Jul 142017
 

By Gerald

According to the Meredith Principles, all workers compensation systems in Canada were to operate under the legal standard which was to be an Inquiry model, not an adversarial model, yet all decisions made by the WCB and the Appeals Commission are made under the adversarial model where the burden of proof is placed on the worker which is the civil standard. We now have more presumptive legislation that removes the burden of proof from some workers while placing the impossible burden of proof on other workers. 

Odd that in Manitoba, the Inquiry model places the burden of proof on the “Board” and it is stated;

V Principles of Adjudication 

Inquiry Model 

The WCB operates on an inquiry model, which means that the WCB must either prove or disprove a claim through investigation. It is not the responsibility of the worker to prove the claim, nor is it the responsibility of the employer to help prove or disprove a claim. There is no formal or legal burden of proof on any party but the WCB. The WCB is responsible for ensuring that there is sufficient information on which to base a decision. Workers, employers, and health-care providers are required to report to the WCB. The WCB then undertakes whatever additional inquiries are necessary to determine eligibility and compensation entitlement.

From the Osgoode Hall Law Journal it also states;

With regard to the burden of proof, workers’ compensation in Canada has always been different from common law proceedings. Our systems were established to work on an enquiry model, not an adversarial model. There is no burden of proof on anyone except the board. Since workers’ compensation was not to be adversarial, a rule was required for situations in which the evidence for and against employment causation is judged to be evenly balanced. In that situation, a common law regime would require that the claim be denied; but a more benevolent view was taken in workers’ compensation. It has commonly been provided that, where the evidence relating to the disputed probabilities is judged to be evenly balanced, the matter should be decided in favour of the claimant

This being the case why then in Alberta is the impossible burden of proof placed on workers?

Click on the following link; https://www.mykawartha.com/news-story/7421045-coalition-for-ge-workers-agrees-on-how-to-proceed-with-compensation-from-the-province/

Legislation providing presumptive status for some workers and not for others is obviously discrimination. Why is legislation not enacted to provide all workers with presumptive status and enact legislation that places the burden of proof on the Board to prove that work was not causally related to an injury or disease which is the most logical way of stopping some workers from collecting benefits while other workers claims are denied because of the impossible burden of proving causation when workers are financially incapable of funding studies to determine causation. This defies any logic or common sense when the “Board” has exclusive jurisdiction to investigate all matters and rather than place the burden of proof on the “Board” places the burden of proof on the worker. This is called administrative fairness. What the hell is wrong with our elected Governments to allow this.