1
Occupational injuries in inter-provincial workers in Alberta: a
feasibility study with focus on Newfoundland.
A report submitted to OHS Futures
Grant reference: 095202154 Work Injuries
December 2016
2
Contents
Title Page
List of figures and tables 3
Background 4
Approach 1 Rules and practices for filing compensation claims and to investigate
provinces’ practices when jurisdictional issues are contradictory or unclear 5
Appendix 1.1 Interjurisdictional Agreement on Workers' Compensation:
relevant provisions 10
Approach 2 Investigation of data sources that may allow documentation of work injuries
and the calculation of rates 14
Appendix 2.1 C1040 form used by Alberta WCB to elicit and record election of
out-of-province workers to claim from Alberta 26
Approach 3 Establishing a cohort of workers to determine conditions of work and reporting
practices. 28
Conclusions and recommendations 39
Appendix 1: Proposal submitted to OHS Futures 41
3
List of figures and tables
Figure Page
Figure 1: Injury in Alberta reported to the WCB 30
Tables
Table 2.1: Claims in Alberta 2013-2015 by province of residence and time loss due to injury 16
Table 2.2: Claims in Alberta 2013-2015 by province of residence, by sex, age and industry 16
Table 2.3A: Alberta residents that worked in Alberta, 2012 by age, sex, and industry type 17
Table 2.3B: NL residents that worked in Alberta, 2012 18
Table 2.4: WCB claim rates by sex and province of residence 19
Table 2.5: Rate for time loss in WCB claims by sex and province of residence 19
Table 2.6: Regression of time loss by province, sex & industry 21
Table 2.7: Regression of time loss by province and age: male construction workers. 22
Table 2.8: Missing data in WBC claims (2013) by province of residence 24
Table 3.1: Characteristics of workers recruited 29
Table 3.2 Work injury in Alberta by time settled in the province 31
Table 3.3: Reportable and reported injuries by time in Alberta 32
Table 3.4: Presence of factors requiring report by time in Alberta 32
Table 3.5: Relation between reportable characteristics and report of an injury 33
Table 3.6: Participants’ reasons for not reporting the injury 34
Table 3.7: Job characteristics of job at baseline by time in Alberta 35
Table 3.8: Injuries in the present job at baseline by industry group. 36
Table 3.9: Relation between job characteristics and injury in present job at baseline 36
Table 3.10: Success of recruitment method 37
4
Background
In October 2014, a funding application (included as Appendix 1) was submitted to Alberta’s Occupational
Health and Safety (OHS) Futures research funding program. This was approved for funding for 10
months from February 2015. The period for completion was subsequently extended (with no change in
funding) to October 30th 2016.We are now providing a final report on work completed during this 21-
month funding period.
The phase of work reported here is of a feasibility study to explore ways in which valid and useful data
might be obtained to allow the following questions to be addressed in a full proposal. It is important to
recognize that these were not the objectives of the phase reported here, which simply sought to determine
how far such a substantive study might be possible and useful. We will return to this question in the final
section of this report.
The objectives of a full study, based on feasibility results, were preliminarily identified as follows:
1) How many work-related injuries are there in inter-provincial workers in Alberta?
2) Can injury rates be estimated and compared with injury rates in Alberta residents?
3) Do differences in work demands/environments /contractual arrangements (as well as demographic
factors) explain some or all of any observed differences in rates?
4) Are injuries reported to the Alberta Workers’ Compensation Board a complete (or, if incomplete, an
unbiased) reflection of injuries in out-of-province workers?
5) Is it possible to estimate the health care costs (in Alberta or the home province) resulting from work-
related injury, whether or not recognized by the appropriate workers’ compensation board?
6) Can conclusions about work-related injury be extended to either short or long latency occupational
disease?
For the feasibility study, we used three approaches to collect information that would increase our
understanding of the context in which injuries in inter-provincial workers could be assessed, through
workers’ compensation board statistics or in other ways. The three approaches were as follows:
1) Documenting rules and practices for filing workers’ compensation claims in Alberta and the
provinces of incoming workers (Newfoundland and Labrador (NL) and Ontario).
2) Investigating data sources that would allow us to document injuries and estimate rates.
3) Establishing a cohort of workers to determine conditions of work and reporting practices.
The next three sections report on the context, methods and findings of each approach.
5
Approach 1
Rules and practices for filing compensation claims and to investigate provinces’ practices when
jurisdictional issues are contradictory or unclear.
Katherine Lippel, University of Ottawa, CRC in OHS Law
Methods: We interviewed spokespersons for the WSIB (in writing), the WCB of Alberta and the
Newfoundland and Labrador board, Workplace NL, and gathered relevant documentation including
legislation, agreements, policy documents, and arbitration decisions.
We studied the most recent version of the Interjurisdictional agreement on workers' compensation, as
amended on November 20th, 2012, in force since January 1st, 2014 in order to determine provisions that
allow us to identify the workers' compensation board, or boards, that could have jurisdiction on an
accident or disease claim based on events taking place in Alberta (see Appendix 1.1).
The purpose of this aspect of the study was to determine whether statistics from Alberta's WCB involving
workers injured in Alberta would be sure to include all workers injured in Alberta regardless of place of
residence. We did not explore issues relating to occupational disease incurred from exposures in Alberta
in our interviews. Section 7 of the interprovincial agreement shows the complexity of trying to explore
these issues when exposures in multiple provinces occur. It is also of note that Québec opted out of the
provision governing occupational diseases as of 2005. Given the complexity of the process, we restricted
our interviews to issues relating to injury sustained in Alberta.
There appear to be quite a few cases in which a claim for an injury incurred in Alberta will be filed in
Ontario, but this is less evident if the worker is a resident of Newfoundland and Labrador because of the
wording of the workers' compensation legislation in that jurisdiction. When a worker opts to file a claim
in Ontario for an injury sustained in Alberta, the costs will be incurred by Alberta, by virtue of s. 9 of the
interprovincial agreement, but it is unclear whether this is reflected in the claims statistics of the AWCB.
In this report, we have focused on claims that are not filed in Alberta for injuries incurred in Alberta.
In the case of Newfoundland and Labrador, we received detailed information (statistics) regarding claims
adjudicated by Workplace NL for workers injured in Newfoundland but having their 'current claims
address' outside NL but we do not have information about workers, if any, injured in Alberta who were
compensated in Newfoundland.
In the case of Ontario, WSIB responses confirm that information regarding the place where the accident
occurred is not available, so that we do not know how many of the 2,146 allowed lost time claims
managed by the WSIB for accidents that occurred outside of Ontario for the years 2011 through 2015
occurred in Alberta.
What follows is an overview of the jurisdictional issues raised when a worker who resides in either
Ontario or Newfoundland and Labrador is injured in Alberta.
6
Injuries sustained in Alberta will normally lead to a claim in Alberta
In principle, if an employment injury is sustained in Alberta while the worker is employed by an
employer with an account with the Alberta WCB, or who should have had an account with the Alberta
WCB, then the worker has the right to claim compensation from the Alberta WCB. Our informants
confirmed this, and confirmed that if the employer were doing business in Alberta without having an
account, this would not jeopardize the worker's right to claim for an injury sustained in Alberta.
According to our informants, the requirement to have an account in Alberta appears to be very broad,
broader than in B.C., for example.
"Interviewer: Okay, just to be clear, I’m from Newfoundland I’m working for a company from
Newfoundland. I’m a welder. They operate welders in Newfoundland and they get a contract in Alberta.
They come out with my crew. They’re all Newfoundlanders and I’m injured here. Whether or not the
employer actually pays premiums in Alberta…
Respondent 1: Would have to in that case, because you’ve just said they’ve come to Alberta to work.
[...] So our legislation, which is the employer part (...), they would be required to have an account here.
Respondent 2: Because their operations are here.
Respondent 1: They’re operating here. It wouldn’t be carried over. For example, say, we don’t need
you to have an account because you have an account in Nova Scotia. We have very clear rules to say,
“Look, you’re doing business in Alberta. During this period of time you actually need to have an
account.” Some provinces, like specifically BC, has a special rule that says if it’s any more than six days
(I think it’s six days) we don’t have that rule. You’re doing business here. Clearly you have an account
here. "
The employer also has the obligation to report all accidents that require medical attention (not simply first
aid) or that lead to the worker losing work time (time loss).
Exception: Inter-provincial transport workers
Special rules apply to interprovincial transport because compensation boards in Canada have agreed to
apply the Alternative Assessment Procedure for Interprovincial Transport, which provides for particular
rules governing assessments of employers in that industry. Workers may claim either in the jurisdiction
where they are injured or the jurisdiction where they reside, according to the Fact Sheet for workers
produced by the AWCB1:
Exception: residents of Ontario
In some cases, a worker who is eligible for benefits in Alberta may have an option to file a claim in
another province. This is clearly true in Ontario, for example. Our WSIB key informant directed us to
written policy:
"A.2a) OPM document #15-01-08, “Out of Province”, sets out under what conditions, Ontario workers
injured while employed outside the province of Ontario, may claim benefits under the Workplace Safety
and Insurance Act (the WSIA).
1 https://www.wcb.ab.ca/assets/pdfs/workers/WFS_AAP_Interprovincial_Transportation.pdf
7
Specifically:
• A worker who is an Ontario resident, and whose usual place of employment is in Ontario, is
automatically covered for up to six months while temporarily working outside Ontario.
• A worker may be required to work part of the time in a jurisdiction other than Ontario. Where
the worker is employed outside Ontario up to 6 months or more with an approved extension (considered
upon application from the employer), and the employer is not carrying on an assessable business in that
jurisdiction, the worker's right to claim compensation for a work-related injury is limited to Ontario. If the
employer operates an assessable business in other jurisdictions, the worker has a right to claim under the
laws of either the jurisdiction where injured, or Ontario.
• An Ontario resident worker injured outside the province may be entitled to claim benefits in
more than one jurisdiction. While [a] worker in this circumstance has a choice of claiming benefits in
more than one jurisdiction, they can only claim benefits in one. The worker must complete and submit an
election, if electing to claim benefits from the Ontario WSIB. The board where the claim is filed
adjudicates the claim according to its own laws and policies.
OPM document #15-01-09, “Entitlement in Ontario and Other Jurisdictions, provides further guidelines
regarding a worker’s right to elect to claim in Ontario and other jurisdictions."
Interview data from Ontario confirms that some claims made for accidents taking place in Alberta are
considered to be Ontario claims under certain conditions. The WSIB confirmed to us that
"the WSIB manages claims for Ontario residents injured in Alberta and in other provinces or out of the
country. According to the WSIB’s published statistics, “By the Numbers 2015”, there were 2,146 allowed
lost time claims managed by the WSIB for accidents that occurred outside of Ontario for the years 2011
through 2015. The WSIB does not break down this number of claims outside of Ontario by accident
location specific to a particular province and/or country."
Section 20 of the WSIA outlines the election process when a worker can claim for an injury occurring
outside of Ontario.
Exception: residents of Newfoundland
The Alberta WCB confirmed that the only circumstances in which a claim for injury sustained in Alberta
could be made in the province in which the worker resided, such as Newfoundland, would be if the injury
employer had an account with the workers' compensation board of the workers' home province, and if
there was "a connection to employment" with the employer in the home province.
The Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act2 of Newfoundland and Labrador has a provision on
interprovincial issues that appears to be more narrow than the provision and policy in Ontario. Section 51
of the Newfoundland and Labrador legislation states:
Injury outside province
2 RSNL 1990 c. @11.
8
51. (1) Notwithstanding section 48, where an employer carries on a business in the province that has a
substantial connection with the province and an injury occurs out of the province to a worker who is
employed by that employer, the worker or his or her dependents are entitled to compensation in the same
manner as if the injury had occurred in the province, unless the worker or his or her dependents are
entitled to compensation under the law of the place where the injury occurred.
(2) In a case where compensation is payable in respect of an injury occurring out of the province, where
the employer has not fully reported to the commission the wages of the worker who sustains the injury,
the employer is, except where he or she may be relieved by the commission, liable for the full amount or
capitalized value of the compensation and the payment of that amount may be enforced in the same
manner as the payment of an assessment may be enforced.
The ordinary reading of s. 51(1) suggests that no option would be available to a Newfoundland resident if
he or she were "entitled to compensation under the law of the place where the injury occurred." Given
that our respondents in Alberta clearly stated that accidents occurring in Alberta give the worker the right
to coverage in Alberta, it appears that a Newfoundland resident would not have the option of filing a
claim in Newfoundland. We also examined Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission of
Newfoundland and Labrador Policy on Out-of-Province Coverage, which does suggest that cases that
would not meet the legislative criteria as described above could be "considered on an individual basis".
So while it is highly unlikely that a claim eligible for compensation in Alberta would nonetheless be filed
in Newfoundland it is not impossible. This might be an academic point, given the opinion of our
informants as to what would be the most likely scenario for non-resident workers injured in Alberta.
Practical considerations would make it likely that the claim would be filed with the WCB of Alberta.
Practical considerations
The key informants suggested that in those cases where an option was available, it was likely that the
worker would opt for a claim in Alberta:
"Most of the time (and I’ll use that term loosely because I don’t have any facts or percentages to base on
it), but basically they would often choose to elect in Alberta solely because financially they’ll receive
more money because of our compensation rate, differences between the provinces[...]. We have different
maximums as, let’s just say, Nova Scotia does. So they might say, “That’s ridiculous.” But the other part
of it that people forget, and especially our own claim owners, is they’ll say, “Well, why would I even
offer it in Nova Scotia?” Well, the reason being is because often it’s, if they’re living in Nova Scotia, they
can access treatment providers, their family, their support system, all of their resources are in Nova
Scotia. So why wouldn’t I want to be home and get treatment in Nova Scotia? So therefore of course I’m
going to elect – I don’t really care what the financial differences are. I know I’m staying in Nova Scotia. "
Conclusion
Except for accidents sustained by workers employed in interprovincial transport, which are governed by
particular rules, occupational injury occurring in Alberta will normally be included in the statistics of the
AWCB, regardless of the residence of the worker. This seems highly likely in the case of workers from
Newfoundland and Labrador, because the legislation there does not appear to allow for an option
(election) by those workers if they have coverage in Alberta, although policy does suggest exceptions are
possible. Ontario's legislation does allow for an election and some clearly exercise that option and file in
Ontario. No conclusions can be drawn with regard to occupational diseases attributable to exposure in
9
Alberta given the possibility of exposures in many provinces and the complexity of rules governing those
situations (s. 7 of the Interprovincial Agreement).
10
Appendix 1.1 Interjurisdictional Agreement on Workers' Compensation: relevant
provisions
Does not apply:
3.2
Personal coverage for working employers, directors and executive officers of a corporation,
partners in a partnership, proprietors, or independent operators, unless coverage is in force in
both the jurisdiction of residence or usual employment and the one in which the work is
undertaken or performed;
Election by Beneficiary
4.1 Where there may be entitlement to benefits in more than one jurisdiction, the beneficiary
shall be required by the Adjudicating Board to elect not to claim from other jurisdictions if the
claim is accepted, and the Adjudicating Board shall advise the other jurisdictions where the
claim could be made, of the election, adjudication and disposition of the claim.
SECTION 6. BENEFITS IN KIND
Benefits by Administering Board 6.1 Where a beneficiary has left the jurisdiction of an Adjudicating Board and taken up
temporary or permanent residence in the jurisdiction of an Administering Board, the
Administering Board shall, at the request of the Adjudicating Board, provide or procure and pay
for such benefits in kind to the beneficiary as are authorized by the Adjudicating Board.
Refund by Adjudicating Board 6.2 The amount paid according to subsection 6.1 shall be refunded in full by the Adjudicating
Board on completion of the services, or on such other terms, as agreed between the two Boards,
according to need and circumstance.
SECTION 7. OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES
Definitions 7.1 In this section:
a) “Contributing Board” means a Board
i) In whose jurisdiction a worker has had occupational exposure which has contributed to the
development of the occupational disease, and
ii) Which has agreed to implement section 7, and
iii) May include an Adjudicating Board.
b) “Contributing exposure” means occupational exposure in the jurisdiction of a Contributing Board.
c) “Occupational disease claim” means a claim made by a person who is either a worker suffering
from an occupational disease, or the dependant of a deceased worker whose death was attributable to
an occupational disease.
Election 7.2 Where there may be entitlement to benefits in more than one jurisdiction in respect of an
occupational disease claim, the person making the occupational disease claim shall be required by the
Adjudicating Board to elect not to claim from other Contributing Boards if the claim is accepted, and
the Adjudicating Board shall advise the other jurisdictions where the claim could be made, of the
election, adjudication and disposition of the claim. If the claim is denied by the Adjudicating Board,
the occupational disease claim may be made to the Board in another jurisdiction in which the worker
11
has occupational exposure. The election shall be made on a form similar to Appendix B.
No Reimbursement 7.3 A Contributing Board shall adjudicate each occupational disease claim and pay the full costs of
the claim without reimbursement from any other Board, if the claim and the full costs of the claim
would be allowable based solely on exposure within the jurisdiction of that Board.
Partial Exposure with Contributing Board 7.4 If a claim is registered with a Contributing Board, and it cannot allow the claim pursuant to
subsection 7.3, than the Board shall have regard to all contributing exposure and shall:
a) Adjudicate the claim if 30% of the total contributing exposure occurred in the jurisdiction of that
Board; or
b) If paragraph (a) does not apply, the Board shall either adjudicate the claim or refer the claim to
another Board for adjudication so that the Board which adjudicates claim is
i) The Board where the claim is registered, if no contributing exposure is 30% or more of the total
contributing exposure;
ii) The Board where the longest contributing exposure occurred, if one or more Boards has at least
30% or more of the total contributing exposure; or
iii) The Board where the most recent exposure occurred, if the longest contributing exposures over
30% are equal.
Acceptance of Determination by Adjudicating Board 7.5 The Contributing Boards shall accept the allowance of an occupational disease claim by the
Adjudicating Board under subsection 7.4.
Contribution Request by Adjudicating Board 7.6 A Contributing Board which has adjudicated and paid the full costs of a claim for occupational
disease, while another Contributing Board, where the claim was originally submitted, did not apply
the rules provided for under subsection 7.4, can ask for a reimbursement under the rules provided by
subsection 7.7.
Sharing of Costs 7.7 Where subsection 7.4 applies, the costs of the occupational disease claim shall be shared by the
Contributing Boards as follows:
a) The Adjudicating Board shall apportion among the Contributing Boards the financial
responsibility for the occupational disease claim according to the duration of exposure in the
jurisdictions of the Contributing Boards in which the worker had occupational exposure;
b) The Adjudicating Board shall invoice each Contributing Board quarterly, not in advance, for its
share of the costs of the claim for the past quarter of the year,
c) Each Contributing Board receiving an invoice shall pay the full amount of the invoice within sixty
(60) days of receipt, subject only to the maximum amount of benefits payable according to its
Statutory Authority.
Exposure in months 7.8 For the purpose of this section, exposure shall be calculated in months of occupational exposure,
rounded up.
Costs must exceed $5,000 7.9 Subsection 7.7 applies only to occupational disease claims in which the total costs exceed
$5,000.00.
Disablement 7.10 Subject to subsection 7.11, any condition which is treated by a Board as a disablement, but
which is defined in this Agreement as an “occupational disease” shall be treated for the purposes of
12
this Agreement as an occupational disease.
Section 7 does not apply 7.11 This section does not apply to claims for occupational chronic stress, occupational chronic pain,
or occupational noise-induced hearing loss. Existing arrangements among Boards concerning the
compensation of claims for occupational noise-induced hearing loss shall continue.
Effect of No Election 7.12 If an Adjudicating Board allows a claim and pays benefits without an election being made in
accordance with subsection 7.2, the Contributing Boards are not responsible for any costs of the
claim.
Effective Date 7.13 Section 7 shall commence on January 1, 1998 for all new claims registered after January 1,
1998. [Note: section 7 is effective for Ontario as of June 25 2001 and does not apply to Québec as of
February 8th 2005].._ _
SECTION 8. AGGRAVATION OR WORSENING OF A DISABILITY
Subsequent Employment 8.1 Where a worker who has been, or is, in receipt of benefits from one jurisdiction, and who has
taken up employment in another jurisdiction, claims that his or her condition has recurred,
worsened, or been aggravated as a result of his or her employment in that jurisdiction, the Board
in that jurisdiction shall adjudicate the new claim and award additional benefits to which the
worker is entitled and pay the full cost of such benefits and related services as are provided for
by its Statutory Authority or policy, and shall advise the other Board upon request.
Not from subsequent employment 8.2 Where the recurrence, worsening or aggravation of the condition did not result from the
subsequent employment, the Board in that jurisdiction shall refer all pertinent information to the
original adjudicating Board for adjudication and the provisions of this Agreement shall apply in
respect of administrative co-operation.
SECTION 9. GENERAL COST REIMBURSEMENT GUIDELINES
Accident Board Responsible 9.1. Where benefits are provided by an Adjudicating Board to a beneficiary, and the injury, or a
fatality resulting from the injury, occurred in another jurisdiction where the beneficiary is
eligible to claim benefits, the cost of benefits provided by the Adjudicating Board shall be borne
by the Board in the jurisdiction in which the injury occurred.
Amount of Reimbursement 9.2. Reimbursements shall either cover the full amount of all payments made by the adjudicating
Board on a claim, or the portion of that full amount requested by the adjudicating Board for
reimbursement subject only to any policy or statutory limitations. This includes the capitalized
costs established on a claim, where both the adjudicating and reimbursing Boards employ a
process of capitalizing future costs. Reimbursement in such cases shall be limited to the extent
that the reimbursing Board would have itself capitalized the costs had it administered the claim.
SECTION 11. ASSESSMENTS - GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Assessment by Boards 11.1 When this Part applies, as a general principle, each Board agrees to assess those employers
13
who are liable to pay assessments for the work performed by their workers in that Board's
jurisdiction only.
Assessment Rates 11.2 Such assessments shall be levied according to the policy of the Adjudicating Board at the
assessment rate for the industry in which the employer's operations are classified in each
jurisdiction in which the employer is subject to assessment.
SECTION 16. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Exclusive Jurisdiction of Adjudicating Board 16.1 Each Adjudicating Board has the exclusive jurisdiction to determine all matters arising
under its Statutory Authority and the action or decision of the Adjudicating Board on such
matters is final and conclusive. This decision-making authority cannot be delegated to any other
Board.
Dispute Resolution 16.2 In the event of a dispute arising between jurisdictions, the Boards in dispute shall undertake
negotiations in good faith to reach a decision. Such negotiations shall originally be conducted by
the staff involved by correspondence and telephone. Failing an agreement, senior representatives
of each Board to the dispute shall address the issues, with the goal of reaching a fair and
reasonable conclusion.
Referral to IJA Coordinator 16.3 Should the dispute remain unresolved, each Board shall refer the dispute to the
interjurisdictional coordinator appointed by their respective Boards for further review and
discussion. If the coordinators fail to resolve the issues to their mutual satisfaction, they may
agree to the appointment of one or more coordinators from other Boards to mediate the dispute.
Note special provisions for trucking and exclusion of Québec from the disease provision, s. 7, as
of 2005.
14
Approach 2
Investigation of data sources that may allow documentation of work injuries and the calculation of
rates.
Nicola Cherry with the collaboration of Michael Haan, Western University.
As discussed under Approach 1, an insurable injury that happens to a worker as defined in the Workers'
Compensation Act of Alberta is eligible to be compensated by the Alberta Workers’ Compensation
Board. Injuries that involve more than just first aid, that result in time off (other than on the day of the
injury), or that result in either temporary or permanent work accommodations are required to be reported
by the employer. The legal review did not uncover any loophole in such reporting: those employed as
casual staff or through a contractor are as fully covered as those permanently employed or on long term
contracts. As such, if every injury were reported, Alberta WCB claim records would be a complete record
of injuries in Alberta accepted as work related, regardless of the home province of the worker. If
reporting is less than complete, however, and out-of-province workers are disproportionately less likely to
report an injury, WCB records would be a biased reflection of injury rates for these out-of-province
workers.
To estimate rates, we need both numerator data (the number of injuries reported to the WCB) and
denominator data (the number of people from each province working in Alberta). As discussed below it
only proved possible to obtain denominator data for two provinces, Alberta and NL, and this section
concentrates on injuries in people with Newfoundland and Labrador as their home.
We are grateful to the Alberta WCB for the considerable work they did in ensuring that the numerator
(injury) data were as accurate and complete as possible. In Alberta, since 2013, workers from out of
province who have a work injury in Alberta are invited to complete a form (a C1040, included as
appendix 2.1 to this section) in which they specify whether they are planning to claim in Alberta or in
some other jurisdiction. The day such a form is received it is immediately scanned and entered into the
claim record. If a case worker later becomes aware that the claimant’s home address is out of province a
C1040 will be completed at that point and included in the record.
For this project the Alberta WCB first identified all records of reported injuries from 2013-2015 for which
a C1040 had been scanned and we examined the distribution of these by Province. For the three years of
interest 25145 claims were reported to be for out of province workers (as reported on the C1040) with a
further 584 (2.3%) for whom a C1040 was reported but the province shown as Alberta. Each of these 584
was investigated individually by WCB staff, with just under half (287/584) being found to be truly from
out-of-province workers. Reasons for rejecting the 297 ‘false’ C1040 records were varied but a recurrent
error was the mistaken recoding of a C1040 for cases that were a federal claim.
It was felt likely that the true C1040 for which Alberta had been recorded as home province would arise
largely from those for whom home province had been recognized late into the claim, with the initial data
entry not being updated when a late C1040 was received. As such it seemed possible that the out-of-
15
province workers missed in the initial coding were those with more serious time loss claims. The impact
of excluding those coded in error as Alberta is examined below.
At our request the Alberta WCB then provided information on all WCB claims in Alberta for 2013-2015,
including details of the worker (age, sex), the industry (2 digit codes of the North America Industry
classification (NAIC)) and the days (if any) lost from work as a result of the injury, as well as the
province of residence. Only accepted claims were included.
Denominator data was obtained, through Dr. Michael Haan, from Statistics Canada. The data were taken
from a linked longitudinal T1-T4 tax file. T1s are the main tax return that individuals must submit on an
annual basis, whereas the T4 is the employer issued supplement given to all wage-salary employees. T1s
contain postal code information, which allowed us to identify an individual’s province of residence. Box
10 of the T4 contains the province where the majority of the work was completed. The combination of
the two pieces of information enabled us to identify people whose home was in NL but the majority of
whose work was in Alberta, together with those whose home was in Alberta and also the majority of
whose work was in Alberta.
There were some limitations with both the numerator and denominator data. First, the most recent
denominator data available was 2012 and the earliest Alberta WCB data with reliable province of
residence data was 2013. Within the WCB data it was possible for one individual to have multiple claims
within the year and there were many records with missing data (26% missing industry; 5% missing sex;
1% missing age). Because we did not have the claim number for those with the ‘late identified’ C1040
data we were unable to correct the province for these 287 but have been able to calculate (below) the
likely impact of not correcting. In the denominator data there were again some (although fewer) with
unknown industry and cells with <10 people were censored. In the analysis the censored data were
replaced by a constant (2 for women; 20 for men) that maintained marginal totals: we were not able to
ascertain why the replacement for men had to be >10. Further, although those included had all worked in
Alberta at some point during the year under study, the amount of time spent in Alberta was not recorded.
Finally, it did not prove possible within the timescale of the project to get denominators for provinces
other than Alberta and NL.
Table 2.1 is a summary by province of residence of the total Alberta WCB claims over 3 years, by time
lost as a result of the injury. The difference in lost time differs very significantly between provinces (Chi
square=1448 with 4 df) with Alberta residents having the lowest proportion of no time loss injuries
(82.8%) and NL the highest (91.0%). The data in this table have not been corrected for the 287 coded as
Alberta but apparent from the C1040 to be living elsewhere. The proportion with time loss injuries in this
subsample of 287 was greater than in the out-of- province workers recorded in the initial data set, with
only 71% of NL residents and 52% of those from other provinces having a claim that did not involve loss
of time from work. However, adjustment for these ‘late C1040’ province changes made negligible
difference overall. It increased the proportion with time loss in workers from NL from 8.78% to 8.98%,
those from other provinces from 12.53% to 12.93% and marginally decreased the proportion with time
loss in claimants resident in Alberta from 17.19% to 17.17%. Because of the very minor impact, and the
laboriousness of the hand correction, the remainder of the analysis reported here is carried out using the
WCB data as initially supplied.
16
Table 2.1: Claims in Alberta 2013-2015 by province of residence and time loss due to injury
Time loss (days) None 1 ≤ 28 >28 Total
N % N % N % N %
Alberta 340361 82.8 53475 13.0 17185 4.2 411021 100
NL 1278 91.2 48 3.4 75 5.4 1401 100
Other provinces 20770 87.5 1369 5.8 1605 6.8 23744 100
Total 362409 83.1 54892 12.6 18865 4.3 436166 100
The characteristics of those making claims in Alberta differed sharply by province (Table 2.2). Those
claimants who were resident outside Alberta were more likely to be male and much more likely to be
employed in oil and gas or construction. Those from NL were less likely to be in the youngest age group
(18-25 years) and their mean age (40.5 years) was some 2 years greater than those from Alberta (38.5
years) or other provinces (37.9 years). Given that sex, age and industry have all been related to risk of
injury, it was evidently desirable to adjust for these in calculating rates.
Table 2.2: Claims in Alberta 2013-2015 by province of residence, by sex, age and industry
Percentage with Characteristic* Alberta NL Other Total
% male 67.6 88.5 85.0 68.5
% ≤ 25 years old 21.3 15.6 24.0 21.5
% employed in oil, gas, construction 21.9 70.7 55.5 23.7
* Missing values excluded
The data obtained from Statistics Canada to use as denominators for the rate calculations are shown for
Alberta in table 2.3A and for NL residents working in Alberta in Table 2.3B. These give figures, by sex
age and industry for people from Alberta and NL working in Alberta in 2012. To calculate claim rates, we
considered just claims from 2013 with 584 claims from NL workers in Alberta and 143020 claims from
Albertans for injuries in Alberta.
17
Table 2.3A: Alberta residents that worked in Alberta, 2012 by age, sex, and industry type (data from Statistics Canada)
Male Female
Industry Group NAICS codes 18-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 >55 18-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 >55
Agriculture, forestry, fishing
and hunting
11 2341 2604 2339 2641 2649 1198 1084 1365 1801 1942
Oil , Mining and Gas 21 11206 24025 20267 20791 10078 2966 7444 6626 7068 3046
Utility 22 1467 3418 3282 4011 1849 717 1528 1321 1351 463
Construction 23 27476 35867 25435 26030 17296 4784 7154 6111 6705 3651
Manufacturing 31-33 10988 20847 22693 22800 12945 3383 6923 7312 7623 3506
Wholesale and Retail trade 41, 44-45 33447 30455 27490 28784 21747 37255 26872 25025 28029 18230
Transportation and warehousing 48-49 4971 10445 11832 14861 9490 2147 5683 6001 6479 3199
ICR-FIRE-BusMgmt services 51, 52, 53, 55,
56
6706 13139 11587 11779 9964 10215 15783 13819 16485 10552
Professional, scientific and
technical
54 6499 16899 15533 13877 10716 6471 13825 11690 11519 6828
Education and health 61 - 62 5777 12543 13523 14203 12865 21889 46140 45619 50620 34338
Accommodation and food
services
72 12368 11960 7203 5431 3968 21385 17143 10584 9065 5777
Other services 71, 81 17809 19708 16623 16733 15051 18049 20261 16949 16993 11807
Public administration 91 7495 14217 14708 17588 12332 8707 18461 18653 23163 13725
Unknown 1745 2978 2449 1859 1227 1849 3078 2525 1824 1004
18
Table 2.3B: NL residents that worked in Alberta, 2012 by age, sex, and industry type (data from Statistics Canada)
Male Female
Industry Group NAICS Codes 18-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 >55 18-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 >55
Agriculture, forestry, fishing
and hunting
11 . . 12 18 . . . . . .
Oil , Mining and Gas 21 233 392 455 362 192 19 9 16 17 12
Utility 22 . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0
Construction 23 668 1087 1276 1220 630 49 54 60 80 22
Manufacturing 31-33 29 36 43 36 27 . . . . .
Wholesale and Retail trade 41, 44-45 52 39 43 36 33 84 28 22 43 28
Transportation and warehousing 48-49 23 53 106 56 45 . . . . .
ICR-FIRE-BusMgmt services 51, 52, 53, 55,
56
37 25 36 38 24 16 . 12 23 13
Professional, scientific and
technical
54 66 106 103 62 36 11 12 17 12 .
Education and health 61 - 62 . . . . 10 23 29 14 18 13
Accommodation and food
services
72 22 30 33 73 73 86 37 51 142 90
Other services 71, 81 98 110 103 118 98 59 33 41 113 53
Public administration 91 . . . . . 13 . . . .
Unknown 10 19 12 15 . . 0 . . .
19
The crude injury rates by province and sex are shown in Table 2.4. The rates for men from NL are
roughly half that for Albertans, while the rates for women from NL are only slightly below those for
Alberta women.
Table 2.4: WCB claim rates by sex and province of residence
Alberta NL
Worked Claimed Rate Worked Claimed Rate
Male 907929 90656 9.98 8914 459 5.48
Female 812787 42008 5.17 1517 68 4.48
Total 1720716 132664 7.71 10431 527 5.05
Note: Inclusion of claims with missing sex would increase rates to 8.31 for Alberta residents
and 5.60 for NL residents.
The rates were then examined by time loss associated with the claim (table 2.5). As had been suggested
earlier (table 2.1) the rate of time loss injuries (and particularly those with a loss of time of 1-28 days)
was appreciably lower in those from NL.
Table 2.5: Rate for time loss in WCB claims by sex and province of residence
*using denominators from Table 2.4
**includes unknown sex
This observation was examined further in a regression analysis, using blogit within STATA. Odds ratios
were calculated, using a maximum likelihood estimator, with the unit of observation being the number of
claims within the number of workers in each cell of the table compiled by merging the claims data on sex,
injury, age and time loss, for Alberta and Newfoundland, with the detailed denominator data in table 2.3.
The analysis considered first all claims, adjusted for sex, age (in 5 groups as in Table 2.3) and industry
group (in the 13 groups as in table 2.3). The adjusted risk (Odds Ratio, OR) of any claim for a NL
resident was 0.43 (95% CI=0.39-0.48). The risk was then calculated just for men working in the
construction industry, the largest single group of NL workers in Alberta (as seen in Table 2.3 B). For this
Time Loss (days) None
1-28 days
>28 days
N rate* N rate* N rate*
Alberta
Male 75718 8.34 10859 1.20 4079 0.45
Female 32870 4.04 7299 0.90 1839 0.23
All** 118944 6.91 18158 1.06 5918 0.34
NL
Male 414 4.64 19 0.21 26 0.29
Female 61 4.02 3 0.20 4 0.26
All** 532 5.100 22 0.21 30 0.29
20
group, the OR associated with domicile in NL was even lower at 0.30 (95% CI 0.26-0.35). Simply
interpreted, this means that workers from NL had half (43%) the risk of an Albertan to have an injury
reported to the WCB while working in Alberta. For men in construction, adjusted only for age, the risk
was about a third.
The next stage was to estimate the risks associated with time loss, and these results are shown for all in
table 2.6 and for male workers in construction in table 2.7. The detailed results shown in table 2.6 are of
interest over and above the adjusted OR associated with the province of residence. As expected, men were
at higher risk than women of a WCB claim, with or without time loss. With no time loss, risk of a claim
decreased steadily with age, while the risk of a claim with time loss >28 days increased markedly in older
workers. For industry, the category against which risk of other industries was based was chosen to be
‘other services’ as this was well represented amongst both numerator and denominator data (table 2.3) for
both men and women. However, the relatively low claim rate in this group results in high ORs for other
industry groups. The order of risk by industry groups was not biased by this choice of comparison group
and it is evident that, even having adjusted for age, sex and province, the risk of a claim is high for work
in manufacturing, construction and transportation but relatively low in oil and gas. For male construction
workers (table 2.7), increasing age is again associated with decreasing risk for no time loss claims but
increasing risk with loss >28 days.
Tables 2.6 and 2.7 are included largely to support consideration of the possible reasons why inter-
provincial workers from NL have a lower risk of a claim than those from Alberta, even after adjustment
for sex, age and type of work. In this discussion, we will note particularly the disparity in odds ratios
between no time loss and time loss claims. For all workers (table 2.6) the OR associated with being an NL
resident is 0.49 for a no time loss claim, but much lower (0.18) with a loss of 1-28 days. Similarly, for
male construction workers (table 2.7) the risk for no time loss is 0.35 but for loss of 1-28 days it is 0.09.
21
Table 2.6: Regression of time loss by province, sex and industry: all claims
No time loss Loss ≤ 28 Days Loss > 28 Days Any time loss
Province OR 95% CI OR 95% CI OR 95% CI OR 95% CI
Alberta 1 − − 1 − − 1 − − 1 − −
NL 0.49 0.44-0.56 0.18 0.12-0.27 0.44 0.30-0.63 0.27 0.20-0.36
Sex
Female 1 − − 1 − − 1 − − 1 − −
Male 1.71 1.68-1.74 1.43 1.38-1.48 1.69 1.59-1.80 1.49 1.44-1.53
Age (years)
18 < 25 1 − − 1 − − 1 − − 1 − −
25 < 35 0.86 0.84-0.88 0.94 0.90-0.98 1.37 1.24-1.51 1.00 0.96-1.04
35 < 45 0.76 0.74-0.78 0.91 0.87-0.95 1.82 1.65-2.01 1.05 1.00-1.09
45 < 55 0.72 0.70-0.73 0.91 0.87-0.95 2.10 1.91-2.31 1.09 1.04-1.13
55+ 0.72 0.71-0.74 0.81 0.77-0.85 2.60 2.35-2.87 1.07 1.03-1.12
Industry (NAIC)
Agriculture 3.57 3.23-3.94 3.23 2.67-3.91 5.56 4.09-7.56 3.74 3.18-4.40
Oil & Gas 3.95 3.71-4.21 1.15 0.99-1.34 2.10 1.63-2.71 1.36 1.19-1.54
Utility 2.78 2.49-3.09 1.35 1.03-1.77 1.25 0.74-2.13 1.33 1.04-1.69
Construction 10.73 10.14-11.36 6.28 5.63-7.01 14.0 11.37-17.17 7.96 7.23-8.76
Manufacturing 13.91 13.14-14.73 7.39 6.62-8.26 7.23 5.83-8.97 7.38 6.69-8.14
Wholesale/Retail 6.17 5.83-6.53 6.23 5.60-6.93 6.01 4.88-7.41 6.22 5.66-6.84
Transportation 10.06 9.47-10.70 8.21 7.32-9.21 12.89 10.41-15.97 9.33 8.43-10.32
Finance & Insurance 4.19 3.94-4.47 3.54 3.14-4.00 4.72 3.76-5.92 3.80 3.42-4.23
Professional, Scientific &
Technical Services
0.83 0.75-0.90 0.36 0.28-0.45 0.52 0.35-0.76 0.39 0.32-0.48
Education & Health 7.28 6.87-7.71 7.71 6.93-8.58 6.45 5.22-7.96 7.47 6.79-8.21
Accommodation & Food
Services
4.35 4.07-4.63 5.37 4.78-6.03 5.50 4.36-6.93 5.45 4.91-6.04
Other Services 1 − − 1 − − 1 − − 1 − −
Public Administration 8.42 7.94-8.93 3.89 3.46-4.37 4.54 3.64-5.67 4.03 3.64-4.47
22
Table 2.7: Regression of time loss by province and age: male construction workers
No time loss Loss ≤ 28 Days Loss > 28 Days Any time loss
Province OR 95% CI OR 95% CI OR 95% CI OR 95% CI
Alberta 1 − − 1 − − 1 − − 1 − −
NL 0.35 0.30-0.41 0.09 0.47-0.61 0.36 0.23-0.57 0.19 0.13-0.28
Age (years)
18 < 25 1 − − 1 − − 1 − − 1 − −
25 < 35 0.89 0.85-0.94 0.91 0.81-1.01 1.34 1.12-1.61 1.02 0.92-1.11
35 < 45 0.77 0.73-0.81 0.75 0.66-0.85 1.78 1.48-2.13 1.00 0.90-1.11
45 < 55 0.59 0.56-0.63 0.66 0.58-0.75 1.72 1.43-2.07 0.92 0.83-1.02
55+ 0.77 0.72-0.82 0.55 0.47-0.64 1.94 1.60-2.36 0.88 0.78-0.96
23
Discussion of approach 2
To interpret these results, we consider first the questions we had identified for the potential substantive
study, for which this feasibility was set up as a preliminary step. The question of most relevance here was
the fourth: Are injuries reported to the Alberta Workers’ Compensation Board a complete (or, if
incomplete, an unbiased) reflection of injuries in out-of-province workers? If the results presented here
are a true reflection of injury experience on people from NL coming to work in Alberta, they imply that
such workers had less than half the risk of an injury resulting in a claim. Since the premise in setting up
the study was that interprovincial workers may be at greater risk of injury, we need to consider whether
these results might arise from some systematic bias or confounding. Of the two, confounding seems a less
likely explanation but would arise if, for example, workers from NL were assigned to jobs with less
inherent risk than Albertans of the same age and sex, working within the same industry. We do however
need to consider carefully the sources of bias that might lead to this result, recognizing that bias might
arise from the denominator data (the ‘at risk’ population), the numerator data (WCB claims as an
unbiased indicator of injury) or both.
The denominator reports the number of workers paid in Alberta during the year of observation (2012) by
their reported province of domicile in that year. In identifying such workers, it is not a requirement that
they were employed in Alberta throughout the whole 12 months. The first, and highly potent source of
bias, lies in the denominator: if workers from NL spent less hours during the year at work in Alberta, they
would have less time at risk of experiencing an occupational injury. If we accept the adjusted risk of 0.43
of a reported claim, this might be consistent with no difference in injury rates if the time at risk for the NL
workers was 0.43 of the time spent working in Alberta by those giving Alberta as their province of
residence. If those from Alberta work 12 months and those from NL work 5 months in Alberta, this
would be consistent with no difference in risk of injury and would wholly account for an observed 0.43
risk. While in a further, substantive, study it might be possible to estimate months worked in Alberta from
the T4 slips, for this report we have no clear indication of the extent to which this potential bias accounts
for the result.
There are also potential biases associated with the numerator. Thanks to the extensive work done by the
Alberta WCB in checking C1040 forms in which the province of residence appeared inconsistent, we can
be confident that claims attributed in error to residence in Alberta by out-of-province workers had only
the most minor effect on rates (see page 15 above). We know also that a substantial number of WCB
claims had missing data, particularly for industry, and that the proportion with missing data was higher
for those from NL (34.8%) compared with 27.0% for those resident in Alberta: this was largely a
reflection of the higher proportion of no time loss claims in those from NL. Within time loss category
there was little difference in the proportions with missing data and, for analyses taking account of time
loss, this is unlikely to have been an important source of bias (table 2.8).
24
Table 2.8: Missing data in WBC claims (2013) by province of residence
Alberta NL p=
N % with missing data N % with missing data
No Time Loss 118944 33.4% 532 36.7% 0.117 Loss 1-28 Days 18158 1.6% 22 4.5% 0.293
Loss > 28 Days 5918 1.5% 30 6.7% 0.072
Overall 143020 28.1% 584 33.9% 0.002
Of more concern is the very substantial difference in ORs associated with no time loss and time loss 1-28
days: ORs for longer time loss (>28 days) were similar to those with no time loss. It is possible that
selective factors would affect the length of time off work, given that an injury serious enough to warrant
time loss had occurred. It might be, for example, that those from Alberta had better access to
rehabilitation or modified work than those from NL (and so return to work sooner), or that those from NL
return home after injury and either had poorer access to rehabilitation or, because of distance, had been
less available to return to modified work. Such factors might tend to reduce the time off work for
Albertans and increase it for those from NL, even if the injury were identical. For this reason, we
considered next the disparity between the risk (OR) of no time loss claims (0.49 from table 2.6) and
claims with any time loss (0.27). There seem at least three possible ways to account for this difference in
risk. First, that those from NL are in jobs where the risk relative to those from Alberta is lower for more
severe (time loss) injuries than for no time loss injuries: given the concept of an injury pyramid where risk
of serious injury can be estimated from the number of minor injuries and near-misses, this line of
explanation seems unlikely. Second, it may be that having sustained an injury, those from Alberta and NL
behave differently, with those from NL continuing to work despite the injury and those from Alberta
electing to take time off work, perhaps because their conditions of employment are more favorable to
injury-related sick leave: the observed rebound in risk, with ORs for time loss >28 days being similar to
those with no time loss, may reflect, in part, a greater likelihood of more serious injury being detected and
reported, whether in an Alberta or NL resident. Third, since injuries must be reported if they involve time
off beyond the day of the injury (and high rates of reportable injury may be reflected in WCB premiums)
it might be that NL workers are more likely to be employed in circumstances in which injuries are under-
reported. From other sources (the WHAT-ME/WHAT-MEN studies) we know that less than half the
work injuries experienced by welders and electricians in the study are reported to the WCB. If this is
indeed the case more generally, there is at least a possibility that the difference in rates of time loss injury
reflects under-reporting.
Finally, it may be helpful to consider how many time loss injuries would be needed to make good the
apparent deficit. Of the 584 Alberta WCB claims in 2013 by people resident in NL, 52 (8.9%) were time
loss: for Albertans, 12.6% were time loss. Assuming the same proportion for those from NL this would
estimate 24 missing time loss claims (that is 32% of time loss claims were missing). To allow for
difference in age, sex and industry, we can obtain a second estimate from the computed odds ratios. If we
assume that the risk of a no time loss WCB claim (0.49) is wholly explained by the difference in time at
risk (working 5-6 rather than 12 months) we might, all other things being equal, expect to observe the
same risk (0.49) for time loss injuries. Under that assumption, we can calculate an expected 52 x
0.49/0.27=94 time-loss claims (that is 45% of time loss claims are missing).
25
Examination of WCB claim reporting by self-report of inter-provincial workers is the focus of the third
approach (below). In conclusion of this section there must be at least some doubt that injuries reported to
the Alberta Workers’ Compensation Board are a complete (or, if incomplete, an unbiased) reflection of
injuries in out-of-province workers. The deficit of time loss injuries in those from NL may suggest a bias
in reporting.
Note: As this final report was in the final stage of preparation the WCB kindly made available a further
data file from which duplicate claims had been removed, reducing the total numbers for residents in
Alberta by 4.5% and for those who were resident in NL by 4.2%. This may result in very minor changes
in estimates when the analyses are repeated for publication.
26
Appendix 2.1:
C1040 form used by Alberta WCB to elicit and record election of out-of-province workers to claim from
Alberta
27
28
Approach 3
Establishing a cohort of workers to determine conditions of work and reporting practices.
Nicola Cherry and Whitney Haynes
The prime objective of this part of the project was to explore whether, and how, a cohort of workers in
Fort McMurray might be established and, further, to determine whether it was possible to re-contact them
going forward. If this were possible, it would provide a research platform to both examine the extent (if
any) of differential injury reporting and identify modifiable work factors that might explain any excess
risk in inter-provincial workers or other vulnerable groups. The report of this feasibility phase focuses
first on the experiences of recruiting the cohort and then turns to examine whether the data here can
usefully illustrate the types of analysis that would be carried out in a more substantive study.
Recruitment
The initial recruitment plan, as outlined in the proposal, was to enroll 20 workers from NL and Alberta
and to identify, through focus groups, ways to recruit and retain workers. We then aimed to recruit a
further 100 participants, 50 from Alberta and 50 from Newfoundland. The 100 would be re-contacted
after 4 months to see if on-going participation would be possible. The anticipated ways of contacting
workers included through large employers, at airports, through social clubs and at walk-in clinics.
During the first months of the study we explored these and other options, initially with little success. Our
first move was to meet with the occupational physicians and other health professions who form a working
group within OSCA (the Oil Sands Community Association). Although they generally supported the
study they were not able to provide any active recruitment, although one occupational health department
did undertake to put up posters. The group felt that this project was closer to the remit of the Oil Sand
Safety Association (OSSA) rather than that of OSCA. Meetings with the Executive Director of OSCA
lead to a contact with the Director of the Personal Safety Collaborative Program at Keyano College, a
contact that eventually proved most fruitful.
Other leads were less helpful largely because, as we learnt with time, information that could be linked to
individual employers would not be forthcoming. This meant, for example, that those running chartered
flights or work camps did not feel able to collaborate. A visit to construction unions in Newfoundland
was of interest but was again not productive: many union members were probably working in Alberta but
not contracted to do so through the union. A campaign to put flyers and posters in cafes serving a
Newfoundland clientele in Fort McMurray was implemented, but without response. One unemployed
union member did come forward and spent time at the University going through the questionnaire and
helpfully talking about the difficulty of getting workers to admit to unreported injuries.
A breakthrough came through the collaboration of a colleague working part-time as director to a down-
town medical clinic that carried out pre-employment/pre-placement screening for many of the large oil
and gas (and other) companies. The staff there provided space and help in recruiting workers about to
start in a new position. By emphasizing that we did not want to know the name of any employer, we were
able to recruit subjects and to talk to them informally about the aims of the study. The first two days of
29
recruitment in effect served as a substitute for focus group work and, following review of the first 16
subjects, adjustments were made to the baseline questionnaire. Unexpectedly almost all identified Alberta
as their home province (even if they had been there only for a few months). Additional questions were
added to the revised questionnaire to enable us to be (somewhat) more precise about their status as inter-
provincial workers. We also elected to ask about the most recent work injury and not simply injuries in
the previous 12 months as initially planned. Recruitment at this clinic continued, with 68 subjects
eventually joining the cohort.
We were conscious that using this source alone would not give us a sufficient sample of the NL
component of the cohort or of those employed by a contractor, small company or through some more
casual arrangement. We next negotiated to recruit on a quiet evening at a social club run by and for
Newfoundlanders: 11 subjects were recruited by two of the team during a single evening.
After many months of negotiation and paperwork we were eventually given access to two further arenas
in which to recruit in March and April 2016. We obtained agreement to recruit in the Emergency
Department of the Fort McMurray hospital, looking not for occupational injuries but for people, off-shift
and without a family physician, who were attending for minor medical issues. This went smoothly and
resulted in 48 participants. Finally, and through the Keyano contact provided by OSSA, we were able to
recruit participants in a basic safety training course: all the major employers in the oil and gas industries
require potential recruits to have completed this, and a one-day course and certification was held 5
days/week. This source provided 13 recruits over 2 days. Finally, 16 ‘ad hoc’ participants completed the
questionnaire, largely on-line or, if they preferred, by telephone interview. Two of these approached the
team from work camps that the investigators had visited but had undertaken not to use as a source of
recruits. Others had heard of the study through friends or worked in the hospital and picked up leaflets
from the Emergency Department. In total, we recruited 151 subjects, employed in Fort McMurray at the
time of completing the baseline questionnaire. Some characteristics of those recruited are shown, broken
down by the time they had been in Alberta, in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1: Characteristics of workers recruited
Time in Alberta at
Baseline
N % male % married
or living as
married
% with
children at
home
% high
school
outside
North
America
% >45
years of
age
Non-resident 27 92.6 70.4 37.0 3.7 40.7
≤ 2 years 18 61.1 16.7 27.8 0.0 22.2
> 2 years 87 62.1 59.8 38.4 19.5 33.3
Born in Alberta 19 73.7 42.1 42.1 5.3 0.0
Total 151 68.9 37.1 37.1 12.6 29.1
Difference between
groups
p=0.009 p=0.001 p=0.812 p=0.008 p=0.001
In all 27 considered their home was not now Alberta, of whom 9 were from Ontario, 7 from the
Maritimes, 6 from NL, 3 from BC and 2 from Saskatchewan or Manitoba. However only 19 were born in
Alberta, leaving 105 who had moved to the Province since birth. Of these 19 had attended high school
30
outside North America. The province immediately prior to Alberta is known for all but the first 16
participants recruited. Of these 25 were from Ontario, 20 from NL, 14 from BC and 11 from the
Maritimes. The 18 who had been in Alberta for less than 2 years are perhaps of special interest, and might
be expected to have some of the work characteristics of interprovincial workers. The non-resident
workers, however were much more likely to be male, married and over 45 years.
Follow-up
Recruitment of subjects with all 151 baseline questionnaires, was completed on 29th April. On May 2nd
Fort McMurray was engulfed by wildfires. By this point, only 31 of the 151 participants had completed a
follow-up questionnaire. We chose to call a halt to any follow-up activity for 18 days from the start of the
fire but from May 21st we began again to try to contact people by phone, using a rapidly amended
questionnaire to ask also about their experiences during the fire and the effect on their employment.
These very interesting data on the effects on workers of the wildfire will be published but are not central
to the aims of the current study and are not addressed further in this report.
The fire was important for the study operations and affected the conclusions that could be drawn from the
follow-up in three ways: first, it reduced the period of risk of occupational injury for everyone (except
one fireman) caught up in the fire. No-one worked during the period of evacuation: even for those who
did return to the city there was no work for many during the first weeks and beyond. Some were paid
during this period, but not at risk of injury. Second, the follow-up was to examine work injuries in Fort
McMurray but, given the destruction, people looked for work elsewhere either in another province or
elsewhere in Alberta; third, with the whole population of the city moving away and homes being
destroyed, the re-contact details given at baseline were often immediately inapplicable. Although we had
taken the precaution of collecting long term family contacts where we could, this level of disruption was
not anticipated.
We were successful in completing follow-up questionnaires for 120/151 of those recruited at baseline. Of
the 31 not recruited, one was not approached because of difficulties at baseline, one was in jail and 2
refused to continue with the study. Of the remaining 27, we established that contact details were no longer
current for 8 and for a further 19 we were unable to make contact. As outlined in the proposal we wrote to
the last known address of each of these offering to pay $20 for a comment on why they had not
responded. Only one has, so far, taken up this offer, perhaps indicating that many more addresses are no
longer current.
Injuries at baseline
At baseline subjects were asked to tell us about their most recent work injury. In total 64/151 (42.4%) of
participants told us of an injury. Of these 53 were in Alberta but only 20 of these within the last 12
months. These are tabulated by time in the province at the date of the injury (table 3.2). As would be
expected, those longer in the province were more likely to have had an injury at some point in Alberta,
but importantly injuries in Alberta during the previous 12 months were unrelated to length of residence.
31
Table 3.2: Work injury in Alberta by time settled in the province
Home
Injury
Most recent Last 12 months
N n % n %
Home is another province 27 8 30 3 11
Alberta home <2 years 18 2 11 2 11
Alberta home >2 years 87 33 38 11 13
Born in Alberta 19 10 53 4 21
Total 151 53 35 20 13
p value p=0.03 p=0.77
In the light of the finding from Approach 2 of possible under-reporting of injuries leading to claims in
those from out-of-province, we next considered whether injuries in Alberta reported on the baseline
questionnaire were, according to the participants, reported to the Alberta WCB. Figure 1 plots the pattern
of reporting: workers resident outside the province and those recently arrived appear much less likely to
report. These data are also shown in the final columns of table 3.3. This table considers, in addition, the
reporting of injuries by whether the injury appeared to be reportable. Overall 54% of ‘reportable’ injuries
were reported but only 13% of those that appeared to be non-reportable. Within ‘reportable’ injuries those
from out of province, or recently arrived, appeared less likely to report although this trend, based on only
37, did not reach significance (p=0.167). Importantly, inspection of the table suggests that those from out
of province had a lower proportion of ‘reportable’ injuries.
Figure 1: Injury in Alberta reported to the WCB
32
Table 3.3: Reportable and reported injuries by time in Alberta
Reportable injury Injury not reportable All injuries
Time in Alberta
at time of
injury
N % reported N % reported N % reported
< 2 years
(including non-
residents)
4 25.0 7 0.0* 12 9.1
2 < 6 years 9 44.4 3 33.3 12 41.7
≥ 6 years 16 62.5 3 0.0 19 52.6
Born in Alberta 8 62.5 2 50.0 10 60.0
Total 37 54.1 15 13.3 53 42.3
Linear Trend p=0.168 p=0.180 p=0.013
*No record of reporting (yes/no) for one subject.
As outlined earlier, an injury is reportable if it results in a death, if it involves consultation with a health
professional (beyond first aid), if it results in a temporary or permanent work modification or if it involves
time off work beyond the day of the injury. If an employer knows of an accident that is likely to result in
any of these, he is required to report it to the WCB within 72 hours. In Alberta, a health care provider is
also required to report to the WCB within 48 hours of providing assessment or treatment of a condition he
believes to be work related. The worker also needs to fill a reporting form, giving information about
himself and the injury. The information available on whether injury was reported or not is limited in this
study to the injured worker’s response to the question ‘was this injury reported to the WCB’.
Based on these reporting requirements for the employer the injuries described by non-residents and recent
arrivals were less likely to have the characteristics (other than time off work) that made them reportable
(table 3.4)
Table 3.4: Presence of factors requiring report by time in Alberta
% of injuries that were described as resulting in:
Time in
Alberta at time
of injury
N Modified
work
Consultation
with health
professional
Time off
work
One or more
factor
described
% % % %
< 2 years
(including non-
residents)
12 8.3% 33.3 25 33.3
2 < 6 years 12 25.0 50.0 41.7 75.0
≥ 6 years 19 36.8 78.9 26.3 84.2
Born in
Alberta
10 40.0 80.0 40.0 80.0
Total 53 28.3 62.3 32.1 69.8
Linear Trend p=0.065 p=0.006 p=0.707 p=0.009
33
Consulting a health professional was strongly related to an injury being reported (table 3.5). Modified
work (as described by the participant) was less strongly related to an injury being reported and time off
work appeared to be unrelated, with those missing time from work being slightly less likely to say that the
injury was reported. Responses to this question, however, included 6 who were fired or quit as a result of
the injury: such time off would not necessarily trigger a WCB claim, unless the employer believed that
the injury would have been likely to result in time off, had the worker’s employment continued.
Inspection of the 10 cases with time off who did not report showed the following: four (with 6,7,14 and
150 days off work) said they did not report because they feared losing their job or being penalized, one
with 30 days off was self-employed and not covered, one with 10 days was paid by their employer to stay
at home, one with 5 days off said he didn’t know he should report (but quit his job for fear of more
injuries), one with 2 days off felt it was his own fault and two who took only one day beyond the day of
injury felt it was not serious enough to report.
Table 3.5: Relation between reportable characteristics and report of an injury
Injury reported
N % reported p =
Modified work
Yes 15 53.3 0.362
No 37 37.8
Health professional
consulted
Yes 33 60.6 0.000
No 19 10.5
Time off work
Yes 16 37.5 0.765
No 36 44.4
Any characteristic
Yes 37 54.1 0.012
No 15 13.3
The reasons given for not reporting are shown in Table 3.6. There is a marked and significant difference
between those from other provinces or who have recently arrived in Alberta and those more settled, with
the less settled workers being much more likely to report that the injury was not serious enough to warrant
reporting (p=0.02).
34
Table 3.6: Participants’ reasons for not reporting the injury
Home is another province or
Alberta < 2 years
In Alberta >2 years
N % N %
Not bad enough* 8 89% 7 39%
No or little time off 1 11% 3 17%
Fear of losing job 0 - 4 22%
Paid me to stay home 0 - 1 6%
Didn’t know I should 0 - 1 6%
Felt own fault 0 - 1 6%
Self-Employed at the
time
0 - 1 6%
Total 9 100% 18 100%
* p=0.02
Note: 3 early participants with injuries were not asked the reason for not reporting
Job characteristics and injury.
People working in Alberta but with their home elsewhere reported work characteristics that differed from
those who called Alberta home. They worked more days without a break and were on schedules with
more ‘days on’ (table 3.7). They did not appear to work longer hours during a shift, with the study group
overall reporting a mean maximum of 12 hours. Those resident elsewhere were more likely to be in the
trades, to work for a contractor and to live in camp.
35
Table 3.7: Job characteristics of job at baseline by time in Alberta
Time in Alberta at baseline questionnaire
Non-resident
≤2 years >2 years Born in
Alberta
Means P=
Maximum days
without a break
14.7 9.3 10.4 11.4 0.073
Scheduled*
days-on
16.2 7.8 9.0 8.1 0.000
Maximum*
hours worked
11.7 12.1 11.4 12.3 0.656
% Yes
Job in trades 63.0% 61.0% 47.1% 26.3% 0.065
Worked for a
contractor
74.1% 27.8% 34.9% 36.8% 0.002
Lived in camp 61.8% 5.9% 17.6% 14.7% 0.000
*Not asked for initial respondents
To obtain an unbiased estimate of the effect of such potentially modifiable factors on injury, a cohort
study was designed, to be tested for feasibility here and executed, if proved feasible, in a larger study. The
plan was to compare jobs at baseline in those who went on to have an injury and those who did not. Such
a comparison would be unbiased but could not usefully be carried out in the present feasibility study,
where only seven people reported injuries on the follow-up questionnaire, planned for 4 months after
baseline, but in practice completed after a mean of 25.9 weeks (6 months). The monthly rate of 12 (7/6)
was somewhat less than that for the 12 months before baseline 1.6/month (20/12).Correcting for the
number of respondents (151 at baseline, 120 at follow-up this gave only a small difference in
risk/month/respondent (1.10% at baseline, 0.97% at follow-up) the slightly lower rate possibly reflecting
work stoppage due to the fire. Of these seven post baseline injuries, only 2 were in the job held at baseline
with the other 5 workers having changed jobs, reflecting in part the impact of the fire. To illustrate the
type of crosstabulation that might precede a multivariate analysis of such data in a planned prospective
study, we have compared, in tables 3.8 and 3.9, those who reported, at baseline, that they had sustained an
injury in the job at baseline with those who had not had an injury in that job. It is important to note that
this comparison is biased: it excludes, as does the whole cross-sectional study, anyone who was injured in
the preceding months or years and who could not, or chose not, to continue to work in Fort McMurray. It
also excludes as injured workers those who had an injury in Alberta and had moved, because of the injury
or for another reason, to a different job and were now working in Fort McMurray in a job where they had
not been injured. Third, as we have seen in table 3.2, length of residence in Alberta is associated with
higher risk (reflecting the greater time at risk) of an injury.
36
Twenty-seven of the participants reported at baseline that they had had an injury in their present job. Men
(18.3%) and women (17.0%) were equally likely to report such an injury. Those injured were very close
to the same age (38.2 years) as those without injury in the present job (37.6 years) but, as anticipated,
those injured had been longer on the job (51.7 months) than those not injured (30.3 months) (p=0.003),
confirming that the comparison was biased. The distribution of injuries varied significantly (Fisher’s
exact test p=0.05) between industry groups with the highest proportions seen in accommodation and food,
transportation and construction: the one worker in NAICS group 1 (agriculture and forestry) and the one
in manufacturing had also been injured (table 3.8).
Table 3.8: Injuries in the present job at baseline by industry group.
Industry Group NAICS codes N % injured in
present job
Agriculture, forestry, fishing
and hunting
11 1 100%
Oil , Mining and Gas 21 57 15.8%
Utility 22 0 -
Construction 23 26 19.2%
Manufacturing 31-33 1 100%
Wholesale and Retail trade 41, 44-45 6 0.0%
Transportation and
warehousing
48-49 9 22.2%
ICR-FIRE-BusMgmt services 51, 52, 53, 55, 56 7 14.3%
Professional, scientific and
technical
54 3 0.0%
Education and health 61 - 62 25 16.0%
Accommodation and food
services
72 5 60.0%
Other services 71, 81 8 0.0%
Public administration 91 3 33.3%
Total 151 17.9%
From table 3.9, which examines only the potentially modifiable factors (plus work in trades) shown in
table 3.7, it is evident that injury was not strongly related to any one factor. The mean maximum number
of days working without a break was somewhat higher (at 13.5 days) in those with an injury and those
with an injury were scheduled to work slightly more days at a stretch. They were marginally more likely
to be living in camp, but none of these differences approached significance. There was no difference in
the mean maximum number of hours worked nor in the proportion working in the trades. Those working
for a contractor were somewhat less likely to tell us about an injury.
37
Table 3.9: Relation between job characteristics and injury in present job at baseline
Injured Not injured p=
Means
Maximum days without
a break
13.5 10.7 0.105
Scheduled days-on 12.0 9.7 0.179
Maximum hours 11.9 11.6 0.651
% Yes
Job in the trades 48.1% 49.2% 0.546
Worked for a contractor 33.3% 43.3% 0.395
Lived in camp 29.6% 21.0% 0.445
Again, in interpreting these tables, included for illustration only, it must be kept firmly in mind that they
are biased: only half of the reported injuries (27/53) were in the job at baseline and workers who quit or
were fired following an injury will be shown here as uninjured in their present job. They do not
demonstrate that injuries are unrelated to job demands, but rather that a prospective study is needed to
identify risk factors associated with jobs in which injuries occur.
Discussion of approach 3
The study was set up to determine whether it was feasible to recruit a cohort from Fort McMurray and to
establish if they would respond when contacted again. While it became clear that recruitment through
employers, unions or industry contractors (such as ‘open’ workcamps and down-town apartments) was
not productive, ways were found. The characteristics of workers recruited by each method are shown in
Table 3.10. The impression of the investigators was that the participant pool at the Emergency
Department and the technical college was closest to the needs of the study and this is supported by the
numbers in Table 3.10. These two sources had the highest proportion of non-resident workers living in
camp and with report of earlier injuries in Alberta. Despite being mainly recruited just days before the
fire, the follow-up rate for those from the Emergency Department and technical college was not
importantly lower. As large numbers of those at the pre-placement clinic were recruited at the point at
which they were undergoing drug and alcohol testing for safety sensitive jobs, they are perhaps not
representative of all Fort McMurray workers and, although their participation and description of injuries
in previous jobs was most valuable, such a clinic population would not be a first choice for recruiting a
prospective cohort. None of the 7 injuries at follow-up were in those recruited in the pre-placement clinic
or the social club.
38
Table 3.10: Success of recruitment method
Place of
Recruitment
N % Non-
Resident
% Living
in camp
% Trade
work
% Alberta
injury
%
Responded
to follow-up
Pre-employment/
Placement clinic
63 9.5 6.3 50.8 22.2 79.4
NL Social Club 11 0.0 9.1 72.7 36.4 81.8
Emergency Room 48 29.2 41.7 41.7 54.2 77.1
Technical College
Safety Training
13 23.1 38.5 53.8 46.2 76.9
Online/ Phone 16 25.0 25.0 43.8 18.8 87.5
Total 151 17.9 22.5 49.0 35.1 79.5
Difference between
Methods
p=0.016 p=0.001 p=0.408 p=0.005 p=0.915
The results of the feasibility were a little unexpected. We have shown that those from out-of-province or
who had recently arrived, were no more likely to have experienced injuries in Alberta during the previous
12 months but they were overall less likely to report injuries to the WCB. Importantly, many of the
injuries described by those less settled in Alberta were rendered non-reportable because they choose not
to seek medical help or, for some, by quitting the job without reporting the injury to their employer. The
reasons for not seeking medical help may be complex: workers from outside the province may find
difficulty registering with a family physician, be based out of town without transport to attend a drop-in
clinic or emergency department, or be offered first aid by supervisors or other workers. In some instances,
workers told the study team that they chose to self-medicate to avoid getting on a black list with
contractors.
It is evident that the numbers from which to draw conclusions are small and that the results from
Approach 3 are not based on a representative random sample. The out-of-province workers formed a
lower proportion of respondents than we had hoped and NL is not strongly represented. Nevertheless, the
analysis reported here is useful in expanding the evidence from Approach 2: injury reporting patterns
appear to be different in those from out-of-province, with those living in the province over increasing
years developing patterns of reporting very close to those of workers born in Alberta.
39
Conclusions and recommendations
The three parts of the project, presented here as Approaches 1, 2 and 3, were each essential to
understanding the data on injuries in inter-provincial workers. The documentation of rules and practices
for filing compensation carried out by Katherine Lippel as Approach 1 concluded that an occupational
injury occurring in Alberta will normally be included (if reported and the claim is allowed) in the Alberta
WCB statistics. There appears to be no circumstance in which an occupational injury sustained in Alberta
to a NL resident would be compensated in NL. The situation is less clear in Ontario, although most
Ontario resident workers employed in Alberta, aside from those working in interprovincial transport,
would be likely to be compensated there, particularly if they were earning a salary that was higher than
the maximum insurable earnings covered in Ontario (Alberta's ceiling is higher). Approach 2, which
considered only workers from NL injured in Alberta, was able to use the thorough review reported in
Approach 1 to be confident that it was highly unlikely that claims by workers from NL, injured in
Alberta, were being adjudicated in NL. Insofar as there were fewer than expected NL claims, this was not
simply a reflection of inter-provincial practice, but rather a real deficit. In the absence of data on the hours
during the year that each worker was at risk it was not possible to say whether the lower rate of claims,
particularly for male workers, was purely a reflection of less hours spent working in the province. The
even lower rate of loss-time claims is however puzzling, with some 32-45% of time loss claims ‘missing’
for the out of province and recent Albertans. While under-reporting is one possible explanation, it may
also be that those resident in Alberta enjoy better conditions of work, with time off for illness or injury
not constituting a threat to continued employment. Nevertheless Approach 3 confirmed, on small
numbers, that out-of-province workers were less likely to report an injury to the Alberta WCB and that
the worker’s own behavior, self-medicating and leaving the job rather than reporting the injury, also
played a part in ensuring that rates of time loss injuries remained low in those less settled in Alberta. The
contribution of modifiable features of work to increased rates of injury could not be demonstrated in the
feasibility phase, although the need for a prospective cohort to collect such data was demonstrated.
Were there to be interest in taking this forward, we can be very confident that a cohort of, say, 500
workers in Fort McMurray could be assembled, recruiting from the ED and technical college, over a
period of 6 months, spending 2 days/week in the field. If such a cohort were followed up for 12 months,
some 100 new injuries, occurring after baseline might be expected, estimating from the numbers in the
previous 12 months in the group assembled here. Given the fire and changing demands for work in Fort
McMurray there might be more transient and fewer well-settled workers in evidence in the next short
while: the intensity at which they are expected to work may have reduced, with fewer episodes of
extremely long periods of work without a break. Nevertheless, the present report does not convey great
confidence that the work demands, particularly long shifts over many days, experienced by
interprovincial workers is without injury risk or that the currently available information from Statistics
Canada can, together with data on WCB claims, adequately quantify any increased risk The outstanding
question on the hours of work in Alberta (i.e. months at risk) by someone in NL would be of importance
and interest if the Statistics Canada files could be interrogated further, to determine whether time working
out-of-province can be established from the T4 or other information. It would also be of considerable
interest to repeat the NL analysis for other provinces from which appreciable numbers come to work in
Alberta while maintaining their residence in their home province.
40
We are conscious that 2 of the 6 questions for a substantive study (questions 5 and 6 on page 1) have not
been addressed in the body of the report. The question of the proportion of work-related health costs
covered by the provinces rather than the WCB is a huge one that we have not tackled systematically.
Certainly we heard anecdotes of people injured in Alberta and going home to another province in need of
medical care but without filing a claim, but at this point do not have recommendations as to how examine
further this involuntary cost sharing. Equally, we did not tackle in the feasibility study the extent to which
occupational disease, underestimated throughout Canada, could be approached in the same way as injury.
Our recommendation would be to concentrate on better understanding the issues raised here in relation to
injury before attempting to widen the scope.