Manitoba worker need not repay $4,990 overpayment after WCB failed to explain payments

A Manitoba worker who received $4,990.10 in duplicate wage-loss benefits does not have to repay the money because the Workers Compensation Board notified them months after its error and had not adequately explained the payments. In Decision 16/26, signed April 9, 2026, the Manitoba Appeal Commission confirmed the overpayment but overturned the requirement to repay it.

The distinction was central to the ruling: proving that benefits were paid twice did not automatically justify recovery. Section 109.2 of The Workers Compensation Act gives the WCB discretion to recover excess compensation, while its overpayment policy limits recovery of administrative errors reported after 30 days to circumstances in which the worker should have been aware of the mistake. The panel found that condition was not met here.

Retroactive benefits paid twice

The payments arose after an earlier successful appeal concerning a graduated return-to-work plan. As described in the new reasons, the Appeal Commission’s January 2025 decision found that plan inappropriate. The WCB then recalculated benefits to implement the ruling, including the difference between partial and full wage-loss benefits for June 19 to July 30, 2023.

On February 7, 2025, the WCB deposited $4,990.10 into the worker’s account. A second deposit on February 19 totalled $6,937.45, combining another payment of the same wage-loss amount with a $1,947.35 shelter rebate. The overall deposits therefore differed even though they contained duplicate compensation for the same earnings period.

Between those deposits, the worker asked the WCB to explain the benefits received. A case manager responded that an explanation would be provided once the payment assessor finalized it. The appeal panel found no evidence that the promised explanation was subsequently supplied.

The WCB advised the worker of the overpayment on July 9, 2025, approximately five months after the error. Review Office upheld recovery that November, reasoning that the worker knew or should have known about the duplication because system-generated statements had been mailed and the same benefit amount had been paid twice. The worker appealed, and the commission heard the matter on March 25, 2026. The employer did not participate.

Overpayment and recovery were separate questions

The worker challenged both the finding of overpayment and the obligation to repay. Their advisor argued that the WCB had identified duplicate payments for one period without assessing the worker’s total entitlement across the claim. Under Policy 22.00, Decision Making, WCB adjudicators are responsible for gathering, assessing and weighing sufficient evidence, with workers and employers required to cooperate. The advisor said a claim-wide assessment was necessary before finding a debt.

The panel accepted that the WCB had not carried out a global comparison of benefits owed and benefits paid. It expressly made no finding about the worker’s overall claim entitlement. But it would not disregard the acknowledged duplicate payment for the particular period under appeal. That evidence established an overpayment of $4,990.10 for June 19 to July 30, 2023.

Recovery required a different analysis. Section 109.2 permits an overpayment to be recovered as a debt; it does not make recovery mandatory. Policy 35.40.50, Overpayment of Benefits, guides that discretion. For an administrative error, the policy provides for recovery when the worker is notified within 30 days. After that period, the WCB may still pursue recovery if the worker should have been aware of the error.

The policy also requires the WCB, when pursuing recovery, to notify the worker, confirm the details in writing and establish a recovery plan. The ruling did not treat 30 days as an absolute limitation period or hold that every administrative mistake must be forgiven. It examined whether this worker reasonably should have recognized this particular mistake.

Missing explanations defeated the knowledge finding

The panel rejected Review Office’s conclusion about the worker’s awareness. The deposits were made roughly a year and a half after the earnings period they covered, and their totals differed because one included the shelter rebate. Without an explanation of the components, the duplication was not apparent simply from comparing the deposits.

The panel also examined the documents relied on to explain the payments. Direct-deposit statements in the claim file had been printed in October 2025 at Review Office’s request. Their presence did not establish that the worker had received an explanation when the deposits were made. The panel accepted the worker’s evidence that no payment-explanation documents had arrived, supported by the contemporaneous request to the case manager.

Even the July overpayment notice did not explain when or how the mistake occurred. Although it referred to an attached calculation sheet, no copy of that attachment was in the file. The panel found that the WCB had failed to explain the calculation despite the worker’s request and its own promise to do so.

In the panel’s assessment, the worker was not responsible for understanding the details of the WCB’s individual wage-loss calculations. The WCB was responsible for sharing that information when asked. Those communication failures, the timing and the differing payment totals meant it was unreasonable to find that the worker should have known about the error.

A limited, partly successful appeal

The panel said it generally supported repayment of overpaid benefits, but concluded that the WCB should not have exercised its discretion to recover this amount in these circumstances. Applying the balance-of-probabilities standard, it allowed the appeal in part: the duplicate payment remained an overpayment, but the worker was not responsible for repaying it.

The result is not a damages award, a new benefit entitlement or a determination of the worker’s overall financial position on the claim. It illustrates the separate justification required for recovery under the administrative-error policy, particularly where the WCB has not supplied information needed to identify a mistake. The reasons do not establish whether any later collection or accounting steps were taken.