The employee worked in various capacities at a resort and was given room and board reasonably priced
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal refused to include an employee’s room and board in the calculation of income replacement benefits after a motor vehicle accident left the employee injured.
In Custer v Saskatchewan Government Insurance, 2024 SKCA 18, Arthur Custer received income replacement benefits (IRB) from Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI), calculated solely based on his wage from a remote resort. His employer had also provided him with room and board, which SGI classified as sustenance, not to be considered in the IRB calculation. Challenging this classification, Custer asserted that SGI should have included it in the IRB amount as a benefit.
Custer appealed SGI’s decision to the Court of Queen’s Bench, which dismissed his appeal. Undeterred, Custer then took his case to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, arguing that the Chambers judge had misinterpreted relevant jurisprudence and followed non-binding decisions from the Automobile Injury Appeal Commission (AIAC).
Most Read
The Court of Appeal thoroughly reviewed the background of Custer's employment and the specifics of the room and board provision. Custer had worked in various capacities at the resort and was given room and board reasonably priced. Following his injury in a motor vehicle accident, SGI determined his IRB based only on his wage, excluding the value of room and board.
The appeal centred on whether the cash value of room and board should count towards Custer's yearly employment income under the relevant regulations. The Court analyzed the arguments presented, referencing pertinent cases and statutory interpretation principles.
The court concluded that the chamber's judge had correctly interpreted the regulations but noted a potential overstatement regarding benefits needing to provide a fund for discretionary spending or cover expenses allowing for other discretionary income uses. Despite this, the court found that this interpretation did not materially affect the outcome, affirming that the room and board provided to Custer did not constitute a benefit to be included in the IRB calculation as it was designed for reimbursement of expenses incurred due to employment requirements, thus being revenue neutral.
The court ultimately dismissed Custer's appeal, ordering him to pay costs to SGI for the leave application and the appeal, totalling $1,500.
