Workers' comp case thrown out
NWT Court of Appeals rejects former Giant Mine worker's claim over filing delay
Shane Magee
Northern News Services
Wednesday, November 23, 2016
SOMBA K'E/YELLOWKNIFE
The NWT Court of Appeals has ruled against a man seeking to have his compensation claim revisited after he was exposed to arsenic and other chemicals while working at Giant Mine nearly three decades ago.
Stephen Petersen stated he was "disappointed" in the court's ruling in an e-mail to Yellowknifer on Monday about the ruling.
"This case raised an important question about the core mandate of the (Workers' Safety and Compensation Commission) and how they treat injured workers' claims and the onus of proof that has to be met," he stated.
"It was disheartening to see the Court of Appeal overturn a decision that considered the individual aspects of my case, in favour of general legal principles."
Petersen was working at Giant Mine in 1988 when he was cleaning up spilled tailings pond material containing arsenic, mercury, cyanide and other toxins without proper protective equipment.
Hours after exposure, he began experiencing mobility and urination issues and was eventually diagnosed with acute transverse myelitis, an inflammation of the spinal cord.
His initial claim in 1988 was denied by the Workers Compensation Board (as it was then called) which ruled his injuries were unrelated to his work.
An appeals tribunal rejected his request to have the issue reheard in 2011.
More than three and a half years later, Petersen sought to have the NWT Supreme Court review the tribunal's decision.
The commission filed a motion to have the case quashed because Petersen missed the 30-day window to file a request for judicial review.
Justice Andrew Mahar dismissed the commission's motion in February.
The commission appealed Mahar's decision to the NWT Court of Appeals. The case was heard by a panel of three judges in Yellowknife on Oct. 25.
In a decision issued Thursday, the court ruled in part that Mahar had erred.
"(Mahar) provided virtually no reasons for concluding that Mr. Petersen has an arguable case," read the decision signed by Justices Marina Paperny, Leigh Gower and Sheilah Martin.
The judges concluded Petersen didn't actively pursue his case after the compensation commission's rejection of his claim and couldn't explain why he relaunched his bid.
With that, the appeal by commission of Mahar's decision was upheld and Petersen's case ended.
Compensation commission spokesperson Kim Walker stated in an e-mail to Yellowknifer the case highlights the importance of deadlines.
"There must be a point in which decisions are final, so that all parties (employers, workers, and the commission) can rely on them and move forward," Walker stated.
"While this matter has ended, should new evidence arise, Mr. Petersen could make a new application to the Appeals Tribunal."
Petersen, who stated he was out of the country at the time the ruling was released, was weighing his options but had not decided a course of action yet.
