Alberta WCB’s relocation policy challenged

Read the facts of this case and decide for yourself — is Alberta's WCB relocation policy valid?

This instalment of You Make the Call takes a look at a workers’ compensation case out of Alberta. An injured worker challenged a policy by the workers’ compensation board that requires workers, in certain cases, to relocate to another community where work is more easily obtained.

James White, a resident of Green Court, Alta., a rural area about 150 kilometres west of Edmonton, was injured in the course of his employment on Nov. 12, 2000. The board accepted that he had a back injury that resulted in a permanent partial disability. White was unable to return to his former job, but had been found to be capable of doing sedentary work.

As a result, White’s benefits are calculated on the assumption that he could be working full time earning $7 per hour as a parking lot attendant. But there are no such jobs in Green Court. White didn’t want to move to another community, and felt it unfair that his benefits were being reduced on the basis of a job that didn’t exist in his town.


You make the call
• Is the workers’ compensation board’s policy allowing it to reduce benefits for workers who refuse to relocate valid?

OR

• Should the worker in this case have received full benefits because there were no parking lot attendant jobs in his community?

If you said the WCB policy is valid, you’re correct. Justice Slatter of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench said the workers’ compensation scheme insures employability, not employment.

“The WCB system is not an unemployment insurance scheme,” said Justice Slatter. “It does not insure against the fact that employment opportunities in smaller municipalities may not be as wide-ranging as those in big cities. It does not guarantee to an injured worker a particular lifestyle, such as rural living.”

The court pointed out that the board’s policy states it has no control over several factors that affect a worker’s performance including:

•economic conditions;

•the availability of employment opportunities;

•the worker’s effort and commitment to find employment; and

•an employer’s decision about whom to hire.

The policy goes on to state that, “because these factors are beyond WCB control, the WCB is responsible for helping the worker achieve employability, not employment.”

The specific policy the worker was attacking states that if the WCB determines relocation is reasonable and the worker refuses, the worker’s benefits may be calculated as though the worker had relocated and chosen employment.

“While the relocation policy does not force an injured worker to relocate, it does shift the cost of not relocating from the board to the worker,” the court said. The court upheld the WCB’s policy as a valid exercise of the board’s powers to set compensation policies and it dismissed the worker’s application for judicial review.

When does the WCB recommend relocation?

Under the board’s policy, relocation is a return-to-work option that is not usually considered until all other reasonable options within the community have been exhausted.

However, if the worker has to change jobs because of permanent compensable work restrictions, and there are no suitable jobs available in the worker’s area, the WCB may recommend that the worker relocate to an area with appropriate employment opportunities. In these cases, the WCB will pay for the associated reasonable costs.

If a worker doesn’t want to relocate, the WCB will look at the worker’s circumstances and determine whether it is reasonable to expect the worker to relocate. Factors include job opportunities, medical condition, age, family circumstances and psychological impact.

For more information see:

White v. Alberta (Workers’ Compensation Board), 2006 CarswellAlta 590 (Alta. Q.B.)

To read the full story, login below.

Not a subscriber?

Start your subscription today!