Jen Chouinard v WCB
Donation protected
I have worked tirelessly over many years to promote improvements to WCB’s psych injury policy. Despite the psychological injury presumption (section 28.1.) that we fought so hard for in 2016, (and the ministry of labour using my work and story to promote it), the Sask WCB has repeatedly failed to apply this legislation to my case. This has caused quite a bit of harm to my health and well-being.
Not only was I investigated for two years following my submission, I was later cut-off without having completed a return-to-work program, and now WCB is offering my previous employer over 120 pages of my personal mental health record for her to review ahead of her final appeal at the tribunal.
In January of 2022 court decision, WCB was found to be operating without policy and procedure in accordance with the psychological injury presumption (section 28.1.2).
“[55] The Manual departs from the legislation in its definition and application of the statutory presumption. [57] In other words, WCB is trying to hold claimants to a higher standard than the law actually holds them to. [86] WCB and the Appeal Board appear to be under the misapprehension that it is entirely up to them to make their own policy regarding injured workers, and how to interpret and apply s. 28.1 even if they stretch or break the plain meaning of the words used in that section.” Mercer Estate v Moose Jaw Board of Policy Commissioners, 2022 SKQB 8
Their interpretation of the presumption/the law was deemed “unreasonable.” I would like my case heard as well.
Not only was I investigated for two years following my submission, I was later cut-off without having completed a return-to-work program, and now WCB is offering my previous employer over 120 pages of my personal mental health record for her to review ahead of her final appeal at the tribunal.
In January of 2022 court decision, WCB was found to be operating without policy and procedure in accordance with the psychological injury presumption (section 28.1.2).
“[55] The Manual departs from the legislation in its definition and application of the statutory presumption. [57] In other words, WCB is trying to hold claimants to a higher standard than the law actually holds them to. [86] WCB and the Appeal Board appear to be under the misapprehension that it is entirely up to them to make their own policy regarding injured workers, and how to interpret and apply s. 28.1 even if they stretch or break the plain meaning of the words used in that section.” Mercer Estate v Moose Jaw Board of Policy Commissioners, 2022 SKQB 8
Their interpretation of the presumption/the law was deemed “unreasonable.” I would like my case heard as well.
Organiser
Jennifer Chouinard
Organiser
Saskatoon, SK