Review of Longstanding Contentious Claims
A one-time tribunal will be established to review old cases where the worker feels unfairly treated. A review body will establish a screening process to determine what cases should be heard by the Tribunal. The Tribunal will make a decision on the claim using the rules in force at the time of the original claim.

The Good
There are many claims that were never handled justly due to problems in WCB practice and the appeal system. In these cases "natural justice" was never met. The Tribunal provides a final opportunity to "right a past wrong". This is a strong victory for workers.

Too Early To Tell
The pre-screening body will have an important role to play in determining how fair the new tribunal process will be. We need to see how restrictive or open the rules it establishes are.

Workers will now have a right to know why a decision was made on their claim.

The Amendments eliminate the Claims Services Review Committee and build in a new pre-hearing dispute resolution process to attempt to solve an appeal before a formal hearing. 

Workers rarely won appeals at the CSRC level. It was mostly a source of delay in resolving the conflict. The new process will shorten the time a worker has to wait for a decision.

The concept of a pre-hearing dispute resolution has potential to help workers get a fair decision without the formalities of a hearing. However, we need to see details before a final assessment can be made.

Legislation requiring WCB to implement an Appeal decision within 30 days.

Currently WCB often delays implementing decisions it does not like, and there is no mechanism to force them. This will guarantee a decision favourable to a worker will be implemented right away.

Having the Appeals Commission under the WCB budget created perceptions of conflict of interest. This step may help ensure there is no meddling by WCB in the workings of the Appeals Commission. 

Appeal Commission decisions will be published and indexed. 

This will give workers greater access to previous decisions to help them build a strong case, increasing their chance for a fair hearing.

 The Bad

 At Appeals Commission, Commissioners will no longer be "Employer" or "Worker" representatives, but instead will be "neutral" independents.

By removing a worker side commissioner, there is no longer a guarantee that someone who understands the worker perspective will be a part of the decision. The new "neutral" commissioners may not be objective at all. This has the potential to undermine the other positive changes to the appeal process.

Appeals Commissioners also become its own Board of Directors.

The Commissioners govern themselves. This creates a disturbing lack of accountability.

Legislation to establish process to resolve conflicting medical opinions.

WCB has a track record of using conflicting medical opinions to consistently cut workers off. This has the potential of creating a fair process for resolving conflicts between physicians. However, until the process is spelled out, it is too early to tell how this will affect workers.

Separating the Advisors from the WCB is a good step, one that is long overdue. However, the relationship between the Advisors and the Minister needs to be clarified. Will their be a fee? Who will be their boss? There is also the concern about possible privatization. Depending on how their services are delivered, this could help workers, or make access to an advocate harder.

Gives workers a chance to publicly hold the WCB accountable.

The WCB needs greater accountability. A framework will state expectations to be met. However, until the framework is announced, we do not know if it will be strong enough. A broader audit will also expand the ability of the Auditor General to examine the practices of the WCB.

Until we see the terms of reference and the appointments to the Authority, it is difficult to tell if this body will enhance the level of accountability by WCB.