WorksafeBC and WCAT
A WorkSafeBC claim usually begins when an injured worker files an application for benefits, commonly called a Form 6. Once WorkSafeBC receives the application, it opens a claim file and assigns the worker a claim number.
If WorkSafeBC accepts the claim, it will issue written decisions explaining what benefits the worker is entitled to receive.
These decisions may address things such as:
-which injuries or conditions are accepted;
– whether the worker is entitled to wage-loss benefits;
– the worker’s short-term and long-term wage rate;
– health care benefits;
– whether the worker’s condition has plateaued;
– whether the worker is entitled to vocational rehabilitation services;
– whether the worker is entitled to a permanent disability pension; and
– whether the pension should be based on loss of function or loss of earnings.
A pension decision is usually considered in two ways. First, WorkSafeBC looks at the worker’s functional impairment, meaning the permanent physical or psychological loss caused by the injury. Second, WorkSafeBC may consider whether the injury caused a loss of earnings, meaning whether the worker’s ability to earn income has been permanently reduced. In general, the worker receives the higher of the two amounts.
It is important to understand that accepting a claim does not mean WorkSafeBC has accepted every possible benefit connected to that claim.
A claim is simply the worker’s request for benefits and services. WorkSafeBC may accept that an injury occurred, but still deny certain benefits later. For example, WorkSafeBC may accept a back injury but deny wage-loss benefits after a certain date, deny treatment, deny a psychological condition, or deny a pension.
Each written decision from WorkSafeBC matters. A decision can affect the worker’s legal rights and benefits. If a worker disagrees with a decision, they usually need to request a review or appeal within the required time limit.
Only people who are directly affected by a decision may request a review. This is set out in section 269 of the Workers Compensation Act.
People often say that WorkSafeBC has “closed” or “reopened” a claim. These words are commonly used, but they can be misleading.
A claim being “closed” does not necessarily mean the worker has lost all rights. It usually means WorkSafeBC is no longer actively paying benefits or managing the file at that time.
A claim being “reopened” usually means WorkSafeBC is being asked to look at the file again and decide whether the worker is entitled to more benefits.
For example, a worker may return to work after an injury but later experience:
– a recurrence of the original injury;
– an aggravation of the injury;
– a worsening of the accepted condition;
– a new condition caused by the original injury; or
– a need for further treatment or wage-loss benefits.
In that situation, the worker may ask WorkSafeBC to look at the matter again. WorkSafeBC will then investigate and issue a new decision about whether any further benefits are payable.
The important point is this: the worker’s entitlement depends on the written decision, not simply on whether the file is described as “open” or “closed.”
A reopening is different from a reconsideration.
A reopening usually involves asking WorkSafeBC to look again at a previous decision because the worker’s condition has changed, worsened, or returned.
A reconsideration usually involves asking WorkSafeBC to change one of its previous decisions because there was an error or because new information shows the decision should not stand.
WorkSafeBC’s power to reconsider one of its own decisions is limited. Section 123 of the Act allows reconsideration, but it is generally subject to a 75-day time limit. WorkSafeBC may reconsider a decision after that time in limited circumstances, including where it finds that the worker committed fraud or misled the Board.
WorkSafeBC’s power to reopen a previous decision is found in section 125. Unlike reconsideration, reopening is not subject to the same 75-day time limit.
The Act refers to reopening or reconsidering decisions, not reopening or reconsidering a “claim” or a “file.” That distinction matters because legal rights usually turn on the actual written decision.
WorkSafeBC also cannot reopen or reconsider appeal decisions made by the Review Division or WCAT. Those decisions are binding on WorkSafeBC unless they are changed through the proper legal process.
WCAT also has limited powers to revisit its own decisions.
WCAT may reconsider one of its final decisions under section 310 if new evidence has become available or has been discovered. This can only be done once.
WCAT may also reopen an appeal under section 307(5) to correct a jurisdictional defect. A jurisdictional defect generally means WCAT made a legal error about its authority or failed to properly exercise its authority.
These two processes are different. A reconsideration based on new evidence is not the same as reopening an appeal because of a jurisdictional defect.
The Workers Compensation Act has changed several times.
Important amendments came into effect in June 2002, March 2003, and April 2020.
The June 2002 amendments made major changes to benefit entitlement. These changes included:
– changing how wage rates are calculated;
– placing more responsibility on workers to respond and participate in their claims;
– changing vocational rehabilitation benefits and services;
– limiting when WorkSafeBC may grant a loss-of-earnings pension; and
– limiting many pensions to age 65, unless WorkSafeBC decides a later date should apply.
Before March 2003, workers appealed WorkSafeBC decisions to the external Review Board. There could then be a further appeal to the Appeal Division of WorkSafeBC. Judicial review in court was also available.
After the March 2003 amendments, that system changed. The Review Board and Appeal Division were abolished and replaced with:
– an internal review process through the Review Division of WorkSafeBC; and
– a further appeal to WCAT for certain types of decisions.
Not every Review Division decision can be appealed to WCAT. For example, some vocational rehabilitation and commutation decisions are not appealable to WCAT.
The April 2020 amendments reorganized and renumbered many of the appeal sections in the Act. The Review Division provisions are now mainly found in sections 267 to 286. The WCAT provisions are now mainly found in sections 287 to 310.
WorkSafeBC uses policy manuals called the Rehabilitation Services and Claims Manual, often called the RSCM.
There are two main volumes:
– Volume 1 applies to injuries that occurred before the major legislative amendments.
– Volume 2 applies to injuries that occurred after the amendments.
WorkSafeBC also publishes many documents called Practice Directives. These documents are intended to guide WorkSafeBC staff on practice and procedure.
There is an important legal distinction between binding policy and non-binding guidance. WorkSafeBC policies approved by the Board of Directors can be binding. Practice Directives may be treated as guidance, but they do not have the same legal status as formal policy.
A concern for workers is that Practice Directives may sometimes be treated as though they are binding policy, even though they may not have been formally approved in the same way. In appeals, this can matter because a worker may need to argue that a Practice Directive should not be applied rigidly or should not override the Act or binding policy.
The workers’ compensation system is document-driven. Written decisions, medical reports, claim notes, and appeal submissions matter.
A worker should not assume that an accepted claim means all benefits, diagnoses, body parts, or consequences have been accepted.
Every WorkSafeBC decision letter should be reviewed carefully. Appeal deadlines are strict.
A “closed claim” may still be reopened if there is a recurrence or significant change in a compensable condition under Section 125 of the Act.
Reconsideration, reopening, Review Division appeals, WCAT appeals, WCAT reconsiderations, and judicial review are different processes. Choosing the wrong process can create problems.
A pre-existing condition does not automatically defeat a claim. The important question is often whether work aggravated, accelerated, or made the condition symptomatic.
Returning to work does not necessarily mean a worker has recovered or plateaued.
Vocational rehabilitation plans must be realistic. A theoretical job is not enough if the worker cannot actually do it safely and sustainably.
If the evidence is evenly balanced at WCAT, Section 303(5) of the Act says the issue must be resolved in favour of the worker.
Practice Directives and WorkSafeBC guidance may be useful, but they should not be confused with binding legislation or formal policy.
Judicial review is complicated and depends heavily on the standard of review. Workers should get legal advice before deciding whether to challenge a WCAT decision in court.
After any WorkSafeBC decision, a worker should ask:
1) What exactly did WorkSafeBC decide?
2) What benefits, diagnoses, body parts, or time periods were accepted or denied?
3) What evidence did WorkSafeBC rely on?
4) Did WorkSafeBC consider all medical reports?
5) Did WorkSafeBC correctly describe the job duties and accident?
6) Is the wage rate correct?
7) Is the worker still losing wages because of the injury?
8) Is further treatment needed?
9) Has WorkSafeBC wrongly assumed the worker has plateaued?
10) Is vocational rehabilitation realistic?
11) Is there a reopening issue under Section 125 of the Act because the condition has worsened or returned?
12) Is there a Review Division or WCAT deadline?
13) Is there a possible lawsuit or worker-worker bar issue under Section 127 of the Act?
14) Is legal advice needed before the deadline expires?
Workers do not need to know every section of the Act. But they should know that the Act contains important rights, deadlines, appeal routes, and benefit rules. The most important step is to read every decision carefully, get the claim file, and act before the deadline expires.
Important Workers Compensation Act Sections for Injured Workers
This is a general overview of some important sections of the Workers Compensation Act. In this guide, the term “the Act” means the Workers Compensation Act.
This is not a complete list of every rule that may apply to a claim. Workers should always review the current Act, WorkSafeBC policy, the claim file, and any appeal decisions that apply to their specific situation.
The Act can be difficult to read because it is written in legal language. The goal of this page is to explain some of the most important sections in plain language and to show why they may matter in a real claim.
Because legislation is updated and reformatted over time, this guide uses section numbers instead of page numbers. Section numbers are more reliable than page numbers when looking up the Act online.
Section 316 of the Act — WorkSafeBC exists as a legal corporation
Section 316 of the Act continues the Workers’ Compensation Board, commonly called WorkSafeBC, as a corporation.
For most injured workers, Section 316 of the Act is not something they will rely on directly. Its importance is that WorkSafeBC is the legal body responsible for deciding claims, paying benefits, administering the accident fund, and applying the workers’ compensation system.
Section 122 of the Act — WorkSafeBC’s broad authority to decide facts and law
Section 122 of the Act gives WorkSafeBC broad authority to decide questions of fact and law in compensation matters.
In plain language, this means WorkSafeBC has the first major say on many important questions, including whether the injury happened at work, whether the worker is disabled because of the injury, whether the disability is temporary or permanent, what the worker’s wage rate should be, and whether the worker is entitled to health care, wage-loss, vocational rehabilitation, or pension benefits.
A worker should treat every WorkSafeBC decision seriously. Even if a decision looks short or informal, it may affect benefits, appeal rights, and future entitlement.
What you should takeaway: If WorkSafeBC makes a decision you disagree with, do not assume it can simply be fixed later. Check the appeal deadline immediately and request disclosure of the claim file.
Section 123 of the Act — Reconsideration of previous WorkSafeBC decisions
Section 123 of the Act allows WorkSafeBC to reconsider some previous decisions.
Reconsideration is different from a review or appeal. In many cases, WorkSafeBC’s reconsideration power is time-limited. Section 123 of the Act generally refers to a 75-day period, with a later reconsideration possible where there is an obvious error or omission.
In practice, reconsideration may be useful where WorkSafeBC made a clear calculation mistake, overlooked a document already on the file, included an obvious factual error, or made a simple administrative mistake.
Workers should be careful. Asking for reconsideration does not always protect the appeal deadline. A worker who disagrees with a decision should usually consider filing a Request for Review within the required time limit, even if they are also asking WorkSafeBC to correct or reconsider something.
What you should takeaway: Do not rely on reconsideration alone if a review deadline is running. A reconsideration request is not the same as an appeal.
Section 125 of the Act — Reopening a claim because of recurrence or significant change
Section 125 of the Act allows WorkSafeBC to reopen a matter where there has been either a recurrence of the worker’s injury or a significant change in a medical condition that WorkSafeBC previously accepted as compensable.
This is very important. A claim being “closed” does not necessarily mean the worker can never receive benefits again. If the worker’s accepted condition worsens, returns, or significantly changes, WorkSafeBC may have to consider whether further wage-loss, health care, vocational rehabilitation, or pension benefits are payable.
Examples may include a worker returning to work but later losing time because the accepted injury flares up, an accepted back injury worsening and causing new functional limits, or an accepted knee injury changing the worker’s gait and contributing to another problem.
Worker takeaway: If your condition gets worse after WorkSafeBC closes the claim, ask whether Section 125 of the Act applies. Do not simply accept that the file is “closed.”
Section 146 of the Act — Pre-existing conditions and apportionment
Section 146 of the Act deals with situations where a worker has a pre-existing disability, disease, or condition.
Section 146 of the Act matters because WorkSafeBC often raises pre-existing conditions in claims. A worker may be told that their symptoms are due to arthritis, degeneration, a prior injury, age-related change, or another medical condition.
A pre-existing condition does not automatically defeat a claim. The key question is usually whether the workplace injury or exposure caused, aggravated, accelerated, or made symptomatic the worker’s condition.
Workers should be alert to unfair reasoning such as: “You had degeneration, so the claim is denied,” or “The MRI shows arthritis, so your work injury did not matter.” Those conclusions may be too simplistic. The real question is often whether the work injury made the condition worse or caused disability when the worker was previously functioning.
What you should takeaway: A pre-existing condition is not the end of the analysis. The issue is whether work made the condition worse, symptomatic, disabling, or materially contributed to the worker’s loss.
Section 127 of the Act — The worker-worker bar
Section 127 of the Act is one of the most important sections for workers injured in accidents involving other workers or employers.
In simple terms, if a worker is injured in the course of employment, they usually cannot sue another worker or employer who was also acting in the course of employment. Instead, the worker’s remedy is usually through WorkSafeBC.
This is often called the worker-worker bar or the statutory bar.
Section 127 of the Act can apply in many situations, including construction site accidents, motor vehicle accidents during work, injuries caused by another contractor on a job site, injuries involving subcontractors, and accidents involving co-workers.
The rule can be harsh. Even if another worker or employer was careless, the injured worker may still be limited to WorkSafeBC benefits if the legal bar applies.
What you should takeaway: If you were injured at work because of someone else’s negligence, do not assume you can sue. You may need a legal opinion about whether Section 127 of the Act applies.
Section 128 of the Act — Election between WCB benefits and a lawsuit
Section 128 of the Act deals with situations where a worker may have a possible legal action against someone outside the workers’ compensation system.
Section 128 of the Act may matter where the person who caused the injury was not a worker, was not an employer covered by the system, or was not acting in the course of employment.
For example, a lawsuit may still be possible if the negligent person was a member of the public, the accident involved a non-covered party, or the person who caused the injury was acting personally rather than in the course of employment.
These cases can be legally complicated. A worker may need to preserve both the WorkSafeBC claim and the possible lawsuit while the status issue is being sorted out.
What you should takeaway: If there is any chance of a civil lawsuit, get advice early. Limitation periods, WorkSafeBC deadlines, and election issues can all matter.
Section 134 of the Act — Personal injury compensation
Section 134 of the Act is one of the basic entitlement sections. It deals with compensation for personal injury or death arising out of and in the course of employment.
This is the starting point for most physical injury claims.
Common issues under Section 134 of the Act include whether the accident happened at work, whether the worker was doing work duties at the time, whether the medical condition was caused by the accident, whether the worker lost wages because of the injury, and whether the worker needs treatment.
Section 134 of the Act also contains helpful presumptions for accidents. If an accident arose out of employment, it is generally presumed to have occurred in the course of employment unless the contrary is shown. Similarly, if an accident occurred in the course of employment, it is generally presumed to have arisen out of employment unless the contrary is shown.
What you should takeaway: Describe clearly what happened, when it happened, who saw it, what body parts were affected, and how symptoms developed. Early details matter.
Section 135 of the Act — Mental disorder claims
Section 135 of the Act deals with mental disorder claims.
A mental disorder may be compensable in certain circumstances, including where it is caused by traumatic events or significant work-related stressors. Section 135 of the Act also requires a diagnosis by a psychiatrist or psychologist.
Mental disorder claims can be difficult because WorkSafeBC may distinguish between traumatic events, bullying or harassment, cumulative stressors, ordinary workplace conflict, and employer decisions such as discipline, termination, scheduling, or changes in duties.
Workers should also remember that psychological conditions may arise in different ways. A psychological condition may be claimed directly under Section 135 of the Act, or it may be argued as a consequence of a compensable physical injury, chronic pain, disability, or treatment process.
Examples may include PTSD after a workplace assault, depression after a serious physical injury, anxiety caused by chronic pain and loss of function, or worsening of a pre-existing psychological condition after a workplace incident.
What you should takeaway: Mental health claims often need strong medical evidence. A clear diagnosis and a clear explanation of the work connection are very important.
Section 136 of the Act — Occupational disease
Section 136 of the Act deals with occupational diseases.
An occupational disease is different from a simple accident. It may develop over time because of exposure, repetitive work, dust, chemicals, noise, vibration, asbestos, infectious risk, or other workplace hazards.
Common occupational disease issues include when the worker first developed symptoms, when the worker became disabled, what exposures occurred at work, whether non-work factors also contributed, whether the disease is listed in Schedule 1 of the Act, whether a presumption applies, and whether the worker filed the claim in time.
Occupational disease cases can be denied if WorkSafeBC focuses too narrowly on the date of diagnosis. In some cases, the more important issue is when the condition became disabling or when the worker knew, or reasonably should have known, that the condition was work-related.
What you should takeaway: Keep a detailed exposure history. Identify the jobs, worksites, materials, equipment, time periods, co-workers, and symptoms.
Sections 137 and 138 of the Act, Schedule 1 of the Act, and Schedule 2 of the Act
Section 137 of the Act deals with presumptions for certain occupational diseases. Section 138 of the Act allows WorkSafeBC to recognize additional occupational diseases. Schedule 1 of the Act contains occupational disease presumptions, and Schedule 2 of the Act deals with non-traumatic hearing loss.
A presumption can be very important. In some occupational disease cases, if the worker has a listed disease and worked in a listed process or industry, the disease may be presumed to be work-related unless the contrary is shown.
What you should takeaway: In disease claims, always check whether the condition is listed in Schedule 1 of the Act or Schedule 2 of the Act. A presumption may significantly affect the claim.
Section 155 of the Act — Vocational rehabilitation
Section 155 of the Act deals with vocational rehabilitation services and benefits.
Vocational rehabilitation, often called VR, is supposed to help an injured worker return to suitable work. This may include planning, retraining, job search help, work assessments, or other supports.
However, VR disputes are common. Workers should be careful where WorkSafeBC says the worker can do a job that is not realistic, the worker has not truly medically plateaued, restrictions are unclear or incomplete, not all compensable conditions have been accepted, or pain, medication side effects, mental health, or fatigue are not considered.
A vocational plan is only useful if the worker is actually capable of doing the proposed work in the real world.
What you should takeaway: Do not treat a VR plan as just paperwork. If the job goal is not realistic, respond in writing and explain why.
Section 156 of the Act — Health care benefits
Section 156 of the Act deals with health care benefits.
Health care may include treatment, medication, therapy, equipment, assessments, and other medical supports related to the compensable condition.
Workers should be aware that health care may still be important even after wage-loss benefits stop or after WorkSafeBC says the worker has plateaued. A worker may still need treatment to maintain function, manage symptoms, prevent deterioration, or deal with accepted permanent effects.
Common disputes under Section 156 of the Act include denial of physiotherapy, massage, counselling, injections, surgery, medication, or equipment; refusal to fund treatment after plateau; and denial of treatment for consequential injuries.
What you should takeaway: Ask your treating provider to explain why the treatment is necessary and how it relates to the accepted injury.
Sections 165 and following of the Act — Death benefits
Sections 165 and following of the Act deal with benefits after a worker’s death.
These sections may apply where a worker dies because of a workplace accident, occupational disease, or compensable condition. Benefits may be available to dependants, including a spouse, children, or others who depended on the worker.
What you should takeaway: Survivor-benefit claims can involve difficult questions about causation, dependency, and occupational disease. Families should get advice early, especially where exposure or disease developed over many years.
Section 192 of the Act — Temporary partial disability
Section 192 of the Act deals with temporary partial disability benefits.
This may apply where a worker can do some work after the injury but cannot earn the same amount as before. For example, a worker may return to modified duties, reduced hours, lighter work, or a lower-paying job.
The important issue is not simply whether the worker is “back at work.” The issue is whether the worker still has a wage loss because of the compensable injury.
What you should takeaway: If you return to work but earn less because of the injury, ask whether temporary partial disability benefits under Section 192 of the Act are payable.
Section 193 of the Act — Recurrence of temporary disability more than three years after injury
Section 193 of the Act deals with certain recurrences of temporary disability more than three years after the original injury.
Section 193 of the Act can matter where an old claim causes new time loss years later. WorkSafeBC may have to consider how to calculate benefits so that the compensation better reflects the worker’s actual wage loss at the time of the recurrence.
What you should takeaway: If an old compensable injury causes new time loss years later, do not assume your benefits must be based only on old wages. Ask how Section 193 of the Act applies.
Sections 194 and 195 of the Act — Permanent total and permanent partial disability
Section 194 of the Act deals with permanent total disability. Section 195 of the Act deals with permanent partial disability.
Permanent disability benefits become important when the worker’s condition has stabilized but the injury continues to cause lasting impairment or loss of earning capacity.
WorkSafeBC may assess permanent disability through a functional impairment award, a loss-of-earnings assessment, or both. WorkSafeBC may also consider whether the worker is realistically employable.
Permanent disability disputes often involve incorrect impairment ratings, failure to include all accepted conditions, failure to consider chronic pain or psychological injury, unrealistic job assumptions, and disputes about whether the worker can compete in the labour market.
What you should takeaway: A permanent disability award is not always the end of the matter. If the award does not reflect your actual loss of earning capacity, further review may be needed.
Section 198 of the Act — Non-traumatic hearing loss
Section 198 of the Act deals with compensation for non-traumatic hearing loss.
These claims often involve long-term noise exposure rather than one sudden accident. Workers may need evidence about job duties, equipment, decibel levels, duration of exposure, and hearing-test results.
What you should takeaway: If you worked around loud equipment, machinery, tools, vehicles, or industrial noise, keep a detailed work history and obtain hearing-test records.
Section 199 of the Act — Disfigurement
Section 199 of the Act deals with serious and permanent disfigurement.
This may apply where a workplace injury causes visible scarring or disfigurement that may impair earning capacity.
What you should takeaway: If you have permanent scarring or disfigurement, make sure WorkSafeBC has current photographs, medical records, and information about how it affects work or employability
Section 200 of the Act — Maximum compensation where there is further disability
Section 200 of the Act does not set the maximum wage rate. Section 200 of the Act deals with the maximum amount of compensation payable where a worker has a further or additional disability.
This may matter where a worker has more than one compensable disability or receives compensation for multiple injuries.
What you should takeaway: If you have more than one claim or more than one disability, the calculation can become complicated. Make sure WorkSafeBC explains exactly how it calculated the total amount payable.
Section 202 of the Act — CPP disability deductions
Section 202 of the Act allows WorkSafeBC to deduct 50% of certain Canada Pension Plan disability benefits from certain permanent disability payments where the CPP disability benefit is paid in respect of the same injury.
This is important because many workers apply for CPP disability when they cannot return to work. A worker may later be surprised when WorkSafeBC deducts part of the CPP disability amount from their WCB pension.
Common issues under Section 202 of the Act include whether the CPP disability benefit is for the same injury, whether the deduction has been calculated correctly, whether retroactive CPP disability benefits affect past WCB payments, and how CPP disability interacts with loss-of-earnings benefits.
What you should takeaway: Before applying for CPP disability, or after receiving CPP disability, get advice about how it may affect WCB benefits.
Section 203 of the Act — Reconsideration of prescribed older compensation claims
Section 203 of the Act allows certain older compensation claims to be reconsidered in prescribed circumstances.
Section 203 of the Act can be very important for workers with long-standing permanent disability claims. Some older pension decisions may be reconsidered even after many years if the statutory requirements are met.
Section 203 of the Act may matter where the worker has had a compensable disability for more than 10 years, received a significant permanent disability award, may have been under-compensated, or had a long-term earning loss that was not properly assessed.
What you should takeaway: Older pension decisions are not always completely closed. If you have a long-standing permanent disability claim, Section 203 of the Act may be worth reviewing.
Sections 208 and following of the Act — Average earnings and wage-rate calculations
Sections 208 and following of the Act deal with average earnings and wage-rate calculations.
This is one of the most important areas in many claims. If WorkSafeBC sets the wage rate too low, every benefit based on that wage rate may also be too low.
Wage-rate disputes may involve overtime, bonuses, multiple jobs, seasonal work, apprenticeships, recent promotions, self-employment, irregular earnings, expected wage increases, union rates, payroll records, and whether the short-term or long-term wage rate is correct.
What you should takeaway: Do not assume WorkSafeBC calculated your wage rate correctly. Review the wage-rate decision carefully and compare it to your actual earnings history.
Section 209 of the Act — Maximum wage rate
Section 209 of the Act deals with the annual maximum wage rate for average earnings.
This matters because WorkSafeBC benefits are subject to a maximum insurable wage rate. If a worker earned above the maximum, benefits may still be capped.
The maximum wage rate can change each year. Workers should check the current WorkSafeBC figure rather than relying only on the dollar amount printed in the Act.
What you should takeaway: High-income workers should check whether their wage-loss benefits were capped and whether the correct year’s maximum wage rate was used.
The Review Division is the first level of appeal for most WorkSafeBC decisions.
A worker who disagrees with a WorkSafeBC decision must usually file a Request for Review within the required time limit. The Review Division can confirm, vary, or cancel the WorkSafeBC decision.
Sections 267 to 273 of the Act — Review Division framework
Sections 267 to 273 of the Act deal with the Review Division process, including who may request a review, how the Review Division is established, and when the Chief Review Officer may reconsider certain Review Division decisions.
Section 267 of the Act defines terms used in the review provisions.
Section 268 of the Act establishes the Review Division.
Section 269 of the Act sets out who may request a review.
Section 273 of the Act allows the Chief Review Officer to reconsider certain Review Division decisions.
The most practical point for workers is that the review deadline is extremely important. Missing the deadline can make the case much harder.
Workers should consider requesting a review where WorkSafeBC denies the claim, ends wage-loss benefits, refuses treatment, sets the wrong wage rate, denies a reopening, finds the worker has plateaued too early, denies a psychological condition, refuses vocational rehabilitation benefits, or makes a pension decision the worker disagrees with.
What you should takeaway: Every WorkSafeBC decision letter should be reviewed for appeal rights and deadlines. Put the deadline in a calendar immediately.
WCAT is the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal. It is independent from WorkSafeBC and hears appeals from certain Review Division decisions.
Not every Review Division decision can be appealed to WCAT. Some decisions stop at the Review Division, while others can proceed to WCAT.
Sections 287 to 293 of the Act — Appeals to WCAT
Sections 287 to 293 of the Act deal with appeals to WCAT.
Section 287 of the Act deals with appeals to WCAT.
Section 288 of the Act explains which Review Division decisions can and cannot be appealed to WCAT.
Section 291 of the Act sets out who may appeal a compensation decision.
Section 292 of the Act explains what must be included in a Notice of Appeal.
Section 293 of the Act sets the time limit for filing a WCAT appeal.
Section 293(3) of the Act gives the WCAT Chair discretion to extend the appeal deadline in some circumstances.
What you should takeaway: If you receive a Review Division decision, check immediately whether it can be appealed to WCAT and when the appeal deadline expires.
Section 297 of the Act — WCAT’s procedural powers
Section 297 of the Act gives WCAT important procedural powers. WCAT can control its own process, ask WorkSafeBC to investigate and report on an issue, and in some situations decide a matter that WorkSafeBC should have decided.
Section 297 of the Act can be useful where the claim file is incomplete or where WorkSafeBC failed to properly decide an issue.
Examples may include WorkSafeBC failing to address a diagnosis, investigate job duties, obtain necessary medical information, consider a consequential injury, or decide a benefit issue that was properly before it.
What you should takeaway: At WCAT, identify not only why the Review Division was wrong, but also whether WorkSafeBC failed to investigate or decide something important.
Section 301 of the Act — Referral to a health professional
Section 301 of the Act allows WCAT to refer certain medical issues to a health professional.
This can matter where the appeal turns on a medical question, such as diagnosis, causation, restrictions, disability, or whether a condition is related to the work injury.
What you should takeaway: If the case depends on medical evidence, consider whether the existing medical record is strong enough or whether further medical opinion evidence is needed.
Section 303 of the Act — Merits, justice, policy, and the worker-friendly standard of proof
Section 303 of the Act is one of the most important WCAT sections.
Section 303 of the Act says WCAT must decide questions of fact and law, decide each appeal on its own merits and justice, and apply applicable WorkSafeBC policies.
Section 303(5) of the Act contains a worker-friendly standard of proof. If the evidence supporting one side and the evidence supporting the other side are evenly balanced, WCAT must resolve the issue in favour of the worker.
This does not mean the worker automatically wins. The evidence must actually be evenly balanced. But where the evidence is truly equal, the tie goes to the worker.
What you should takeaway: At WCAT, focus on building the evidence. Section 303(5) of the Act helps most when the evidence is strong enough to create a genuine balance.
Section 304 of the Act — Policy issues
Section 304 of the Act deals with situations where WCAT considers whether a policy should not be applied because of a legal issue.
In practice, Section 304 of the Act is difficult to use successfully. WCAT generally must apply binding WorkSafeBC policy. A worker who wants to argue that a policy is unlawful, inconsistent with the Act, or wrongly applied should get legal advice.
What you should takeaway: It is usually easier to argue that WorkSafeBC applied the wrong policy, misread the policy, or failed to apply the policy properly than to argue that the policy itself is legally invalid.
Section 306 of the Act — WCAT decisions and the 180-day timeline
Section 306 of the Act allows WCAT to confirm, vary, or cancel a Review Division decision. WCAT decisions must be in writing and must include reasons.
Section 306 of the Act also provides a general 180-day time limit for WCAT to issue a decision, although the time can be extended.
What you should takeaway: When you receive a WCAT decision, read the reasons carefully. The reasons explain what evidence WCAT accepted, rejected, or considered most important.
Section 307 of the Act — Corrections and reopening for jurisdictional defects
Section 307 of the Act allows WCAT to correct certain errors. Section 307(5) of the Act allows WCAT to reopen an appeal to cure a jurisdictional defect.
This is not the same as simply disagreeing with the decision. A jurisdictional defect usually means a serious legal or procedural problem, such as WCAT deciding an issue it had no authority to decide or failing to decide something it was required to decide.
Worker takeaway: If a WCAT decision contains a serious procedural or jurisdictional problem, get advice quickly. The remedy may be reconsideration, reopening, or judicial review depending on the issue.
Section 308 of the Act — WCAT’s exclusive jurisdiction
Section 308 of the Act gives WCAT exclusive jurisdiction over matters it is allowed to decide.
This means courts generally do not re-hear WCAT appeals from scratch. Courts usually review WCAT decisions only under judicial review standards.
What you should takeaway: WCAT may be the last practical chance to fully argue the facts. Put your best evidence forward before WCAT decides.
Section 309 of the Act — WorkSafeBC must comply with WCAT decisions
Section 309 of the Act requires WorkSafeBC to comply with final WCAT decisions.
This is important where a worker wins at WCAT but WorkSafeBC delays implementation or applies the decision too narrowly.
What you should takeaway: If you win at WCAT, monitor implementation. Ask WorkSafeBC to confirm what benefits are being paid and how the decision is being applied.
Section 310 of the Act — Reconsideration based on new evidence
Section 310 of the Act allows WCAT to reconsider a final decision if new evidence has become available or has been discovered.
This is a narrow remedy. It is not enough that the worker disagrees with the decision or later finds a better way to argue the case. The evidence must generally be new, relevant, and capable of affecting the result.
What you should takeaway: If important new medical evidence becomes available after a WCAT decision, act quickly and get advice about whether a Section 310 reconsideration is possible.
A standard of review is the level of scrutiny a court applies when reviewing a tribunal decision.
This matters most when a party applies for judicial review in court after a WCAT decision.
Judicial review is not a new appeal. The court usually does not simply decide whether it agrees with WCAT. Instead, the court asks whether WCAT made a serious legal, factual, jurisdictional, or fairness error.
WCAT and the Administrative Tribunals Act
WCAT is subject to Section 58 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. This is a different statute from the Workers Compensation Act.
Section 58 of the Administrative Tribunals Act says that, for expert tribunals protected by a privative clause, findings of fact or law and exercises of discretion within exclusive jurisdiction are generally reviewed on the very deferential standard of patent unreasonableness. Procedural fairness is reviewed by asking whether the tribunal acted fairly in all the circumstances.
Findings of fact
For WCAT decisions, findings of fact are generally reviewed on the standard of patent unreasonableness.
This is a difficult standard for a worker to meet. A court will not usually interfere just because it might have weighed the evidence differently. The error must be serious.
Examples of possible problems may include WCAT making a finding with no support in the evidence, ignoring important evidence, misunderstanding the medical record, relying on an opinion based on incomplete facts, or reaching a conclusion that does not logically follow from the evidence.
What you should takeaway: Judicial review is not about simply re-arguing the case. It is about showing a serious reviewable error.
Discretionary decisions
A discretionary decision is a decision where the decision-maker has a choice about what to do.
For WCAT, discretionary decisions are also usually reviewed deferentially. A discretionary decision may be vulnerable if the discretion was exercised arbitrarily, in bad faith, for an improper purpose, based mainly on irrelevant factors, or without considering statutory requirements.
What you should takeaway: If challenging a discretionary decision, focus on why the decision-making process was legally flawed, not just why the result was disappointing.
Procedural fairness
Procedural fairness is about whether the process was fair.
This includes questions such as whether the worker knew the case they had to meet, whether the worker had a fair chance to respond, whether WCAT relied on evidence or authorities without disclosing them, whether credibility was decided fairly, whether an oral hearing was needed, whether important evidence was ignored, whether the decision-maker appeared biased, and whether proper reasons were given.
Fairness can be one of the stronger grounds for judicial review where the process itself was defective.
What you should takeaway: Keep track of fairness problems as they happen. If you were denied a chance to respond, say so clearly and in writing.