- In the course of employment (proceeding to and from work)
- In the course of employment (reasonably incidental activity test)
The worker, employed as a Personal Support Worker (PSW), had no fixed workplace and traveled to clients' homes using her own vehicle. The worker was not paid for travel time. On the date of the accident, she worked a split shift and returned home with a client scheduled later that day. After receiving a call from her employer to cover an additional client, she prepared to leave by clearing snow and ice from her car in her driveway during a significant snowstorm, when she slipped and fell. The employer appealed the issue of whether the worker was in the course of employment at the time of her accident on February 25, 2022, and entitled to benefits.
The Panel denied the appeal.WSIB policies on "Travelling" and "Accident in the Course of Employment," guided the Panel's decision, focusing on place, time, and activity criteria with emphasis on activity.The Panel found that the worker's activity of clearing snow and ice off her vehicle was reasonably incidental to her employment, given that she was required to travel to clients' homes and it was unsafe to drive without clearing the vehicle. The worker was considered in the course of employment continuously while traveling for work, as per exceptions in Policy 15-03-05, since she had no fixed workplace and was not on a personal errand. The Panel rejected the employer's argument that the injury was outside the course of employment because the worker was in her own driveway and not yet driving. The employer's reliance on the Occupier's Liability Act and allegations of willful misconduct by the worker were dismissed as irrelevant to the WSIA context. The injury was deemed an accident, not a deliberate act, and the testimony regarding the worker's partner's ploughing of the driveway was accepted.The Panel distinguished this case from prior Tribunal decisions cited by the employer where workers were found not to be in the course of employment because they had fixed workplaces or had not yet begun traveling for work. Unlike those cases, this worker's activity was directly related to preparing to travel for work duties. The Panel favored a broader interpretation consistent with recent jurisprudence recognizing that workers required to travel as part of their employment are in the course of employment when preparing to travel, even if not yet driving.