An Alberta worker who suffered a serious shoulder injury in a workplace accident lost his appeal for permanent coverage of dog walking services, despite arguing the loss of this ability severely impacted his mental health and forced him to rehome one of his three large dogs.
The Appeals Commission for Alberta Workers’ Compensation upheld a Workers’ Compensation Board decision denying long-term dog walking benefits to E.P., who injured his right shoulder in January 2020 while carrying a 180-pound item down steep stairs with a co-worker.
While the WCB provided temporary dog walking services during E.P.’s recovery under short-term home assistance benefits, it terminated this coverage once his restrictions were deemed permanent. The commission found that permanent dog walking services weren’t contemplated under existing policies for workers with long-term disabilities.
Worker argues dogs essential for mental health
E.P. told the commission his dogs were crucial for his psychological well-being, particularly as he has PTSD and the animals serve as “a safety line for him.” He had already been forced to rehome one dog due to the loss of walking services and was considering rehoming his remaining two dogs together.
“The worker tried to explain to the WCB that denying coverage for dog walking services not only took away from his sense of independence in not being able to provide needed exercise for his dogs, but it also severely impacted his mental health,” the decision noted.
E.P.’s shoulder injury resulted in permanent restrictions including a maximum lift/carry capacity of 15 pounds and limitations on pushing, pulling and ladder use. Medical assessments confirmed he could not safely walk his large dogs, which weigh over 100 pounds.
Policy limits benefits to acute recovery phase
The commission found that WCB policies clearly limit dog walking coverage to the temporary recovery period. Short-term home assistance is intended to help seriously injured workers “maintain their homes during the acute phase of medical recovery,” according to policy.
Once workers develop permanent restrictions, they become eligible for home maintenance and housekeeping allowances instead. E.P. was receiving $276 monthly for housekeeping and $244.11 monthly for home maintenance.
“We see nothing in WCB Policy 04-10, Applications 2 or 3, that would allow the WCB to pay additional coverage for dog walking services, that is over and above what is already being provided to the worker through the HMA and an HKA,” the commission wrote.
WCB business procedures specifically state that pet care benefits aren’t payable “after the acute period due to long term or permanent restrictions.”
Broad legislative interpretation rejected
E.P.’s representative argued that section 89 of the Workers’ Compensation Act should be interpreted broadly, as it allows the board to “take whatever measures it considers necessary” to assist injured workers and “lessen or eliminate any handicap resulting from that injury.”
The commission acknowledged this section allows for broad interpretation but said it must be read alongside WCB policies. The existing home maintenance and housekeeping allowances already provide “full coverage for the worker’s needs,” it found.
An occupational therapist had suggested the worker might benefit from assistive aids like training with a certified pet behaviourist or an electronic collar to help control his dogs. However, the WCB didn’t follow up on these recommendations, and E.P. admitted he hadn’t researched potential aids like harnesses or dog treadmills.
Employer argues against lifestyle funding
The employer’s representative argued that providing permanent dog walking services would set a problematic precedent where workers’ lifestyle choices are compensated by the system.
“Dog ownership is a personal choice unless there is a possibility of a service dog that could change this. Pet care is not recognized as a medically necessary daily function,” the employer argued.
The representative said such coverage would create inequities where one worker receives considerably more funding based on personal choices, which isn’t the intent of legislation and policy.
Commission acknowledges psychological impact
While dismissing the appeal, the commission acknowledged the significant psychological impact on E.P.
“We acknowledge the worker has lost the ability to walk his dogs on a permanent basis and that not being able to walk his dogs is an ongoing reminder of his work-related handicap, particularly given the worker’s evidence that ‘his dogs are his life,'” it wrote.
However, the commission noted it had no psychological evidence supporting that E.P. requires his dogs as service animals or that his PTSD had been aggravated by the workplace accident.
E.P. had requested compensation on grounds that either his injury or the decision to deny dog walking services had aggravated his pre-existing PTSD, but this issue was still under review.
The commission left open the possibility that E.P. could discuss assistive aids with the WCB, noting this question fell outside the scope of their decision on dog walking coverage.
For more information, see Decision No.: 2025-0295, 2025 CanLII 55785 (AB WCAC).
