The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by WorkplaceNL, ruling that the tribunal does not have standing to appeal the quashing of its own decision regarding a sexual assault claim involving an employee of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro-Electric Corporation (NL Hydro).
The court ruled that WorkplaceNL should not be granted standing to seek the restoration of its original decision, which was set aside on judicial review for being unreasonable.
Background of the case
M.C., a worker who delivered invoices as part of her job duties, alleged that she was sexually assaulted multiple times over an eight-to-nine-month period by R.H., an employee of NL Hydro. Fourteen years after the alleged incidents, M.C. initiated a court action seeking compensation and damages against R.H. and NL Hydro.
At the time of the alleged assaults, the applicable legislation was the now-repealed Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act, RSNL 1990. Under section 44(2) of the Act, a worker is barred from pursuing a court action against an employer or its employee for an injury arising out of and in the course of employment, unless the injury occurred outside the usual operations of the employer’s industry.
NL Hydro applied to WorkplaceNL under section 46 of the Act to determine whether M.C.’s court action was prohibited. WorkplaceNL decided that while M.C.’s injury arose out of and in the course of her employment, her action was not prohibited because the injuries did not occur in the conduct of operations usual to NL Hydro’s industry.
NL Hydro sought judicial review of WorkplaceNL’s decision. The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador quashed the decision, deeming it unreasonable. The judge found that WorkplaceNL had incorrectly focused on the assaults themselves rather than the context in which they occurred — specifically, the delivery and receipt of invoices, which are usual operations of NL Hydro’s industry.
The judge stated: “Reasoning from the conduct of [R.H.] being beyond the scope of his employment to a conclusion that the injury occurred outside of the conduct of the operations usual in or incidental to the industry carried on by Hydro is irrational in the sense that there is no logical connection between the two findings.”
WorkplaceNL’s appeal and NL Hydro’s application
Instead of reconsidering the decision as directed, WorkplaceNL appealed the judicial review decision, challenging the quashing of its original decision. WorkplaceNL argued that the judge erred in applying the standard of reasonableness and failed to show deference to the tribunal’s expertise.
NL Hydro filed an application to dismiss WorkplaceNL’s appeal, asserting that the tribunal should not have standing to appeal in this context, especially when it seeks to restore its own decision.
Court’s analysis and decision
Justice W.H. Goodridge, delivering the reasons for judgment, focused on whether WorkplaceNL should be granted standing to appeal. The court referred to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Ontario (Energy Board) v. Ontario Power Generation Inc., which provides a discretionary framework for determining a tribunal’s standing on appeal.
The court considered three main factors:
Whether the appeal would otherwise be unopposed: The court noted that M.C., as the principal party affected, chose not to appeal. Therefore, WorkplaceNL was not the only entity capable of opposing the judicial review decision.
Availability of other parties with necessary expertise: M.C. was represented by legal counsel with adequate knowledge and expertise. The court found that WorkplaceNL’s participation was not essential for ensuring a just outcome.
Impartiality concerns: The court expressed significant concerns about WorkplaceNL’s impartiality. Allowing the tribunal to appeal its own quashed decision could compromise its neutrality, especially since the matter was remitted back to WorkplaceNL for reconsideration. The court emphasized, “Active participation by WorkplaceNL in the appeal would clearly discredit its impartiality in a situation where the matter is referred back to it for reconsideration.”
The court concluded that none of the factors supported granting WorkplaceNL standing to appeal. Justice Goodridge stated, “In the particular circumstances of this matter, I would deny WorkplaceNL standing to commence an appeal.”
Final orders and costs
The court allowed NL Hydro’s application and dismissed WorkplaceNL’s appeal. Additionally, the court declined NL Hydro’s request to set aside the judge’s order remitting the matter back to WorkplaceNL, stating that the tribunal is obliged to reconsider the matter with the benefit of the judge’s reasoning.
Regarding costs, the court ordered that NL Hydro be awarded costs under Column 3, payable by WorkplaceNL. No order as to costs was made in favour or against M.C., recognizing her limited role in the application.
For more information, see Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro-Electric Corporation v Newfoundland and Labrador (Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission), 2024 NLCA 37 (CanLII).
