Manitoba employer wins claim-suppression appeal over insufficient evidence

Manitoba’s Appeal Commission has overturned a finding that an employer suppressed a worker’s compensation claim, concluding that a photograph relied on by investigators did not, on its own, establish prohibited interference with the worker’s claim.

In Decision 34/26, signed May 25, 2026, the commission granted the unnamed firm’s appeal. Having found no contravention of section 19.1(1) of The Workers Compensation Act, the panel ruled that the separate question of a $4,000 administrative penalty was moot.

The decision did not endorse the photograph. The panel accepted that it and the surrounding circumstances could reasonably be considered inappropriate or in poor taste. Its conclusion was narrower: the evidence before it did not establish that the employer had acted to prevent or discourage a compensation claim. The public reasons do not describe what the photograph depicted.

Investigation and appeal

The Workers Compensation Board’s Compliance Services issued a notice of allegation on August 6, 2025, accusing the firm of discouraging a worker from claiming compensation. Following its investigation, the WCB advised the firm on December 22 that it had committed claim suppression and was required to pay a $4,000 administrative penalty.

The firm appealed on January 21, 2026. At the March 26 hearing, the employer made an oral presentation and answered the panel’s questions. It denied interfering with the worker’s ability to apply for, pursue or receive compensation.

The employer criticized the investigation as superficial, saying investigators had not contacted former workers to assess its practices. It maintained that it encouraged workers to report injuries and make claims, and argued that any financial saving from suppressing a claim would have been negligible. Those were the employer’s submissions, not independent findings that every aspect of its workplace practices was appropriate.

What the prohibition covers

Section 19.1(1) prohibits an employer, or someone acting on its behalf, from taking action that prevents or discourages—or attempts to prevent or discourage—a worker from applying for compensation, pursuing an existing application or receiving compensation. The prohibition therefore extends beyond an express instruction not to file an initial claim.

The reasons explain that a contravention can attract an administrative penalty under section 109.7(1). They identify Manitoba Regulation 71/2021 as setting a $4,000 amount for a first offence. The panel was considering both whether the prohibited conduct occurred and whether the resulting penalty should apply.

The panel also reviewed WCB Policy 22.20, Compliance and Enforcement, and its administrative guidelines. For specified contraventions, including claim suppression, the guidelines recognize defences where the evidence establishes that a person took all reasonable care to avoid the contravention or reasonably believed in mistaken facts that, if true, would have made the act innocent.

Those defences did not decide this appeal. The panel stated that the employer could succeed by establishing, on a balance of probabilities, either that it had not contravened the Act or that an available defence applied. It ultimately found no contravention, rather than excusing proven suppression or reducing a penalty for it.

Photograph did not establish suppression on this record

After reviewing the investigation materials, the panel found no direct evidence that the employer instructed the worker not to file, discouraged the worker from seeking benefits or otherwise attempted to interfere with entitlement. It also found no explicit communication or conduct directing the worker not to pursue a claim.

The WCB had relied significantly on a photograph posted by the employer. Although the panel acknowledged the concerns it could raise, it could not find that the photograph alone established action to prevent or discourage the worker from making or pursuing a claim.

The absence of corroboration was important. The panel identified no additional evidence of pressure not to report an injury, threatened consequences for filing, incentives not to file, or other conduct prohibited by section 19.1(1).

The panel considered the employer’s account that it generally encouraged injury reporting and appropriate WCB claims. But it expressly did not base its decision solely on those assurances or the employer’s characterization of its own practices. Its conclusion rested on the insufficiency of the evidence to establish claim suppression.

The result is an evidence-specific reversal, not a general rule that suppression can only be proved through direct instructions or threats. The statutory prohibition includes attempts to discourage a claim, and the panel’s reasoning addressed the particular photograph and surrounding record before it.

Presiding officer R. Lemieux Howard and commissioners J. Peterson and M. Kernaghan granted the appeal. Their finding that the firm had not contravened section 19.1(1) made the penalty issue moot; the decision did not award damages or direct a refund.