- Statutory interpretation (principles of) (legislative intent)
- Notice of accident (by worker)
- Board Directives and Guidelines (stress, mental) (traumatic event)
- Accident (date) (injury)
- Stress, mental (chronic)
The worker was employed by a police service in the Province of Ontario. In April 2015, the worker was found in his residence deceased from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. The issues brought by the worker's estate in this appeal were as follows: a) the date of accident of April 19, 2015; b) adjudication of the claim under OPM Document No. 15-03-13, "PTSD in First Responders and Other Designated Workers"; c) adjudication of the claim under OPM Document No. 15-03-02, "Traumatic Mental Stress"; d) adjudication of the claim under OPM Document No. 15-03-14, "Chronic Mental Stress"; and e) adjudication of the claim as a secondary condition. The ARO had concluded that the claim could not be adjudicated because it did not meet the transitional provisions for the above noted policies.
The Panel denied the appeal.The Panel confirmed the date of death, April 19, 2015, as the first date the worker had an impairment. The Panel found that only a claim for Traumatic Mental Stress in relation to an accident date of April 19, 2015 could be considered. The third condition under subsection 14(3)(c) of the First Responders Policy for the application of the presumption was not met. Subsection 14(3)(c) limited the availability of presumptive PTSD based on the date of diagnosis.In this appeal, the analysis applicable to time limits for TMS and CMS was the same. A claim relating to mental stress which occurred during the period on or after April 29, 2014 and before January 1, 2018, must be filed on or before July 1, 2018, in accordance with subsection 13.1(5). The estate's claim for survivors benefits, and therefore the worker's claim for benefits for mental stress upon which it depends, was filed on August 29, 2019. The limit to file a claim for TMS or CMS had passed and could not be extended. A claim to benefits on a secondary basis could also not be considered.The Panel agreed with Decision No. 873/22, which found that the word "must" is used in legislation to impose an imperative obligation or requirement. The Panel agreed that the WSIA is a workplace insurance scheme and not a social benefits scheme, and there is no justification to interpret the word "must" differently from its ordinary meaning. Given the complexity of section 13.1, the Panel concurred that the use of the word "must" was a deliberate legislative choice.