Québec's Workers' Compensation Tribunal, the
Commission des lésions professionnelles, (the
"Commission") recently struck a panel of three
commissioners in order to resolve conflicting decisions on the
application of section 327(1) of the Act respecting Industrial
Accidents and Occupational Diseases (the "Act")
concerning the imputation of certain costs. The commissioners have
now rendered their decision: when a worker experiences one or more
complications from treatment received for an occupational injury or
disease, the employer can request that the costs associated with
such a complication be transferred to all employers, on one
The Commission also ruled that such a
complication must have been the subject of a decision by the CSST,
Quebec's occupational health and safety board. The decision
must accept the complication as an injury arising out of care
received or omitted to be provided for an employment injury,
pursuant to section 31 of the Act, which reads as follows:
31. An injury or a disease is considered to be an
employment injury if it arises out of or in the course of
the care received by a worker for an employment injury or
the lack of such care;
an activity prescribed to the worker as part of the medical
treatment he receives for an employment injury or as part of his
personal rehabilitation program.
But wait! If the injury or disease is accepted by the CSST
as having arisen out of an initial occupational
injury, even if it is evident that it arose in the context
of medical care or treatment for the initial injury, the employer
will not have the right to the imputation of costs provided for in
section 327 of the Act, which reads as follows:
327. The Commission shall impute to the employers of all the
units the cost of
(1) benefits due by reason of an employment injury described
in section 31;
(1) medical aid benefits due by reason of an employment
injury that does not make the worker unable to carry on his
employment beyond the day on which his injury appears.
Consequently, in managing your files it is extremely important
to pay close attention when the CSST accepts a new diagnosis of
such a complication: if you think the new diagnosis arises out of
medical treatment received or omitted to be provided by a doctor,
the CSST's decision must so indicate by expressly specifying
that the new diagnosis is accepted pursuant to section 31 of the
If the CSST doesn't so specify, contest the decision so that
the clarification is made by either the CSST review board
(Direction de la révision administrative) or the
Commission. Remember that you have 30 days from the date of its
notification to contest a decision initially rendered by the
By doing so, you will probably be able to benefit from section
327 of the Act and have your file shorn of all of the costs
associated with the new diagnosis (e.g. treatments, medical
appointments, income replacement benefits exclusively related to
the injury or disease, etc.)
*Canadelle s.e.c. et Commission de la
santé et de la sécurité du
travail, 2014 QCCLP 6290.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Labour and employment law had some interesting developments in 2016. What follows are a few highlights from the last year and an introduction to an issue that may attract significant attention in 2017.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).