- Bursitis (shoulder)
- In the course of employment (parking lots)
The worker, the technical director of a sleep clinic, was walking to work on March 7, 2022. He walked through the parking lot of the building where the office was located, and as he approached the back door, he slipped and fell on ice, landing on his outstretched right arm and shoulder. He reported the incident to his employer that day, and went for x-rays. He filed a claim with the WSIB for a right shoulder contusion and bursitis. The ARO denied entitlement as the employer did not own or lease the parking lot, and the accident did not occur in the course of the worker's employment. The worker appealed this decision.
The Vice-Chair allowed the appeal.The owner of the sleep clinic was also the president, secretary and treasurer of the numbered company that owned the building in which the business was located. The owner would arrange for the appropriate maintenance of the parking lot. Her husband was the medical director of the sleep clinic. The owner and her husband purchased the building to house their business, and leased out any space they did not require to another tenant. While the owner, in her role as owner of the sleep clinic, technically did not own or lease the premises, she had full control of the building and the parking lot in her role as the president, secretary, and treasurer of the numbered company that did own the building and the parking lot.The Vice-Chair agreed with the analysis of Decision No. 2270/08, which states: "Although the accident employer does not own the parking lot in question nor "technically" does the employer lease the parking lot in question, in my view there are factors sufficient to conclude that the accident employer exercised great control over the parking lot and the direction and path to be followed by the employee in entering the premises through the back door." In addition, the location of the accident and the worker's activity at the time of the accident walking towards her workplace were compelling factors of a work relatedness.In this case, the worker was crossing the parking lot in order to arrive at his workplace to perform his work tasks, within a few minutes of the start of his shift. His route was a direct route from his apartment building to the employer's premises, and he was headed to the back door of the building, for which the employer had issued him a key. There was a nexus between the worker's activities at the time of the accident and his employment. The worker was engaged in activities reasonably incidental to his employment at the time of the accident. The worker was therefore in the course of his employment at the time of the workplace accident.