Case dismissed involving injury sustained during 'religious cleansing ritual'

Nova Scotia's highest court says the Workers' Compensation Board of Nova Scotia was correctwhen it decided there was no link between anappellant's joband his injury after hurtinghis back performing a "religious cleansing ritual" at work.

In a decision released on Tuesday, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal said that a filingsubmitted by Richard Tufts would be dismissed "without costs to any party."

The issuedates back to 2020 when Tufts, who worked for GDI Services as a cleaner, was assigned to work at Alderney Gate in Dartmouth.

While on the job on Aug.17, 2020, he went to a private bathroomto perform wudu, which involves washing different parts of the body in preparation for Muslim prayer, including the feet. Tufts slipped and fell onto the floor after he finished the ritual, injuring his back.

Later on that week, GDI submitted an accident report to the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB), as well as a letter objecting to Tufts' claim because the accident "occurred as a result of a personal, non-work-related activity."

In September of that year, a case worker found Tufts was not injured due to his work, meaning the incident did not meet the standard outlined in Section 10 of the Workers' Compensation Act, which states that when "personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment is caused to a worker, the Board shall pay compensation to the worker."

"Specifically, the case worker concluded 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," the decision reads.

Tufts appealed the case worker's decision. The decision, however, was upheld by aWCB hearing officer later on in 2020 and by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal (WCAT) in 2021.

Tufts appealed once again, arguing that the tribunal was mistaken in its interpretation of the employment criteria in the act and Workers' Compensation Board policy 1.3.7R, which outlines the requirements that need to be met to receive compensation and benefits.

The court, however, said the decisionmaking on the part of the board and the tribunal was sound.

"WCAT was clearly following the policy in concluding the appellant was not engaged in activity incidental to his employment," the decision reads. "The injury was not in the course of his employment."

"Having found the activity causing the injury did not relate to the appellant's employment activities and was not caused by some activity of the employer," the decision continues, "WCAT found the injury also did not arise out of his employment."