COURT FILE NUMBER COURT JUDICIAL CENTRE PLAINTIFFS: DEFENDANTS DOCUMENT PARTY FILING THIS DOCUMENT ADDRESS FOR SERVICE AND CONTACT INFORMATION OF PARTY FILING THIS DOCUMENT Form 14 (Rule 331] 1703 - 20378 Clerk's Stamp COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF ALBERTA EDMONTON HENRY JOHN TWILHAAR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD ‘STATEMENT OF DEFENCE THE WORKERS" COMPENSATION BOARD OF ALBERTA The Workers’ Compensation Board Legal Services Department 9925 107 Street, PO Box 2415 Edmonton, AB T5J 285. Lawyer: Manoj Gupta Direct Line: (780) 498 8666 Fax Line: (780) 498 7876 Note: State below only facts and not evidence (Rule 13.6) Statement of facts relied on: 1. This Statement of Defence is filed on behalf of The Workers’ Compensation Board of Alberta (the "WCB"). 2. The WCB is a statutory corporation, continued pursuant to the provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. W-15, as amended ("WCA"), having exclusive jurisdiction to deal with all matters arising under the WCA.3. Pursuant to the provisions of the WCA, the WCB has exclusive jurisdiction to ‘examine, inquire into, hear and determine all matters and questions arising under the WCA, and its decision is final and conclusive and are not open to question or review by any court. 4, Jodi Sandquist ("Ms. Sanquist"), referred to in the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim, is employed by the WCB as a Case Manager. 5. The Plaintiff was employed by Cottswood Interiors Ltd. as a shipper / receiver, in or around December 5, 2011, when, while walking backwards and lifting a sofa up one step, his shoe came off causing him to slip and fall and land on the lateral edge of his foot (the “Accident’). The WCB accepted the Plaintif’s claim for a right foot contusion, cellulitis and subsequently for a partial amputation of three right foot digits. 6. In 2015, the Plaintiff appealed a decision of the WCB's internal Dispute Resolution and Decision Review Body (‘DRDRB"), seeking a review if the decision to estimate his monthly wage loss benefits on the position of Order Desk Clerk. On August 17, 2015 the Appeals Commission held that the Plaintiffs workers’ ‘compensation benefits were appropriately calculated (the “2015 AC Decision’). 7. Atno time subsequent to August 17, 2015 did the Plaintiff commence a judicial review application of the 2015 AC Decision or a statutory appeal, as were his rights under the WCA. 8. In 2016, the Plaintiff appealed a second decision of the DRORB, seeking further claim entitlement respecting bilateral (left and right) foot ulcerations. On August 10, 2016, the Appeals Commission held that the Plaintiff developed right foot ulceration as a consequence of his work-related injuries, and accordingly, referred the Plaintiff's entitlement to further workers’ compensation benefits back to the WCB for further investigation and adjudication (the "2016 AC Decision"). 9. The WCB states that at all material times, the WCB, through its servants, ‘employees, or agents, met every duty, statutory or otherwise, that it may have had tothe Plaintiff. 10. The WCB states that its employees conducted themselves professionally, in good faith, without negligence or bias and with the honest belief that they were acting within their jurisdiction as set out in the WCA. At all material times, WCB employees exercised the skill and care expected in the discharge of their duties. 11. The WCB denies each and every allegation contained in the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim and puts the Plaintiff to the strict proof thereof, except as hereinafter expressly admitted. 12. The WCB denies it was criminally negligent or in any way involved in criminal activity, as alleged in the Statement of Claim and puts the Plaintiff to the strict proof thereof. 13. The WCB denies it acted with malice, willfully neglected to perform its duties, or engaged in any willful misconduct, as alleged in the Statement of Claim, or at all, 14, The WCB denies that any aspect of its actions or decisions regarding the investigation, management and adjudication of the Plaintiff's worker's compensation claim constituted abuse, neglect, negligence or malfeasance in any manner. Any matters that defeat the claim of the Plaintiff: 15. In answer to the whole of the Statement of Claim, the Defendant pleads and relies upon the provisions of the WCA and states that the Statement of Claim repeatedly threatens the Defendant and its staff, including their respective family, friends, and colleagues, with bodily harm and as such, is an abuse of process. 16. Pursuant to the provi ns of the WCA, the WCB has exclusive jurisdiction to examine, inquire into, hear and determine all matters and questions arising under the WCA and regulations.17. The Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta's jurisdiction to address the matters raised in the Statement of Claim, which relate to the entitlement to compensation under the WCA, is limited to applications for judicial appeal pursuant to section 13.4 of the WCA and judicial review pursuant to the Alberta Rules of Court 18. The Statement of Claim seeks remedies for injuries the Plaintiff attributes to the Accident and that the Plaintiff alleges to have known of since 2011. Pursuant to the provisions of the Limitation Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. L-12, the Plaintiff is barred from pursuing such claims. 19. The WCA and Alberta Rules of Court require an application for judicial review or judicial appeal of an administrative body's decision to be filed and served within 6 months of the relevant decision. The Plaintiff failed to judicially review the 2015 AC Decision within the 6 month time period and is barred from further reviewing any matters addressed in the 2015 AC Decision. 20. Pursuant to ss. 46 and 13.2 of the WCA a person who is dissatisfied with a decision of the WCB, must follow the legislated process for appeal; first to the DRDRB and second to the Appeals Commission. Other than the matters involved in the 2015 ‘AC Decision and 2016 AC Decision, the Plaintiff has failed to appeal any other WCB decision to the DRDRB or the Appeals Commission and is barred from appealing any decision not previously heard by the Appeals Commission to the Court of Queen's Bench, 21. The provisions of the WCA further prohibit the bringing or maintaining of any action against the WCB, or any of their employees, officers, or members, in respect of any act or decision done or made in the honest belief that it was within the jurisdiction of the WCA. Accordingly, the within action is statutorily barred pursuant to sections 13.4(9) and 17(2) of the WCA and constitutes an abuse of process. 22. The relief sought in the Statement of Claim has no basis. 23. Should the Court of Queen's Bench determine it has the jurisdiction to hear thetrial of this action, which is not admitted but expressly denied, the WCB agrees to such trial being held at the Court House, in the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta. Remedy sought: 24. The WCB asks that the within Statement of Claim be dismissed with costs.