Case dropped due to injury sustained during ‘religious cleansing ritual’

Nova Scotia’s highest court says Nova Scotia’s Workers’ Compensation Board was right when it ruled there was no connection between a petitioner’s job and his injury after he hurt his back during a “religious cleansing ritual” at work .

In a decision released Tuesday, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal said an application filed by Richard Tufts would be rejected “with no cost to either party.”

The matter dates back to 2020 when Tufts, who worked as a cleaner for GDI Services, was assigned to Alderney Gate in Dartmouth.

While working on August 17, 2020, he went to a private bathroom to perform wudu, which involves washing different parts of the body in preparation for Muslim prayer, including the feet. Tufts slipped and fell to the floor after he finished the ritual, injuring his back.

Later that week, GDI filed an accident report with the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB), as well as a letter objecting to Tufts’ claim on the grounds that the accident “occurred as a result of a personal, non-work related activity”.

In September of that year, a case officer found that Tufts had not been injured at work, meaning the incident did not meet the standard set out in section 10 of the Workers’ Compensation Act, which states that when “personal injury by a accident resulting from and inflicted on an employee in the course of employment, the board of directors shall pay compensation to the employee.”

“In particular, at the time of the injury, the case manager concluded that the applicant was not at work or performing a duty, but rather was performing a religious ceremony unrelated to his job,” the decision reads.

Tufts appealed the case worker’s decision. However, the decision was confirmed later in 2020 by a WCB auditor and in 2021 by the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal (WCAT).

Tufts appealed again, arguing that the tribunal erred in its interpretation of the employment criteria in the law and Workers’ Compensation Board policy 1.3.7R, which outlines the requirements that must be met to receive compensation and benefits .

However, the court ruled that the decision-making on the part of the board and the court was sound.

“WCAT clearly followed policy in concluding that the applicant was not engaged in activities related to his employment,” the decision reads. “The injury was not during his work.”

“After determining that the activity that caused the injury was unrelated to the applicant’s work activities and was not caused by any activity of the employer,” the decision continues, “WCAT determined that the injury also did not arise from his job. “