Opinion ID: 1194701
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: worker's compensation claim

Text: It is undisputed that Brenton Dyer was employed by Dyer Ford, which paid for his flying lessons and gave him time off to practice flying and take lessons. Dyer was receiving formal cross-country instruction on the subject flight and was piloting the aircraft until shortly before the crash. Dyer therefore filed a claim for, and received, worker's compensation benefits from the Saskatchewan Worker's Compensation Board. The Saskatchewan Worker's Compensation Act differs from Idaho's in that it insulates from third party tort liability not only the immediate employer of the injured employee, but all employers who make payments into the fund. The Act provides that employees injured outside of Saskatchewan must elect whether to seek relief under the laws of the place of the injury, or to seek compensation under the province's compensation program. The trial court found that defendant Pischke was reporting to the Board of Worker's Compensation, did pay assessments on behalf of the flying operations for his employees, and did elect to cover himself during the time in question. We agree with the trial court's conclusion that: The province of Saskatchewan has significant interest in controlling the rights of injured employees to be compensated for their work related injuries and in allocating the resulting costs among the various employers who are believed to bear the responsibility for those injuries. The Pischke Defendants could have justifiably assumed that their payments into the compensation fund would immunize them from such liability. Saskatchewan's policy of insulating all covered employers from civil liability if they pay into and participate in its worker compensation program would be subverted by the application of Idaho law to this controversy. Appellants contend that ambiguities in the Worker's Compensation Act raise a question as to whether Pischke was actually covered, and what the legal status of the act itself was at the time of the accident. Despite any ambiguity concerning the legal status of the regulations under the Saskatchewan Worker's Compensation Act, the fact remains that Dyer elected to proceed under and accept the benefits of the act. Since the Worker's Compensation Board has exclusive jurisdiction under the 1978 act to determine whether or not any industry or any part of such industry is within the scope of the act, and the decision of the Board is final and conclusive and not open to question or review in any court, (see § 24(1) and § 24(2)(I) of the Saskatchewan Worker's Compensation Act), the Dyers cannot now be heard to complain that the Board was without jurisdiction to determine the applicability of the Saskatchewan Act when they accepted the full benefits of its provisions. We affirm the trial court's decision that the claims of Brenton and Cynthia Dyer are barred against defendant Pischke under the Saskatchewan Worker's Compensation Act.