View cases - Stewart McKelvey

27clear that, apart from the limiting factors set out above, the Tribunal has full remedial authority tomake both prospective and retroactive awards.[133] In Martin, there were two appellants. The appellant, Martin, suffered a workplace injury inFebruary 1996, returned to work several times but ultimately had to stop work. The Workers’Compensation Board provided him with temporary disability and rehabilitation benefits. Whenthese benefits were terminated in August 1996, he applied for a review of the decision but hisclaim was denied by the WCB.[134] The other appellant, Laseur, also suffered a workplace injury, received temporarydisability benefits, attempted to return to work but was unable to do so. She applied for apermanent partial disability award and vocational rehabilitation assistance. Both were denied.2010 CHRT 27 (CanLII)[135] Both appealed these decisions to the WCB Appeals Tribunal, Martin arguing that s.10Band certain regulations under the Workers’ Compensation Act infringed s.15(1) of the Charter.The Appeals Tribunal found the legislation contravened the Charter and that Martin was entitledto temporary loss of earnings benefits and medical aid up to October 1996. The Nova Court ofAppeal reversed this and the case found its way to the Supreme Court of Canada.[136] The primary issue at the Supreme Court was whether the Appeals Tribunal had thejurisdiction to apply the Charter. The Court concluded that the Appeals Tribunal did have suchjurisdiction and did correctly decide that the impugned legislation offended the Charter. In theresult, the Supreme Court ordered that the decision of the Appeals Tribunal be restored and thatMartin should receive the benefits that he claimed.[137] As to Laseur, the Appeals Tribunal refused to grant her the benefits that she had claimedbecause she had not challenged the validity of the applicable legislation. The Supreme Court inthis situation sent the matter back to the Appeals Tribunal to decide the Charter issue if she raisedit and her entitlement to the benefits claimed in accordance with the Court’s decision.