Case Bites for December 9, 2024

Edited by Amanda Kostek

Last week’s Court Rulings from the Alberta Court of King’s Bench, Court of Appeal and SCC.

Fushtey v Workers’ Compensation Board of Alberta, 2024 ABKB 725
Fatality | Whether working at the time of the collision

At issue was whether the deceased driver was killed while operating his vehicle for work or pursuing a separate investment such that the Estate could pursue a tort claim. The WCB Appeals Commission concluded that the deceased was travelling under the direction and control of the employer at the time of the collision, and that the primary purpose of his trip was to investigate a business as part of the employer’s business development strategy. The Estate brought an appeal under section 13.4 of the legislation, and an application for Judicial Review. In order to trigger a statutory appeal, under section 13.4 of the legislation, any appeal had to involve a question of law or jurisdiction, and not mixed fact and law. Matters of mixed fact and law had to be addressed through Judicial Review. The Court explained that where WCB applies a legal standard to a set of facts, then it is a decision of mixed fact and law: 

[31]           In comparison, the application of a legal standard to a set of facts is a mixed question of fact and law. To the extent the Estate argues that the Appeals Commission erred in its application of the Act or Policy to the facts, or argues that the Appeals Commission unreasonably weighed the evidence, the Appeal Decision will be reviewed to determine whether it was reasonable. A decision is reasonable if it is coherent and rational, and where the reasons given for the decision are transparent, intelligible, and justified by the surrounding facts and law: Vavilov at paras 85 and 99.

As a result, there was no statutory right of appeal, and the Estate’s remedy was an application for Judicial Review. During the Judicial Review the Court noted that the standard of review was reasonableness and its role was not to reassess or re-weigh evidence. The Court noted that while there was a personal interest in the trip, it did not displace the primary purpose of the trip. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the WCB Appeals Commission’s findings demonstrated a rational chain of analysis between the facts and outcome, and dismissed the Estate’s application.

Back