Act Now - The Report of the WCB Legislative Review Panel to the

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3.1.3 Definition of EmployerThe Panel was asked to consider recommending revision to the definition of employer inthe Workers’ Compensation Acts and the Safety Acts. It was suggested that havingdifferent definitions created confusion for the public.The Panel examined the respective definitions against how the terms were used in thelegislation. The Panel does not accept the suggestion that a consistent definition isnecessary and believes that in some cases a consistent definition would actually add tothe confusion.The Panel reviewed the definition of employer for currency with changing workers’compensation environments. The Panel noted that the term “independent operator” hasbeen replaced in the legislation of other jurisdictions with the term “sole proprietor.” ThePanel observes that “sole proprietor” is more commonly used.The Panel concluded that the current definition of employer boils down to an entity thatpays workers in their employ, including themselves if they are an independent operator.As with the current definition of worker, there is no reference to an employmentrelationship. This seems unusual.Recommendations: 3.1.3 Definition of Employer1. Consideration should be given to using the term “sole proprietor” in place of“independent operator” in the Acts.2. The legislation should be amended to include reference to an employmentrelationship with workers in the definition of employer.3. Consideration should be given to reducing the list of entities (e.g., firm, association,body) that could be employers in the definition of employer.WCB Legislative Review Panel Report Page 17 of 128December, 2001
3.2 WCB Authority and Accountability3.2.1 Exclusive Jurisdiction of the Workers’ Compensation BoardOne of the principles arising from Meredith’s Report is the exclusive jurisdiction ofworkers’ compensation boards. Subsections 7(1), (2), and (3) of the Acts describe theexclusive jurisdiction of the NWT and Nunavut WCB. A court may review a decision ofthe WCB where there has been a denial of natural justice or the WCB has exceeded itsjurisdiction.Decisions of internal WCB review committees are subject to review by the AppealsTribunal. The Appeals Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals (Subsection 7.3)but must apply the policy of the Board of Directors (Subsection 7.7(1)). This is discussedbelow in Section 3.5.6, Exclusive Jurisdiction of the Appeals Tribunal.The Panel heard stakeholder submissions questioning the exclusive jurisdiction of theWCB. Stakeholders felt that if the WCB was not acting fairly or in accordance with thelegislation, there should be recourse to the courts.The Panel balanced this view against not only this aspect of the historic trade-off but alsoour view that workers’ compensation is a system for adjudication, not litigation. ThePanel does feel that the exclusive jurisdiction of the WCB places a greater onus on theWCB to adjudicate cases fairly within the parameters of presumption in favour of theworker and natural justice. The WCB should be held accountable in the court of publicopinion for its actions.3.2.2 Independence IssuesPart of the historic-trade off that established workers’ compensation systems isindependent administration of the legislation. Employers contribute to the Accident Fundfor the express purpose of financing the workers’ compensation system. The WCBadministers the legislation in accordance with the special provisions, such as presumptionWCB Legislative Review Panel Report Page 18 of 128December, 2001
Page 1 and 2: Accountable…to stakeholdersCompen
Page 3 and 4: Table Of Contents3.4.3 Employers’
Page 5 and 6: Table Of Contents5.0 A FINAL WORD 1
Page 7 and 8: The Legislative Review Directorate
Page 9 and 10: 3.0 Workers’Compensation Acts3.1
Page 11 and 12: 2.0 General ThemesDuring the course
Page 13 and 14: The Panel has generally adopted the
Page 15 and 16: The Panel did receive positive comm
Page 17 and 18: wanted was to return to work and st
Page 19 and 20: 2. Are there workers in specific in
Page 21: Panel feels legislation should be p
Page 25 and 26: WCB Board of Directors may chose to
Page 27 and 28: 3.2.6 Regular Reviews of the Worker
Page 29 and 30: Recommendations: 3.2.8 Liability Pr
Page 31 and 32: Legislation in 2 other jurisdiction
Page 33 and 34: The legislation in other jurisdicti
Page 35 and 36: ones held accountable for a decisio
Page 37 and 38: members may be reappointed to the W
Page 39 and 40: Some suggested that having a compen
Page 41 and 42: Recommendations: 3.4.2 Workers’ A
Page 43 and 44: The WCB Board of Directors made the
Page 45 and 46: esolutions committees, under the au
Page 47 and 48: The Appeals Tribunal must give the
Page 49 and 50: The Panel considered the establishm
Page 51 and 52: Recommendations: 3.5.5 Time Limits
Page 53 and 54: are not familiar with some of the u
Page 55 and 56: The Panel was interested in the Ont
Page 57 and 58: Workers’ compensation payments ar
Page 59 and 60: 3.6.3 Year’s Maximum Insurable Re
Page 61 and 62: The Acts are very specific in some
Page 63 and 64: 3.6.5 Indexing Compensation by Comm
Page 65 and 66: 2. The legislation should be change
Page 67 and 68: The Panel considered whether the in
Page 69 and 70: The Panel heard from some stakehold
Page 71 and 72: The Acts require any employer, whet
Page 73 and 74:
Respondents to the Stakeholder Ques
Page 75 and 76:
The Panel agrees. We see prior cons
Page 77 and 78:
3.9.3 Authority to Make Investments
Page 79 and 80:
Respondents to the Stakeholder Ques
Page 81 and 82:
The duty to accommodate is not an o
Page 83 and 84:
payments such as income tax or payr
Page 85 and 86:
3.13 Environmental ChangeThe Acts h
Page 87 and 88:
construction permits is a matter of
Page 89 and 90:
date sections, reordering the “pa
Page 91 and 92:
The Panel has recommended changes t
Page 93 and 94:
the WCB when it is contemplating ch
Page 95 and 96:
4. The legislation should be change
Page 97 and 98:
The Panel was asked to consider rec
Page 99 and 100:
No other jurisdictions regulate wor
Page 101 and 102:
4.2.5 Safety InspectionsSome stakeh
Page 103 and 104:
4.4 Employer Responsibilities4.4.1
Page 105 and 106:
The Panel feels that the instrument
Page 107 and 108:
Recommendation: 4.6.2 Consistency w
Page 109 and 110:
others have experience as employers
Page 111 and 112:
While the Panel heard positive comm
Page 113 and 114:
5. Operational versus Legislative I
Page 115 and 116:
3. The legislation should be amende
Page 117 and 118:
3. It is suggested that the first r
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Recommendations: 3.5.5 Time Limits
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Recommendation: 3.7.3 Rewarding Saf
Page 127 and 128:
Recommendation: 3.12.4 Employer Rec
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Regulations (see also Recommendatio
Page 133 and 134:
5.0 A Final WordThe Panel has recom
Page 135 and 136:
Glossary and DefinitionsAccident Fu
Page 137 and 138:
Glossary and DefinitionsNet annualr
Page 139 and 140:
WCB Legislative Review Panel Terms
Page 141 and 142:
WCB LEGISLATIVE REVIEW PANELTERMS O
Page 143 and 144:
STAKEHOLDER QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUMMA
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
SUMMARY OF ISSUES FROM PUBLIC HEARI
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Key:SUMMARY OF ISSUES FROM PUBLIC H
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Key:SUMMARY OF ISSUES FROM PUBLIC H
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
smoke.Key:SUMMARY OF ISSUES FROM PU
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
SUMMARY OF FORMAL PRESENTATIONS AND
Page 205:
SUMMARY OF FORMAL PRESENTATIONS AND
show all

Act Now - The Report of the WCB Legislative Review Panel to the

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?