Consistent Post-Accident Work Does Not Preclude Receipt of IRBs Beyond 104 Weeks

In the recent Licence Appeal Tribunal (“LAT”) reconsideration decision of B.L.J. v. The Co-Operators Insurance Company (18-012005/AABS), adjudicator Victor denies the Respondent’s request for reconsideration.

In the initial decision, adjudicator Victor concluded that the applicant continued to be entitled to receive income replacement benefits (“IRBs”) beyond 104 weeks of disability despite that they had been working consistently subsequent to the accident.

For purposes of the reconsideration, the Respondent states, “… the Tribunal erred when it relied on the … the proposition that post-accident employment that is substantially different in nature, status and remuneration may not be considered an appropriate alternative.” Specifically, the respondent asserted that it was an error to consider the applicant’s post-accident part-time employment at an assisted living residence substantially different in nature, status and remuneration such that it does not qualify as a reasonable alternative to her pre-accident full-time employment as a chef.

However, the applicant argues that her post-accident employment activities are significantly different from her employment activities prior to the accident, stating the following, “… there was clear evidence on the record that the applicant’s part-time work at the Residence is significantly different from the applicant’s pre-accident full-time position as a chef at the family restaurant where she had worked (the Restaurant).”

Adjudicator Victor’s analysis finds that, “… the applicant’s current part time job is not an appropriate alternative to her pre-accident employment at a fast-paced restaurant for various reasons including part time hours, the nature of the work which is sedentary and consists of light duties together with her very accommodating employer. Further the Tribunal found that the applicant “is not especially successful” at her part-time job and“[u]nder different management she might have been let go.” These facts show that the applicant suffers from a complete inability to engage in any employment for which she is reasonably suited by education, training or experience.”

Based on the above, the adjudicator denied the Respondent’s request for reconsideration. As the applicant’s post-accident employment as a result of the accident was substantially different from her employment prior to the accident, she continued to be entitled to IRBs in the post-104 week period.

Read the decision in full detail here: B.L.J. v. The Co-Operators Insurance Company (18-012005/AABS)