In Decision 26-001 of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal assessed if a worker who was injured away from their ordinary place of work was entitled to compensation.
The Worker, a school teacher and acting vice-principal, sustained injuries to her head and neck as the result of an incident culminating in assault by a student. Although the incident transpired during working hours and began inside the school, the assault itself occurred away from school premises. Both the school and the Workers’ Safety and Compensation Commission (the “WSCC”) denied the Worker’s claim for compensation on the basis that the injuries sustained occurred outside of the Worker’s ordinary workplace and that the Teacher failed to comply with workplace protocols.
The Worker was successful in getting WCB benefits on appeal.
This case is from outside Alberta, so its not binding here. We are summarizing it because it may have persuasive weight in Alberta WCB decisions.
Facts
The relevant facts as summarized by the Tribunal:
- The Worker was employed by the Appellant/Employer as a teacher and acting vice-principal at a school.
- On November 20, 2023, the Worker observed two students engaged in an argument in the school hallway.
- The male student appeared angry and was gripping and pushing the female student. The female student appeared upset. The Worker intervened and attempted to de-escalate the situation by using calming language. After the students left the school campus separately, the Worker advised other staff of the situation and then accompanied the female student due to a concern for her safety.
- The male student grabbed the female student by her arm and dragged her to his father’s house while threatening to kill the female student, the Worker and other school staff. The Worker followed and continued attempting to de-escalate the situation with calming language. The male student pushed the female student into his father’s house, further isolating her.
- The male student then struck the Worker in the arm, shoulder, and head with the blade of a shovel.
- The Worker immediately sought medical attention at the local health centre, presenting with a laceration to her forehead.
- Treatment included closure of the laceration using staples and steri-strips and recommendation of mental health services due to the stressful nature of the incident.
- On November 21, 2023, the Worker submitted a Worker’s Report of Injury reporting that she had sustained injuries to her head, neck, back and shoulders as the result of an assault by a male student.
- On November 22, 2023, the Appellant/Employer submitted an Employer’s Report of Incident confirming that the Worker sustained injuries as the result of assault by a student. The Appellant/Employer acknowledged that the Worker’s “actions at the time of the incident were for the purposes of its business” and that “the activity was part of its business”, namely providing for the safety of students enrolled at the school.
- Subsequent medical examinations between November 23, 2023, and November 30, 2023, as documented in Medical Progress Reports, confirmed that the Worker was experiencing ongoing symptoms of headache, photosensitivity, fatigue, neck stiffness, shoulder tenderness, decreased appetite, pain in the neck and back, and emotional impact. A Medical Advisory Report dated November 29, 2023, confirmed that the Worker’s condition could be attributed to the mechanism of injury involved in the assault.
- Subsequent mental health consultations between November 30, 2023, and March 11, 2024, identified the Worker as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and a major depressive episode resulting from the incident and the assault.
- The were no specific job descriptions for the position of a teacher or an acting principal.
- The Employer argued that its Crisis Response Guidelines for Nunavut Schools was disregarded by the Worker, placing her actions outside the scope of her duties and responsibilities at the time of the incident and thereby ineligible for compensation.
- The application of the Workers’ Compensation Act (the “Act”) sections 10 (entitlement), 12 (exceptions to entitlement), and 14 (presumptions to entitlement) are relevant to determining the Worker’s entitlement to compensation, or the exception to compensation that might apply.
Analysis / Conclusion
The Tribunal noted the presumption that the Worker be entitled to compensation unless existence of an exception was proven on the balance of probabilities. In this case, an exception would be made out by establishing that the Worker was not injured in connection to their employment, or that the injury was due to their own willful and serious misconduct.
Section 14 of the Act provides that the Worker is presumed to be entitled to compensation, unless the contrary is proven on the balance of probabilities, including the presumptions of causation and occurrence. For the Worker to be denied coverage, the presumption that the injury was sustained in connection with their employment must be defeated on the balance of probabilities.
The Tribunal found the employee was entitled to coverage, as the injury arose in the course of employment. Some key reasoning was as follows:
[34] While in retrospect the Worker’s decision to accompany the female student may have been improvident, I find as a fact that the Worker held a legitimate and urgent concern for the safety of the student and acted in a good faith effort to protect the student. Her actions were reasonable and directly linked to her role as teacher and acting vice-principal. But for her employment, she would not have become involved in the incident or needed to intervene. As such, her employment was of causative significance to her resulting injury. In accordance with the guidance provided by WSCC Policy 03.03, I have concluded that her injury arose out of her employment.
My Take
The onus upon an employer to establish on a balance of probabilities that an employee is not entitled to compensation must be examined by considering all information available.
In the case of the WSCC policy documents, the phrase “arising out of the employment” requires a causal connection between the incident causing injury and would not have been involved with the assault, but for their employment. The connection between the Worker, the workplace where the incident originated, and the students who were involved provided a sufficient causal connection to the Worker’s injury.
In this instance, the Worker was found to have an ongoing obligation to protect students as an element of their employment. This was not a situation in which a bystander intervened merely to protect a potential victim but rather where a teacher was protecting one of their students. Without the teacher / student connection, or the incident commencing at the Worker’s place of employment, they would not have been involved in the circumstances that gave rise to her injuries.
Bow River Law provides these regular legal blog articles for the purposes of legal news, education and research for the public and the legal profession. These articles should be considered general information and not legal advice. If you have a legal problem, you should speak to a lawyer directly.
