Muslim ritual that led to workplace injury does not justify compensation, NS court confirms

An Alderney Gate cleaner who injured his back during a ritual Islamic cleansing ceremony is not entitled to disability benefits, the county’s highest court has confirmed.

Richard Tufts took his case to the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal after the Workers Compensation Board and his appellate body both rejected his request for benefits.

“The petitioner clocked into his shift on August 17, 2020 and then proceeded to a small private restroom on the second floor,” said Judge David P.S. Farrar in a recent three-judge panel decision.

“He first used the sanitary facilities and then performed a religious cleansing ritual, wuḍū, in which water is poured over parts of the body, including the feet. While putting one of his socks back on, the applicant slipped and fell to the ground, injuring his back.”

Employer objects

Tufts worked for GDI Services (Canada) LP.

“On August 20, 2020, GDI filed an accident report with the Workers’ Compensation Board in relation to the incident,” the Court of Appeals decision said.

“GDI also filed a letter with the WCB objecting to the applicant’s claim on the basis that the accident occurred as a result of a personal, non-work related activity.”

A little over a month later, a WCB employee determined that Tufts had not suffered any personal injury “accidentally arising out of and in the course of his job,” according to the court’s ruling.

“In particular, at the time of the injury, the case officer concluded that the applicant was not working or performing a duty, but rather was performing a religious ceremony unrelated to his job. As such, the case manager found that there was no causal relationship between the appellant’s work and his injury.”

‘Personal reasons’

Tufts appealed that decision internally to the WCB.

“In a decision dated 19 November 2020, a WCB hearing officer ruled that the applicant had not suffered any personal injury as a result of an accident as a result of and during his employment. The hearing officer concluded that the applicant had withdrawn from his employment in order to wash his feet for personal reasons.”

Tufts appealed again.

“On March 30, 2021 (the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal) held an oral hearing where the appellant testified and his representative submitted oral submissions,” the court decision said.

The tribunal rejected his appeal two months later.

“WCAT found that there was no causal link between the applicant’s injury and the risk posed by his work,” the court’s ruling said.

“It concluded that the applicant suffered no injury as a result of his work.”

‘Any problem’

Tufts then took his case to court.

“The only issue on which appeal was granted was whether WCAT had erred on a point of law or jurisdiction in the application and interpretation (of the law and its own policies) in determining that the appellant suffered no personal injury. due to an accident arising from and during his work when he was injured on August 17, 2020,” said the province’s highest court.

Tufts argued that the WCB appeals panel “made a mistake in concluding that the injury did not arise from work because the activity being performed at the time was not ancillary to the job.”

The panel was wrong in its interpretation that injury “must arise as a result of a risk associated with employment” to warrant compensation, his attorneys told the court.

It also messed up “his interpretation of employment-related activities,” Tufts said.

‘Causality’

Just because someone is injured at work doesn’t mean they automatically get disability benefits, the Court of Appeals said.

“The words ‘resulting from work’ refer to the origin of the cause of the injury. For an accident and resulting injury to be considered work-related, there must be a causal relationship between the worker’s job and the injury he sustained,” Farrar said.

“Generally, this means that the accident and resulting injury must be caused by some risk associated with the job. The risk may be directly or incidentally related to employment; and the injury may be the result of a single incident or develop over time. However, an injury is not necessarily compensable simply because it happened or the symptoms occurred in the workplace.”

According to the court ruling, the WCB normally considers whether the activity that led to an injury was a job requirement, whether it happened while the employee was engaged in doing something for the benefit of the employer, or whether it happened while following instructions of the employer, whether the employee was using equipment provided by the employer when it happened, and whether the injury was caused by an activity of the employer or a co-worker.

The WCB also looks at whether an employee was paid for the activity that led to the injury, whether it happened on the employer’s property, whether the employee was traveling for work purposes when he was injured, and whether his job exposed him to a greater risk. risk of injury than the public.

‘Must be suspicious’

“Courts should be wary of attempts to judge this area on anything other than the level of general principles,” the Court of Appeal said.

“History does not bode well for success in generating detailed rules or guidelines. Apart from these general guiding principles, the application of the ‘arising from and in employment’ requirement is a fact-based exercise.”

The WCB appeals tribunal ruled that Tufts was not working when he hurt his back.

“The employee’s activity was not a job requirement and was not performed for the benefit of the employer or at the employer’s behest,” it said. “The employer’s instruction to generally perform the ritual as quickly as possible does not equate to the activity being ordered by the employer.”

According to the court’s new ruling, the WCB appeals tribunal “correctly followed administrative policy and applied applicable law to the facts of the appellant’s case.”

‘finding fact’

That is a finding of “fact based on the evidence and is not subject to review by this court,” Farrar said.

“Even if, after reading WCAT’s decision as a whole, I was convinced that the applicant was employed when he sustained his injury, there was sufficient evidence for WCAT to rebut the presumption and find that it did not arise from his employment.”

The WCB appeals tribunal ruled that “there was no connection between (Tufts’) job duties and his decision to enter the washroom”, that “there was no risk associated with his work leading to the injury; and there was ‘no causal relationship between the activities leading to the worker’s injury and a risk created by his employment.’”

Tufts’ real complaint on this issue isn’t how WCAT assessed risk; it is his disagreement with these factual findings and his belief that because the accident occurred in the employer’s washroom, his employment ‘contributed, at least in part, in a non-negligible way to the injury’.”

But that’s not the law, the appeals court said.

‘No suspicion’

“There is no presumption of compensation just because the accident occurs on the employer’s property,” Farrar said.

WCB’s appeals tribunal “found that there was nothing in the workplace that posed an ‘additional risk’ to the appellant or put him at greater risk of injury than a member of the public,” the judge said.

“Its decision correctly applies the termination of employment law to the facts it found. In the end, WCAT found that there was no risk associated with his job that led to the injury.

The Court of Appeals did not agree with Tufts’ attempt to argue that the WCB Court of Appeals’ interpretation of whether an activity is ancillary to employment was incorrect.

“With all due respect, this is a veiled attempt to challenge WCAT’s factual findings,” said Farrar, who dismissed the case.