Appeals Commission decisions are published on CanLII, the public legal database, with all personal identifiers removed. Because these rulings are part of the public record, we can analyze and discuss them without disclosing any confidential information about the workers involved. The summaries below highlight key policy issues, evidence, and reasoning to show how careful advocacy can influence a final outcome while remaining fully compliant with privacy legislation.
Case Study 1 – Compensation-Rate Error (AC Decision No. 2019-0333)
Mark Ralph first challenged WCB’s decision to treat the electrician apprentice as a seasonal worker, showing that the position was open-ended and expected to last well beyond twelve months, and that the stated lay-off date was only an estimate. This removed the seasonal classification that had triggered a lower two-stage rate and allowed application of the permanent-worker formula. We then demonstrated continuous employment intent by producing employer emails confirming the worker was merely on leave for apprenticeship schooling, undermining WCB’s reliance on Policy 04-01, Part II, Application 2 (seasonal/casual). Finally, we highlighted that WCB had considered only one month of concurrent earnings, contrary to the “fair representation” requirement in section 56(2) of the Act, reinforcing the need for a full rate recalculation. Together, these arguments convinced the Appeals Commission to overturn the DRDRB decision and order WCB to set the worker’s compensation rate on a permanent-worker basis.
Case Study 2 – Out-of-Province Injury and Personal-Coverage Dispute (AC Decision No. 2020-0016)
An employer appealed WCB’s acceptance of a worker’s left-shoulder injury, arguing that the company president was on a personal trip outside Alberta and that chipping ice off a sidewalk was not covered work. Representing the worker, Mark Ralph showed the panel that the trip met section 28 out-of-province criteria, that the worker held valid personal coverage as a director, and that removing ice from employer-owned staff housing was a reasonable duty aimed at reducing liability for slips and falls. We presented employer emails confirming annual site-visitation requirements, witness statements describing the president’s hands-on role, and policy references demonstrating that directors’ coverage extends to incidental tasks performed in the course of company business.
The Appeals Commission agreed on every point. It found the worker “was exposed to a hazard of employment at a time and place consistent with the obligations and expectations of employment,” ruled that the injury “arose out of and occurred in the course of employment,” and denied the employer’s appeal, leaving the claim fully accepted.
This decision shows how thorough policy analysis combined with well documented evidence that linked personal coverage rules, out of province provisions, and actual job duties can secure benefits even when an employer challenges the claim at the highest appeal level.