pressures or stressors of work will not give rise to a compensable claim. . . . . . . Burn-out/Stress (no accident) Burn-out or stress can occur in a number of situations, such as when a worker has: . . . • a difficult, demanding or unpleasant supervisor; • difficult or unpleasant co-workers and/or clients; . . .

Claims based on these criteria are not compensable, as these circumstances do not give rise to an accident. [ 4 ] The Appeal Commission held that stress-related reactions to the management of workplace conflicts, rumours and labour-relations conflicts are excluded from the definition of “accident” under the Act and the policy and, therefore, are not compensable.

At the judicial review of that decision, the application judge indicated that the standard of review was reasonableness and the decision of the Appeal Commission was indeed reasonable. [ 5 ] On appeal of a judicial review of an administrative decision, the standard is correctness (see Inkster v The Workers Compensation Board of Manitoba et al , 2021 MBCA 14 [ Inkster ]). The decision in Inkster concerned an appeal of a judicial review of a decision of the Appeal Commission.

In that case, this Court held that the application judge chose the correct standard of review regarding the decision of the Appeal Commission, being reasonableness, in accordance with Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov , 2019 SCC 65 [ Vavilov ]. The parties have all agreed that the correct standard of review in this case is reasonableness and we agree. [ 6 ] To determine whether the reasonableness standard was applied correctly, the appellate court steps into the shoes of the application judge in reviewing a tribunal’s decision.

The reasonableness standard was explained in depth by the majority in Vavilov , who stated, “a reasonable decision is one that is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and that is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker” (at para 85; see also paras 73-74, 86-87). The reviewing court must not conduct a de novo analysis, reweigh and reassess the evidence or interfere with the administrative decision-maker’s factual findings (see Vavilov at paras 125-26 ).

The onus is on the party challenging the decision. [ 7 ] The applicant argues the application judge applied the standard of reasonableness incorrectly. He submits that both the WCB and the Appeal Commission fundamentally misapprehended his claim. He argues that the events of 2014, 2016 and 2018 exacerbated his pre-existing post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The accusations by his captain in 2014 that he was a member of the Russian Mob caused him extreme mental trauma that triggered and exacerbated his already existing PTSD.

He separates the accusations made by his captain against him from his subsequent transfer. It is the accusations and the impact of those accusations on him that he asks us to focus on. [ 8 ] It is unnecessary for us to comment upon the extensive medical evidence filed by the applicant or to determine whether he suffers from PTSD. Assuming he does so suffer, it is not relevant to this appeal. The panel accepted that the events caused the applicant stress.

However, stress related to the management of workplace conflict and discussions about allegations that may have been repeated in the workplace are issues related to labour relations or employment. [ 9 ] The Appeal Commission made factual findings that those three incidents involved issues related to employment. As opposed to the argument made by the applicant, the Appeal Commission saw the events in 2014 as one, single workplace event. They understood the applicant’s argument. They just did not agree with it. They were entitled to make those factual findings so long as their

findings were based on some evidence. [ 10 ] The application judge reviewing the reasons, which led to those findings, held that the reasons were supported by the evidence and were explained in a transparent, justified and intelligible manner. We agree. The reasons were reasonable and the application judge applied the law correctly. [ 11 ] The appeal is dismissed. [ 12 ] The respondents requested costs. The applicant has not been employed since 2018 and is essentially impecunious. We are making a single award of costs and disbursements to the respondents in the amount of $500. JA JA JA