Whitehorse Daily Star

Woman was hurt by lumber falling from roof ( Analysis )

A woman who was a federal employee when she was injured by a piece of lumber that fell from the roof of the Elijah Smith Building in downtown Whitehorse can sue for damages.

By Chuck Tobin on January 12, 2017

A woman who was a federal employee when she was injured by a piece of lumber that fell from the roof of the Elijah Smith Building in downtown Whitehorse can sue for damages.

Following the injury to Linda Hill in April 2012, Ketza Construction of Whitehorse, SNC Lavalin – the company that maintains the building – and construction worker Jason Tomandl attempted to block Hill’s right to sue.

The Yukon Supreme Court dismissed the application.

The Yukon Court of Appeal upheld the decision, though for different reasons.

Ketza, SNC Lavalin and Tomandl asked the Supreme Court of Canada last August to hear an appeal, but the high court dismissed the request this morning.

In dismissing applications for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada does not provide reasons.

As a result of the decision, the Yukon Court of Appeal decision will stand, and Hill will have the right to sue for damages.

The legal arguments in the case were somewhat complicated. They boil down to the interpretation of historical legislation that led to the creation of Canada’s approach to provide compensation and rehabilitation for injured workers.

Hill was injured by a piece of falling lumber.

Because responsibility for federal employees in the Yukon has been contracted out to Alberta’s compensation board, Alberta’s board notified Hill.

The board told her she could proceed with a claim for workers’ compensation or file a lawsuit against the parties responsible for the injury, according to court documents.

Hill chose to file a lawsuit.

But SNC, Ketza and Tomandl objected.

Their argument, essentially, was that even though Hill was a federal employee, she was bound by the same principles of compensation that apply to other civil servants and private sector employees in Canada.

Those principles prevent employees from suing their employers, in return for the right to receive compensation and rehabilitation benefits from a fund paid for by employers.

SNC had been contracted by the federal government to provide maintenance to federal buildings in Canada, and SNC had hired Ketza to do some work.

A founding principle for workers’ compensation across Canada is the tradeoff between the guarantee to receive compensation and inability to sue employers.

With the exception of the federal government, all employers in Canada, including territorial and provincial governments, pay into a fund that supports the program to compensate and rehabilitate injured workers.

But to make the system work, employers who paid into the fund were given protection against lawsuits from employees back in the early 1900s, according to historical documents.

The federal government does not have a compensation board, though it does have legislation ensuring the rights and protection of injured workers.

Ottawa is self-insured, and any need to pay compensation to injured workers or provide rehabilitation services comes out of general revenue – taxes.

It does not have an independent compensation structure to administer and adjudicate claims, such as the Yukon’s compensation board.

Rather, the federal government contracts out compensation services to provincial compensation boards that ensure the same level of services provided to other employees in the province are also provided to federal employees.

And Ottawa reimburses the cost for administration and any cost of claims.

The Alberta board was contracted in 1995 to provide the services for federal employees in the Yukon and the N.W.T.

SNC and Ketza essentially argued Hill was prevented from suing under the same principle that employees in Alberta and across Canada cannot sue their employers.

Justice John Vertes of the Yukon Supreme Court ruled in July 2015 that the federal legislation providing for the protection and rights of federal employees does not carry the restriction prohibiting them from the suing the federal government.

The Yukon Court of Appeal agreed in its ruling last August, though for somewhat varying reasons.

In its decision, the Court of Appeal noted one substantial difference was that in the provinces and territories, employers pay into the compensation fund.

Ottawa makes no such payment.

Rather, any payments required to support injured federal workers come right out of Ottawa’s consolidated revenue fund.

With this morning’s decision denying SNC, Ketza and Tomandl the right to appeal, the Yukon Court of Appeal decision will stand.

Consequently, Hill will have the right to sue.

Comments (6)

Up 20 Down 3

ridiculous on Jan 16, 2017 at 9:19 am

What if she wasn't an employee? If she wasn't, would this be an issue?
But really, employee or not, she was injured by a piece of lumber falling the roof. That could have killed her.

Enough with the insurance finger pointing. It shouldn't take this long for this woman to get compensation. Always the victim who gets screwed.

Up 12 Down 1

Michael on Jan 14, 2017 at 4:43 pm

From what I read in the article, it seems this is an unusual case that only arose because of the federal government doing things in a peculiar way. Whereas other government employers pay WCB premiums, it appears the article is saying the federal government does not. They only pay out anything through WCB if there is an injury, and otherwise they do not pay the regular premiums that other employers do. Whereas other employers can get legal protection from lawsuits because they have paid into the system, the feds cannot because they don't pay in on a regular basis. The quid pro quo is not there, therefore they lose their legal shield.

If the federal governments wants to prevent future lawsuits like this they can solve it by simply starting to pay regular WCB premiums.

Up 20 Down 6

Circumstances are everything on Jan 13, 2017 at 1:50 pm

I work in a multi-use building much like Elijah Smith Building. If I was injured in the course of my work, I would expect this to be a Workers Comp claim. However, if the building was not adequately maintained by my employers landlord and I was injured, negligence would not be that of my employer, it would be on the landlord and I believe I would have the right to sue. Why should my employers WCB rates go up because the landlord was negligent. I think the courts got it right here. Unfortunately this is going to take years to settle.

Up 18 Down 2

What are our courts doing? on Jan 13, 2017 at 10:40 am

So, according to our "esteemed" magistrates, employees of the Federal Government can sue any other Yukon employee or employer and vice versa.

Which pretty much invalidates workers' compensation. Without immunity from suit for workers and employers, the whole scheme is questionable. Why should employers pay workers' compensation premiums if you aren't protected from suit?

This ruling throws the door open for suits by workers against other workers, workers against employers, employers against workers, employers against employers.

This ruling follows on the case involving the man injured in a helicopter crash, where the courts ruled he could sue even though he was clearly a Yukon worker and his employer was a Yukon employer.

Are the courts deliberately trying to undermine workers' compensation? Maybe the courts aren't busy enough?

Up 26 Down 2

Politico on Jan 12, 2017 at 9:08 pm

5 years just to decide she has the right to sue. Now how many more years will it be for this case to be settled, "completely". And the government thinks some idiot wearing a Trump hat brings the system into disrepute. Right

Up 34 Down 9

June Jackson on Jan 12, 2017 at 9:03 pm

Someone was negligent. Someone else got hurt. Just pay her. And don't tie it up in court either. Just pay her.

A person walking along, or chatting with a friend outside a building, or walking into the building has a reasonable expectation that a piece of lumber is not going to fall on them and hurt them.

Add your comments or reply via Twitter @whitehorsestar

In order to encourage thoughtful and responsible discussion, website comments will not be visible until a moderator approves them. Please add comments judiciously and refrain from maligning any individual or institution. Read about our user comment and privacy policies.

Your name and email address are required before your comment is posted. Otherwise, your comment will not be posted.