Wednesday, January 14, 2015

Injured Workers Suffer PTSD...

When you look at the Canadian Workers Compensation system, then you can understand why it is that injured workers commit suicide . The WCB system has driven many injured workers into poverty, resulting in the loss of homes, families being torn apart.So when you look at this very abusive legislated law, known as the WCB ACT one can only conclude that injured workers fall into the PTSD box.

The abuse injured workers face at the hands of WCB Caseworkers leaves the injured worker to react to the harsh and abusive treatment with the feeling of "INTENSE FEAR" and HELPLENESS, thus we PTSD by design ,overseen by every politician and "their" political party, because they are the masters of this abusive legislated law. I will also conclude that this is why Patrick Clayton took the action he did when he entered the Calgary office the WCB, he was not only armed with a rifle, but armed with "Intense fear" and HELPLENESS , this situation was manufactured by the Alberta Workers Compensation Board.

Sunday, February 24, 2013


Speaking recently in Halifax,   PE U "senator" Mike Duffy defended HIS "entitlement to his entitlements” as this year's recipient of the coveted DINGWALL AWARD.  At the ceremony, the presenter congratulated "senator" Duffy for his ingenuity and the unmitigated gall he applied in screwing Canadian Taxpayers out of thousands of their hard earned dollars.

Winning the award was a mean achievement as he triumphed over other contenders, including the ever repressible and aloof, Pamela Wallin (Canada's "Lady Ice”) who, from day one of her appointment has made every effort to achieve a spending level of taxpayer dollars equal to that of her mentor and former fellow news person and CBC alumnus, Adrienne Clarkson who achieved a "personal best" as the Liberal appointed Governor General of Canada.

Ms. Clarkson, you will remember, took on the daunting task of adding to this country's debt singlehandedly volunteering her time, energies  and imagination to spend, spend, spend ...  on behalf of all Canadians.

 Now, thanks to the "Dear Leader", Stephen Harper  ... most, if not all of any surpluses this country may have ever had in the trough... correction:  kitty, has been frittered and pissed away through incompetence and gay abandonment ... of fiscal conservatism.

 Which brings us back to the "ol ' Duff " and his achievements  ...... nothing worthy of note, really.  Certainly, nothing commensurate with the exorbitant salary and perks Canadian taxpayers are required to pay him and all "Senators"(by default)... until they reach the age of 75, or hopefully croak.

Canada currently suffers a glut of overpaid, fully commissioned parasites

                                                     LATE BREAKING NEWS UPDATE

 "Senator" Duffy now admits a reduced mental capacity ... the result of eating contaminated food, has caused him to "maybe have made a mistake "when he filled out the "ambiguously worded” forms that ask where his principal residence is located.

While admitting no direct responsibility for the oversight that has cost Canadian taxpayers thousands  over the years he has (inadvertently) claimed  additional living expenses, Mr. Duffy has, in a magnanimous gesture, volunteered to reimburse the "Government" for this (small) oversight that everyone has construed ( mistakenly as fraudulent  ... and will do so immediately. He will make arrangements to completely repay all amounts due ....via pay roll deductions of $10 per month from his senator's salary.

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Confession Of A Politician

Forgive me father for I have sinned.” by Paul Steven Stone
“Tell me how you have sinned, my son?”Lies, father. I have told lie after lie in pursuit of my personal gain. I have lied to my family, my friends, to thousands of people who desired nothing from me but the truth.”“And when did you first enter politics, my son?”“Many years ago, father, I was a mere child, an innocent. I believed in heroes. Believed in the power of being right and doing good works.
I believed I could change things, could make a difference in the lives of the people I represented. I believed politics was much more than a bunch of self-important, privileged men dividing up the spoils of life-in-the-public-arena. I thought the system embraced everyone who had a stake in the outcome of every law considered and every vote taken. We had not yet been blessed by the work of the finest Supreme Court money could buy, where every decision had been paid for and lobbied by billionaires and millionaires, who understandably believe they're entitled to more representation than the single vote everyone else gets.”
“And when did you learn the truth, my son? When did you find out what a shmuck you've been?”“In that first year, father. And how swift an education that was! No sooner was I sitting in a seat of elected power than I discovered how weak and ineffective I was. I saw that power was most effective when it furthered its own ends rather than the needs of the voters. To get along in the world of politics one quickly learns to go along. To sleep with the ugly as well as the beautiful…Ha!“Forgive the coarse example, father, but that's what politics does to you…either you're kissing a thousand asses and spreading your legs a thousand times a day for short dollars, or sleeping with an occasional millionaire now and again.
What would you do, right? So, you start ‘Shtupping for Millionaires' and you get your life back, and you stop feeling like a 24 hour fundraising prostitute.”But I was speaking about…power. Do you know the secret of power, father? I'll tell you. To become powerful, one simply hangs on to power longer than the next guy. To hang on longer than the next guys means forging strategic alliances with those who hold the power, even if it goes against the vested interests of your constituents, from whom you won't hear anything for another two years, anyway. But like I said, power is most effective when it's furthering its own ends.
That was a simple lesson taught to all of us when we entered public office.“But that seems so self-serving, my son. Surely there are those in public life who set their course with greater integrity and resolve?”“Yes, father. They're called one-term politicians.”“This is all so very curious, my son.”"It's Strange, father. I'm constantly trying to understand how things could get so bad. When I first entered office, it was understood you weren't to get caught breaking the law or stealing from the cookie jar. Everything was fair game, but you weren't allowed to get caught. That was the cardinal rule. Steal from the poor, the blind, the crippled, but don't get caught.
“Nowadays, it seems that our government is in charge of payoffs for criminal deeds of catastrophic dimensions. The greedy son-of-bitches who brought down the financial system and triggered a worldwide recession are saved, kept in their jobs, and even allowed to collect bonuses, while the taxpayers pick up the tab.“Just think, father, Halliburton and its subsidiaries are allowed to fraudulently overbill the US Army for shoddy work in IRAQ (How many soldiers were electrocuted in their poorly constructed showers?) and we just pay the bills.“And, today, every one of those Grand Old Pigs whose political party ran us into an endless war in Iraq for no good reason, voted in tax cuts for yacht-owners, billionaires and oil company executives, and fathered a prescription drug benefit where the USA isn't allowed to use its buying power to lower prices (and, thus, decrease the deficit).
If they're so worried about deficits how could they have voted for renewing Bush's Tax cuts for millionaires, father. How could they, I ask you that?”“It is all a mystery to me, my son.”“Yeah, me too, father. Me too. Like how could I have become a cynical and jaded politician so quickly? Without even noticing.! Oh, there was much truth in the promises I made, father. I intended to do as much as was humanly possible for my constituents; meant to deliver as many jobs, as many laws and, especially, as many government contracts for my constituents as I could.”“So where are the lies you feel you must confess, my son?”
“It was all lies, father. There wasn't one job, or law or one government contract I promised to deliver which I wouldn't have sacrificed to help further my own position as an elected official. When everything you promise is secondary to feathering your own nest, you're making promises to no one but yourself.“I am impressed by your contrition, my son, is there not time for you to make things right?”“How do you mean, father. By reciting sacred names or saying my rosary?”“No, by following your conscience instead of your weaknesses. By pursuing a course of action dictated by what you have promised, and by what you believe.”
“A novel idea, father, but it would never work. You see, in the interest of getting elected, I have endeavored to be all things to all people. That, of course, meant taking stands on issues that offended the least number of eligible voters. We call that taking a ‘prudent' approach to electioneering, so that hopefully you end up looking good to supporters on both sides of an issue. A good example is my stated position on welfare reform, father.“Do you support it or oppose it, my son?”“The question is, father, how can I both support and oppose it at the same time. That's ‘prudent' electioneering.
The way it works, you develop simple answers to complex issues. Ask me my position on welfare reform, I'll tell you I plan to seek reform without seeking retribution.That answer, simple as it appears, will be interpreted by each side as providing a measure of my support, while ultimately requiring nothing from me except an occasional newspaper quote. The net result, of course, is a non-binding promise to do nothing.”“I am beginning to see the problem, my son.”“I have become a master of maintaining a ‘prudent' approach to most issues, father. When it comes to conservation and land-use issues, I am for “responsible development” and “controlled growth.” Ask me my view on capital punishment and I'll declare myself “morally opposed to the death penalty except under certain conditions.” Question my position on gun control and I'll tell you the problem isn't with criminals being too well armed, but with people like you and me being too poorly armed.”
“You are being unfair to yourself, my son.”“You think so? Go ahead, ask me my stand on any issue!”“Aid to Afghanistan?”“I'll support it, but only after the Afghanni's put their house in order.”“Continuing price supports for U.S. farmers?”“I'll vote to eliminate price supports as soon as we figure out a better way to level the playing field in the international market.”“American corporations' usage of child laborers in third world nations?”“It's outrageous, immoral and barbarous; but what gives us the right to dictate morality to the rest of the world?”And tax cuts for the wealthy?”Ah, yes. That's the Million Dollar Queston, father, because the right answer will open the door to millions of dollars in campaign donations! Ask me my position on taxing the rich, so their obligations are commensurate with the privileges they enjoy as millionaires and billionaires., and I'll agree that, “Yes, everyone should pay their fair share”.
But I'll also note that “raising taxes now could jeopardize the entire economic recovery.“ Or I'll pretend this is part of a larger tax event that also hits small businesses and middle class taxpayers. I'll say whatever I have to say to keep the public's eye off the ball so they don't figure out for themselves that these millionaires are getting away with murder.”
“Surely, you must have taken a firm stand on some issues, my son?”“Absolutely, father. Those are the issues we politicians call “no brainers”, meaning you don't need a brain to vote for tougher laws against child molesters, or for American independence from foreign-produced energy, or for a couple of hundred other issues that have nothing to do with the goals of your fellow politicians or the lives of your constituents back home.
“Well, my son, there doesn't seem to be much that I can do for you, other than grant forgiveness for your sins.”“That may be true or not, father. But tell me—only because I'm curious—are you a registered voter…?

Monday, May 16, 2011

WorkSafe New Brunswick Complicit In Abuse...

......Of Injured Workers

For many people, retirement conjures thoughts of soaking up the sun and finally being able to read the books we only had time to skim through before.

Yolande Mongeon has accumulated five years' worth of paperwork in her battle with WorkSafeNB. But for Yolande Mongeon, retirement means fighting WorkSafeNB for compensation benefits.

Mongeon was already on the Canada Pension Plan when she was injured at work. She was surprised when WorkSafeNB said her pension benefits had to be paid back because she was now also receiving workers' compensation.

"Contrary to the Act, they reduce workers' compensation benefits dollar for dollar based on the CPP you receive," says Mongeon.

Mongeon was "already in a frail state," and her problems with WorkSafeNB weren't helping. So she called Tom Barron.

Barron, a retired labour union worker and owner of injury claims firm Barron T. Labour Relations, is concerned about the problems workers face getting their benefits.He said the problems started when the Employee Workers Compensation Act was changed several years ago.

The agency tells injured workers to apply for Canada Pension Plan benefits, and when they go into early retirement, the same agency "reduces their benefits for what they get from CPP," says Barron.

"The consequences of the decisions made in the last 10 years are not in the best interests of the stakeholders," says Barron.
Policy 38.11 of the Workers' Compensation Act states that compensation and supplemental income, including CPP, cannot be over 85 per cent of the worker's pre-accident income.

The policy also says CPP is deducted from injury benefits only if the pension was given due to the injury. Many workers are instructed to pay back CPP funds even if it is unrelated to their injuries.While many workers are concerned by the situation, they aren't the only ones.

"Eighty-six per cent of decisions made by the (WorkSafeNB) board of directors are switched by the Appeals Tribunal," says Barron. "We are the complete reverse of every other jurisdiction in Canada, where the Appeals Tribunal only overturns decisions 25 per cent of the time."Barron says the board does this in the hopes workers won't appeal, so they can "limit their liability to the workers' compensation fund."
"For every two people denied benefits who appeal, there are eight more who don't appeal," says Barron.

The WorkSafeNB Annual Report says the number of appeals for 2010 increased 20.6 per cent from the previous year. But the tribunal is having trouble keeping up.
"They instinctively deny your claim, and the Appeals Tribunal tells them to fix it, but it could be two and a half years before that happens," says Barron.

Ronald Gaffney, chairman of the Appeals Tribunal, understands Barron's concerns.
"We say pension plans are not supplemental income, but the board says they are," says Gaffney.

"We just have a different interpretation of the legislation."
But the legislation can't be changed unless the issue goes to a higher level of the legal system.

"Employers don't ever appeal our rulings, and neither do claimants, considering they are universally successful when they come to us on this issue," says Gaffney.
The board isn't "bound to apply precedents from tribunal proceedings," despite the fact a quarter of all appeal proceedings involve this issue, according to Gaffney.
"Unless it goes to the Court of Appeal, it won't change."

Barron says by the time claimants get to the Appeals Tribunal, they are exhausted.
"They get these workers involved in a revolving door process," says Barron. "Then they send them to Workers' Advocates, who have piles of work to the ceiling due to the constant appeals.

"The advocates tell people there will be a four-month wait for their services, and then another six months before it goes to the Appeals Tribunal.
"And then, the tribunal will take a year to make a decision. And you have an injured worker who has been struggling to get benefits for years."

Guy Dagenais, manager of Workers' Advocates, says this happens all the time.
"The Appeals Tribunal says if your CPP benefits have nothing to do with your injury, then they can't be deducted," says Dagenais.Dagenais said he has had every case of this nature overturned by the Appeals Tribunal, and says the record speaks for itself.

"The board of directors doesn't agree with what we say."
WorkSafeNB employs up to 36 case workers per year. Their 2010 Annual Report says they "adjudicated 12,507 applications for claims last year."
"1,360 were rejected as being non work-related or an uninsured employer," the document states.
"Of those accepted, 5,971 involved lost time of at least one day ... and 5,171 were no lost-time claims."

Martine Coulombe, minister of Post-Secondary Education, Training and Labour, is standing behind WorkSafeNB."I respect the role of WorkSafeNB and its board members in their role to implement and enforce a number of Acts that set out workplace protections for both employees and employers," Coulombe said in an email statement.

"It is the responsibility of WorkSafeNB to make recommendations to government regarding amendments to legislation as identified by their Board of Directors. Government is ready to work with WorkSafeNB should they feel adjustments need to be made," says Coulombe.Crispina Caballero says WorkSafeNB does its best to take care of injured workers.

Caballero, director of fiscal economic planning for WorkSafeNB, says the time it takes to pay out a claim "depends on how complicated the claim is."
WorkSafeNB tries to be timely, especially when the need for money is urgent, says Caballero.

"I once got a phone call from a man on prescription medication, and he was on his last day of pills," says Caballero."He needed his meds the following day, so I got his name and it was taken care of."She says all benefits are "defined by legislation," but the numbers can be adjusted if the employee needs more compensation.

"If the amount they need is less than what they get from their benefits, we communicate with them," says Caballero."There's a chance for them to say something."
Caballero says claims are only denied under specific circumstances.

"If the accident is not work-related, then we deny the claim," says Caballero.
Diane Green, executive assistant to the chairperson, president and CEO of WorkSafeNB, says the board of directors is "just following policy."
Green says the board members know it's a flawed system."We realize the tribunal has a different approach," she says.

She cites a mandate risk from WorkSafeNB's Strategic Plan and Risk Assessment as an example of their attempts to work on the issue."It says we want to reduce Appeals Tribunal decisions that are inconsistent with WorkSafeNB policy," says Green.
"We realize the issue, and we're working our way around it."

However, injured worker Mongeon says the board should be doing more than work around this."There is a long-standing questionable practice by the Workers Compensation Board," says Mongeon."They see this happening, and do nothing to crack the fingers of people doing these clawbacks on benefits."Due to the circumstances surrounding her benefits over the past few years, Mongeon is now unsure about her future.

"My retirement is up in the air at the moment, I'm not sure I have the money.".

This Story was written by Jordan Parker , Times and Transcript

Friday, October 29, 2010

The Workers Compensation Statutory Bar ...

...Held Not Applicable in Newfoundland Maritime Law.



The Workers’ Compensation Statutory Bar Held Not Applicable in Newfoundland Maritime Matter The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, Trial Division has ruled that the statutory bar prohibiting employees and their families from suing employers for injuries suffered or death occurred in the course of employment is inoperative in the context of navigation and shipping.

Ryan Estate v. Universal Marine, the Court overruled the Newfoundland and Labrador Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission (the “Commission”) and held that the families of two deceased fishermen were entitled to sue the designer, builder and inspector for the negligent design, construction and inspection of the fishing vessel “Ryan’s Commander” which capsized causing the deaths. This decision has significant implications for any business involved in shipping, the fishery and
offshore oil and gas, and could potentially have repercussions in other industries in the federal domain.

One of the fundamental principles of workers’ compensation regimes in Canada is the creation of a no-fault compensation system. In what has been described as the “historic trade-off”, workers surrendered their right to pursue civil remedies in return for the entitlement to workers’ compensation benefits in the event of a workplace injury or death. Employers pay into the insurance scheme, but in turn are protected from being sued. Essentially, an injured worker or the dependants of a deceased worker cannot maintain a claim in respect of a compensable disability or loss of support against the employer of the injured or deceased worker,any other employer covered by the Act, or any worker of such other employer. While there are certain specific exceptions, notably in the case of automobile accidents, the statutory bar is contained in every province’s workers’ compensation legislation.

Ryan Estate involved the interaction between the provincial workers’ compensation legislation, and matters of federal jurisdiction. The Constitution Act, 1867, divides certain powers into federal and provincial responsibilities. While workers’ compensation falls within in the provincial powers, considered to relate to
“property and civil rights”, there are circumstances where it may interact with
federally regulated industries, that is, those falling within the federal powers such as “navigation and shipping” as was the situation in Ryan Estate. When provincial legislation affects matters of federal jurisdiction (or vice versa), the courts may undertake an analysis of the nature or “pith and substance” of the impugned legislation to determine its applicability. The courts will also assess
the impact of the legislation, sometimes considering doctrines of
“interjurisdictional immunity” (“reading down” legislation which is otherwise constitutional) and “paramountcy” (the principle that federal legislation “trumps” provincial legislation).

Provincial workers’ compensation schemes have been found to be constitutional and to apply to federal undertakings. As well, other courts have found the statutory bar to apply in the context of federal undertakings. In particular, the British Columbia
Supreme Court upheld the statutory bar in Laboucane v. Brooks, a case also involving the fishing industry. Furthermore, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice came to the same conclusion in Dionne v. Ontario (Workplace Safety & Insurance Appeals Tribunal), a case considering the issue in the context of a nuclear power plant. Moreover, in an analogous situation, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal concluded that provincial occupational health and safety regulations applied to the fishing industry in that province. This jurisprudence makes the result in Ryan Estate all the more surprising. The Court in Ryan Estate framed the constitutional argument as “simply that legislation relating to navigation and shipping was reserved to the Federal Parliament under The Constitution Act, 1867 and that Parliament had legislated in that field by reason of the Marine Liability Act and the Federal Courts Act and that neither of these pieces of legislation contained any bar against any action which an injured person was entitled to bring under Canadian maritime law, both statutory and common law.”

The Court held that the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act (the “WHSCC Act”) impaired the right of injured parties to bring a civil action under the Marine Liability Act, a piece of federal legislation which addresses claims of persons or dependents of persons injured or killed in circumstances involving matters relating to navigation and shipping. The Court decided that liability in a marine context fell within federal jurisdiction, and found that the Marine Liability Act created a “federal right” to bring such an action. The Court further held that the statutory bar impaired the federal power to sue, which is “a core feature of federal legislation governing navigation and shipping” and “an essential element of the requirement for uniformity of legal rights in navigation and shipping situations.” The Court read down the WHSCC Act, holding that in the circumstances, the statutory bar was rendered inoperative.

The employers in Ryan Estate paid into the workers’ compensation regime, and some of the claimants received benefits, but the employers were not protected by the statutory bar. In other words, one half of the “historic bargain” was held not to apply. Further, the case suggests that this would now be true of all employment falling within “navigation and shipping” and, potentially, of any employment falling within the federal domain (aeronautics, fishing etc) where there is federal legislation that, like the Marine Liability Act, can be construed as giving rise to a federal “right” of action.

The Court distinguished Mersey Seafoods Ltd. on the basis that occupational health and safety is essentially one aspect of labour relations, which on fishing boats is generally a provincial undertaking. The conclusion in Ryan Estate has left the somewhat peculiar result that while the fishery is subject to provincial occupational health and safety regulation, it is not subject to at least the statutory bar provisions of the provincial workers’ compensation regime, although the two pieces of legislation are closely interconnected.

The Court did not discuss or consider the Laboucane or Dionne decisions mentioned above. In each of those cases, the respective Courts undertook a perhaps more pragmatic analysis of the interaction of the federal undertaking and provincial workers’ compensation statutory bar.

In Laboucane, the Court held that the statutory bar was solely within the exclusive jurisdiction of the province. The Court reasoned that the statutory bar was not “integrally connected with maritime matters” and that the fact that the accident happened on a vessel was “not enough to displace the characterization of the claim [of the claimant] as arising out of a workplace incident.” We would suggest the reasoning in Laboucane is equally applicable to, and should have been followed in, Ryan Estate.

In Dionne, the Court held that the statutory bar did not conflict with section 4 of the Nuclear Liability Act. The thrust of the Nuclear Liability Act is similar to the Marine Liability Act. That provision holds nuclear operators absolutely liable for breaches of duties created under that act, without proof of negligence. While the Nuclear Liability Act may outline a cause of action, it does not create a right to sue an employer that the statutory bar takes away. Based on that conclusion, which we would suggest should apply in the circumstances of Ryan Estate, the Court held that no consideration of paramountcy was necessary.

What this case means is that employers in shipping and navigation, and potentially in other federally regulated industries, are more likely to face civil actions resulting from accidents occurring in or connected to the workplace, and are less likely to be able to avail of the protection of the workers’ compensation statutory bar. We are advised that the Ryan Estate case is likely to be appealed.

For more information please contact the practice group leader: Cecily Y. Strickland at or 709.570.8826.

My question (Wayne Coady ) is the Federal Government a signature to the "Historic Agreement? And can they prove this by producing their signature on the orginal document?