Fushtey v Workers’ Compensation Board of Alberta - Reasons for Decision of the Honourable Justice N. Dilts

Sep 18, 2026

Uploaded by Jake

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta reasons for decision in Fushtey v Workers’ Compensation Board of Alberta (2024 ABKB 725). The case concerns whether the fatal accident that occurred on March 23, 2018 arose out of and in the course of employment for a worker employed by Codeco-Vanoco Engineering Inc. The Estate argues the activity was personal and removes statutory coverage barriers, while the WCB and the Appeals Commission upheld coverage. The Court dismisses the Estate’s applications, finding the issues are mixed fact and law and the Appeal Decision is not unreasonable.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages14

Reading Time35 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction

Preliminary Issue of Standing

Background

Employment and Accident Circumstances

Court’s Determination

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Fushtey v Workers’ Compensation Board of Alberta, 2024 ABKB 725 Date: 20241205 Docket: 2301 05102 Registry: Calgary Between: Kimberley Fushtey as Litigation Representative of the Estate of Darryl Alexander Fushtey Applicant -and Appeals Commission for the Workers’ Compensation Board of Alberta, the Workers’Compensation Board of Alberta and Codeco-Vanoco Engineering Inc. Respondents Reasons for Decision of the Honourable Justice N. Dilts Introduction [1] On March 23, 2018, Darryl Fushtey, husband, father and valued colleague, was killed when the vehicle he was a passenger in was struck head on by a vehicle being driven by an employee of Mourad Group Inc and owned by Blue Chip Leasing Corporation. [2] Immediately following the accident, Mr. Fushtey’s employer, then known as Codeco Consulting (2000) Inc and now known as Codeco-Vanoco Engineering Inc (“Codeco”), notified the Workers’Compensation Board (“WCB”) of Mr. Fushtey’s death. Codeco reported that Mr. 2024 ABKB 725 (CanLII) Fushtey’s activity at the time of the accident was for the purpose of his employment. After further inquiries of the employer, the WCB accepted that the accident that ended Mr. Fushtey’s life arose out of and occurred in the course of his employment. The WCB therefore contacted Mr. Fushtey’s wife to initiate available coverage. [3] Approximately a year following Mr. Fushtey’s death and after Workers’Compensation benefits were paid, counsel for the Estate of Mr. Fushtey (“Estate”) contacted the WCB with instructions to investigate the WCB’s decision that the accident arose out of and occurred in the course of Mr. Fushtey’s employment. The Estate takes the position that Mr. Fushtey was pursuing a personal opportunity on behalf of a group of like-minded investors at the time of the accident and therefore that the accident did not occur in the course of his employment. The Estate seeks to have the WCB deny coverage as doing so would remove the statutory barrier under s 23 of the Workers’Compensation Act, RSA 2000, c W-15 (“Act”), leaving the Estate to pursue a civil cause of action against those persons they believe are responsible for Mr. Fushtey’s death. [4] At the request of the Estate, the WCB decision went through a process of internal reviews, including a review by the WCB’s Dispute Resolution and Decision Review Body (“DRDRB”) . The DRDRB upheld the WCB’s decision that the accident happened while Mr. Fushtey was at work and because of work. The Estate then appealed the DRDRB decision to the Appeals Commission for Workers’Compensation (“Appeals Commission”) under s 13.2 of the Act. The Appeals Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to examine, inquire into, hear and determine all matters and questions arising in respect of an appeal from a decision of a WCB review body. [5] A hearing of the Appeals Commission was held on August 30, 2018 . The following day, a hearing was held into claim coverage regarding a second passenger in the same vehicle as Mr. Fushtey, Jesse Hull, who suffered serious injury. All parties agreed that the evidence in both appeal hearings could be used at either hearing. [6] On November 8, 2022, the Appeals Commission issued Decision No 2022-0365 upholding the WCB’s decision that Mr. Fushtey was a worker at the time of the accident and that the accident in which he lost his life arose out of and occurred in the course of his employment with Codeco (“Appeal Decision”) . [7] The Estate now brings an application in the Court of King’s Bench appealing the Appeal Decision under s 13.4 of the Act on a question of law; it also seeks review of the Appeal Decision under Rule 3.15 of the Alberta Rules of Court with respect to those aspects of the Appeal Decision that do not fall within the scope of the statutory appeal. [8] For the reasons that follow, I find that the issues raised by the Estate are issues of mixed fact and law, reviewable on a standard

FAQs

What was the central issue in Fushtey v Workers’ Compensation Board of Alberta?

Whether the fatal accident arose out of and occurred in the course of Mr. Fushtey’s employment, determining whether statutory coverage applied.

What argument did the Estate make to challenge workers’ compensation coverage?

The Estate argued Mr. Fushtey was pursuing a personal opportunity for a group of like-minded investors, so the accident should not be treated as work-related.

How did the Court of King’s Bench rule on the Estate’s applications?

The Court dismissed the applications, finding the issues were mixed fact and law reviewable for reasonableness and that the Appeal Decision was not unreasonable.

Sep 18, 2026

Uploaded by Jake