Alberta Appeals Commission 'Goofs Off' on Charter Responsibilities

Alberta Appeals Commission forfeiting jurisdiction on questions of law involving the Charter

"In the Martin decision the Supreme Court determined that Appeals Tribunals have jurisdiction in determining questions of law relative to the Charter. It now appears that the Alberta Appeals Commission will not hear questions of law relative to the Charter. . . . If the Appeals Commission have forfeited their rights to hear questions of law relative to the Charter, are they doing so because they do not feel they are competent or knowledgeable enough to hear questions of law relative to the Charter. . . . Does any one have any idea why the Alberta Appeals Commission would be forfeiting their jurisdictional rights given to them by the Supreme Court relative to questions of law involving the Charter. Is there any other Canadian WCB Boards that have forfeited their rights to hear questions of law relative to the Charter and if so what is the reason or is this one of these things that no one really knows."

In the Martin decision the Supreme Court determined that Appeals Tribunals have jurisdiction in determining questions of law relative to the Charter. It now appears that the Alberta Appeals Commission will not hear questions of law relative to the Charter

http://www.appealscommission.ab.ca/Publications/rules/fundamentalrules.asp as stated in Para. 3 which states;

(3) The Appeals Commission has no jurisdiction to decide questions of law involving the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in appeals if the notice of appeal is received on or after April 3, 2006. However, under the Administrative Procedures and Jurisdiction Act and the Designation of Constitutional Decision Makers Regulation, AR 69/2006, the Appeals Commission may decide questions of constitutional law arising from the federal or provincial distribution of powers under the Constitution of Canada.

The Appeals Commission state in their information note;

Information note

If a party to an appeal intends to raise a constitutional law question relating to the distribution of powers under the Canadian Constitution, they must first give written notice of that intention at least 14 days before the scheduled hearing date – see rule 3.4 [Notice of constitutional question].

Questions of law involving the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms must be referred to the Court of Queen’s Bench.

I have no idea when it was determined that they would not hear questions of law involving the Charter or why. When there is a charter violation relative to the WCA, WC Regulations or WCB Policy and it is brought before the Appeals Commission and they refuse to hear it, how then do you go about bringing it before the Court of Queens Bench? Is it legal for the Court of Queens Bench to hear a WCB claim that involves the WCA, WC Regulation or WCB Policy that is allegedly in contravention of the Charter thereby bypassing the Appeals process? According to the WCA you can only appeal a decision of the Appeals Commission to the Courts within 6 months of an Appeals Commission decision. Now according to the Appeals Commission's rules, it seems now that it is mandatory that you first apply to the Court of Queens Bench on a matter of law involving the Charter and a WCB claim before the claim is adjudicated. Can a claimant with no legal experience represent themselves in the Courts and if not will WCB or the Appeals Commission pay for their lawyer. Will the Government set up some sort of program to offer assistance to claimants who more times than not do not have a pot to pee in let alone pay for a lawyer. If the Court of Queens Bench determines that a section of the WCA, WC Regulations or WCB Policy contravenes the Charter, does the Court of Queens Bench turn the decision back to the "Board" or do they return it to the Appeals Commission. If the cost is to be borne by the claimant and he/she does not have the money to pay for the involvement of the Court of Queens Bench, is the claimant then forced to drop the Charter challenge?

If the Appeals Commission have forfeited their rights to hear questions of law relative to the Charter, are they doing so because they do not feel they are competent or knowledgeable enough to hear questions of law relative to the Charter. If this is the case, how then do they feel they are competent or knowledgeable about medical opinions provided by doctors without subpoenaing the doctors and cross examining them as to where they got their opinions from. Clearly, the law (Charter) is much more easy to understand and interpret than it is to understand medical information especially when there is differences of opinions as well as conflicting medical literature, yet these pathetically ignorant lay persons (Appeals Commissioners) who have been selected for their political allegiance to the party in power make decisions on medical matters that they have no idea whether the medical information is based on a biased medical opinion from WCB contract doctor whose livelihood depends on providing medical opinions that allow WCB and the Appeals Commission to deny a claim or whether the medical information is based on medical certainty or reasonable medical certainty. To suggest that this does not happen is in denial of numerous studies that have found that WCB contract doctors are paid to contradict any independent doctors opinions. The term "dueling doctors" is typical of the workers compensation system and studies relative to this can be found in medical journals written by doctors who were contract doctors for WCB systems.

The Courts have to shoulder some of the blame for how they determine deference. How could any reasonable and sane person give deference to lay persons(Appeals Commissioners) who adjudicate claims based on medical opinions where the Courts know that the Appeals Commissioners are not medical experts, have no medical expertise or medical backgrounds, yet hundreds and perhaps thousands of claims are denied by Appeals Commissioners who haven't got a clue as to the reliability of the medical opinion that they have determined to be the most compelling. This has to be one of the worst examples of a miscarriage of justice when the people making the decisions have no medical expertise, no medical knowledge, no medical experience and yet they are entrusted with a final level of appeals. This is like turning over our justice system to people who have never studied law, have no legal experience and we allow them to make final decisions relative to civil and criminal law. If Administrative Law administered by incompetent lay persons with neither legal or medical expertise is good enough for workers then surely there is nothing wrong with replacing judges with lay persons to adjudicate criminal and civil law and if it is not, why not. What makes the administration of justice in the criminal or civil area of law any more important than in the area of workers compensation systems? A second rate system should not be thrust upon injured workers any more than a second rate system should be thrust upon individuals in the civil or criminal area of law.

The only time Administrative Tribunals should be utilized is in situations where the outcome of a decision has very little impact on the individual such as how many chickens a farmer is allowed to raise and send to market, how many eggs a farmer can sell etc. Decisions involving the livelihoods of injured workers is far too important to be placed in the hands of lay persons whose decisions are outrageously incorrect due to their very little comprehension of medical information or medical opinions more often given by biased and incompetent doctors that are favored by the "Board".

Does any one have any idea why the Alberta Appeals Commission would be forfeiting their jurisdictional rights given to them by the Supreme Court relative to questions of law involving the Charter. Is there any other Canadian WCB Boards that have forfeited their rights to hear questions of law relative to the Charter and if so what is the reason or is this one of these things that no one really knows.

Gerry Miller

(The CIWS has pointed out how Canadian WCBs are increasingly using an insurance-industry business model to delay and deny legitimate claims. Reneging on their constitutional responsibilities as quasi-judicial boards, WCBs are further eroding the intent of the original workers compensation legislation - *** see CONSTITUTION AND CHARTER VIOLATIONS)

Back to Article Index