Court of Appeal

Decision Information

Decision Content

CASE NO.                                     VOL. NO.                                            PAGE

 

MANSOUR'S LIMITED,                                                                       ADAM JOHN SPENCER

CASEY REALTY LIMITED, and

THE TOWN OF AMHERST                                                                                                            

                                                                         - and -                                                                        

                                                                                                                                                           

(Appellants)                                                                                                                (Respondent)

 

                                                                             

CA 160570                                               Halifax, N.S.                                      FREEMAN, J.A.

                                                                                                                                                           

 

                                [Cite as: Spencer v. Mansour's Ltd., . 2000 NSCA 59]

 

APPEAL HEARD:                                 April 18, 2000

 

JUDGMENT DELIVERED:                 May 10, 2000

 

 

 

SUBJECT:         Workers Compensation Acts, R.S.N.S. 1989 c. 508, s. 18, and S.N.S. 1994-95; non-resident worker, action against employers statute barred.

 

Summary:          The appellants, all employers under Nova Scotia’s workers’ compensation legislation, appealed a Supreme Court of Nova Scotia judgment holding that the action for damages of a worker resident and employed in New Brunswick who was injured in a slip and fall accident while working in Nova Scotia, was not statute barred under s. 18 of the Workers’ Compensation Act.  

 

Issue:                  Was the respondent a worker within the meaning of the Workers' Compensation Act?  If so, should his action be barred under s. 18?

 

Result:                The appeal was allowed.  If the respondent was a worker, he was barred from suing Part 1 employers under the Act.  For him not to be found a worker it would be necessary to read a residency requirement

into the definition of workman; this was not justified by principles of interpretation or the purpose of the legislation.

 

This information sheet does not form part of the court’s judgment.  Quotes must be from the judgment, not this cover sheet.  The full court judgment consists of 10 pages.

 

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.