NB Court upholds full deduction of Canada Pension Plan disability benefits in workplace injury case

Appellant argued some disability benefits were related to pre-existing conditions

NB Court upholds full deduction of Canada Pension Plan disability benefits in workplace injury case

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal has upheld the decision to fully deduct Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability benefits from workers' compensation benefits despite the appellant's argument that some disability benefits are related to pre-existing conditions.

In Bushey v. Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission, 2023 NBCA 72, Mark Bushey has had deafness and left-eye blindness all his life. He worked as a full-time employee at Miramichi Regional Hospital until a workplace accident 2015 caused injuries to his left shoulder and neck. His claim for benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act was accepted. Furthermore, since efforts at rehabilitation and a return to work proved unsuccessful, Bushey qualified for long-term disability (LTD) benefits under the act.

Bushey applied for CPP disability benefits, which were eventually approved with conditions related to psychogenic pain, depression, and anxiety.

In New Brunswick, when an injured worker qualifies for workers' compensation and CPP disability benefits, provincial legislation requires a proportional reduction of the workers' compensation benefits.

Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission determined that the conditions related to psychogenic pain, depression, and anxiety were fully associated with Bushey's workplace injury. The practical implication of that determination for Bushey was that 100 percent of his retroactive and ongoing CPP disability benefits would be deducted from his workers' compensation benefits.

Bushey contended that at least a portion of his CPP disability benefits relate to long-term conditions that predate his workplace injury by many years. He argued that the compensation for depression and anxiety was at least partly tied to his deafness and blindness, which had nothing to do with his workplace injury. Consequently, the deduction should not be 100 percent. Bushey appealed to the NB Court of Appeal, seeking to overturn the Commission's decision.

In his appeal, Bushey argued that the Commission failed to gather comprehensive documentation from Employment and Social Development Canada, which was needed to make a fair and informed decision on his claim.

The appeal court noted that the "single most frustrating aspect of this case centers on the difficulty experienced by Mr. Bushey and the Commission in obtaining highly relevant information from Employment and Social Development Canada."

Bushey argued that the Commission should have done more, but it was unclear to the court what more could have been done. There was sufficient evidence in the record to establish that the Commission did work diligently to secure Bushey's information from Employment and Social Development Canada, with limited success.

The court acknowledged that the Commission attempted to collect information to determine the amount of CPPD benefits to be deducted from Bushey's LTD benefits. Despite its attempts, the Commission failed to receive the information required to determine the amount of CPPD benefits attributable to the compensable work injury. The Commission decided the full amount of CPPD benefits would be deducted using the available information.

While the court was sympathetic to Bushey's situation, the Commission and the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal were constrained in their respective reviews because of a lack of information. They were required to adjudicate the claim using the evidence before them. The court noted that the policy, in effect, required the Commission to use "available information to reasonably determine the amount of CPPD that was paid in respect to the injury or recurrence of injury."

The court further noted that some medical evidence in the record indicated that Bushey's depression and anxiety predated the compensable injury." However, the court observed that the tribunal faced the inarguable fact that Bushey was working full-time up to the workplace accident despite his significant medical challenges.

The court concluded that Bushey had not established any error on the part of the Commission that would allow for appellate intervention. Accordingly, the court dismissed his appeal.

Recent articles & video

BC Court of Appeal overturns ruling requiring disclosure of privileged information on birth alerts

Ontario Superior Court finds Ottawa negligent in response to Uber's entry, damaging taxi industry

BC Supreme Court upholds drivers' liability in car crash injuring cyclist

Ontario Superior Court orders child's return from Alberta in custody dispute

Alberta court rules expert evidence inadmissible following settlement in medical negligence case

New metric developed to assess socioeconomic challenges of US law school applicants

Most Read Articles

Alberta court refuses to stay bankruptcy proceedings in favour of family law proceedings

New CRA audit powers proposed in federal budget raise uncertainty, say Davies tax lawyers

Mergers and acquisitions in the AI space need unique due diligence considerations: Dentons lawyers

Poilievre's plan to trample Charter rights won't stop at tough-on-crime measures