Employee was washing his feet before prayer and fell while at work
The Workers' Compensation Board of Nova Scotia has been vindicated by Nova Scotia's highest court, which affirmed their decision that there was no connection between an appellant's job and his injury.
The ruling was released on Tuesday by the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, dismissing the filing submitted by Richard Tufts "without costs to any party."
The case goes back to 2020 when Tufts was employed as a cleaner by GDI Services. He was assigned to work at Alderney Gate in Dartmouth.
On August 17, 2020, while on the job, Tufts slipped and fell on the floor of a private bathroom after performing wudu, a religious cleansing ritual in preparation for Muslim prayer that involves washing different parts of the body, including the feet. This incident resulted in a back injury.
Following the accident, GDI Services submitted an accident report to the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) along with a letter objecting to Tufts' claim. They argued the injury was a result of a personal, non-work-related activity.
In September of the same year, a case worker from the WCB determined that Tufts' injury was not work-related, and therefore did not meet the criteria outlined in Section 10 of the Workers' Compensation Act, which states that the Board is obligated to compensate workers for personal injury arising out of and in the course of employment.
"The case worker concluded that, at the time of the injury, the appellant was not working or performing a job duty, but rather performing a religious ceremony unconnected to his work," stated the decision.
Tufts appealed the decision made by the case worker, but the ruling was upheld by a WCB hearing officer later in 2020 and by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal (WCAT) in 2021.
Tufts persisted with another appeal, arguing that the tribunal had misinterpreted the employment criteria in the Workers' Compensation Act and Workers' Compensation Board policy 1.3.7R, which outlines the requirements for receiving compensation and benefits.
However, the court has now declared that the board and the tribunal made sound decisions. "WCAT was clearly following the policy in concluding that the appellant was not engaged in activity incidental to his employment," the decision reads. "The injury did not occur in the course of his employment."
Furthermore, the decision states, "having determined that the activity causing the injury was unrelated to the appellant's employment activities and was not caused by any activity of the employer, WCAT concluded that the injury did not arise out of his employment."
