A Nunavut teacher injured while trying to protect a student remained eligible for workers’ compensation even though the incident moved beyond school grounds, an appeals tribunal ruled.
In Decision 26-001, 2026 NTNUWCAT 1, issued April 22, 2026, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal dismissed the employer’s appeal and upheld a June 19, 2025 Review Committee decision accepting the worker’s entitlement.
Tribunal member Cynthia Levy found that the whole incident was connected to the worker’s duties as a teacher and acting vice-principal. Departures from crisis-response guidelines did not turn that intervention into an activity outside employment.
The decision determines eligibility, not a dollar amount. It identifies neither the school nor the people involved, in keeping with statutory privacy requirements and the tribunal’s practice directive.
One incident, not an unrelated offsite activity
The incident began during working hours inside a Nunavut school in November 2023. The teacher intervened in an altercation between two students and attempted to calm the situation. When the students left, the teacher alerted other staff and accompanied one student out of concern for that student’s safety. The teacher was subsequently assaulted by the other student off school premises.
The employer initially reported that the teacher’s actions were connected to the employer’s business, but later disputed compensation eligibility. It argued that leaving school property and failing to follow its crisis-response guidelines took the worker outside the scope of employment.
The tribunal assessed an uncontested documentary record. The employer had requested a documentary hearing, but none of the parties made submissions or participated in the appeal hearing. The result nevertheless rested on the evidence, legislation and policies, not an automatic win because another party was absent.
Work connection was more important than the property boundary
Nunavut’s Workers’ Compensation Act provides compensation for injuries arising out of and during the course of employment. The applicable policy explains that time and place are not strictly confined to regular working hours or the employer’s premises.
Levy found that protecting students was reasonably connected to the teacher’s responsibilities. Although no job description had been provided, the Education Act and the teachers’ code of ethics helped establish the responsibility to students.
The teacher had acted in good faith because of a legitimate, urgent safety concern. Even if accompanying the student could appear unwise in retrospect, the intervention remained directly linked to the worker’s role. Without that employment, the teacher would not have become involved.
The tribunal treated the altercation and the eventual assault as a single event. Its continuation outside the school did not sever the employment connection.
Guidelines were not mandatory limits on the teacher’s role
The employer relied on its crisis-response guidelines to argue otherwise. Levy found that the document offered advice and best practices for planning and managing emergencies, rather than mandatory directions redefining a teacher’s duties in a particular crisis.
The teacher followed some of that advice, including using calming language and alerting colleagues, while departing from other aspects by following the students offsite and not fully protecting the teacher’s own safety.
Those departures did not rebut the statutory presumption favouring work connection. Nor did the exception for injury caused solely by serious and wilful misconduct apply: the record showed no such misconduct, and the teacher’s conduct was not the sole cause of the injury.
Repeated reversals drew criticism
The compensation commission initially accepted the claim, placed it under review the next day, accepted it again after further information, and later denied it following the employer’s objections. A further denial in May 2025 preceded the Review Committee’s June reversal.
Levy criticized that handling against the statute’s goals of prompt, no-fault compensation and fair, compassionate treatment. Although claims may be reconsidered, this claim’s management had fallen short of those standards.
The employer’s appeal was denied. The ruling preserved compensation eligibility on the particular facts; it did not direct teachers to follow students offsite, decide any criminal charge or establish a new safety protocol.
