← Back
📁 MARK'S DOC
🔗 Linked Evidence
Review_Division_Submission_1_of_3 — p.2
📄 Review Division Submission 1 of 3 | p.2
📄 Review Division Submission 1 of 3 | p.2
📝 Extracted Text (OCR)
ll. PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITIES IN THE MAKING AND COMMUNICATION OF THE DECISION Il.A The Three-Day Gap Between the Decision Date and Notification — and Its Effect on the Worker's Statutory Clock WorkSafeBC's own Disclosure Claim Data Report (Page 28, dated 2026-04-13) records the decision under review as follows: Decision Type — Entitlement Modification; Decision Outcome — Accepted; Decision Reason — Claim Not Eligible; Date Entered — 2026/03/20; Decision Effective Date — 2026/03/20; Approved Date — 2026/03/20; Decision made by — SYSTEM. The same record states a “75 Day Limit” of 2026/06/03 and a “90 Day Limit” of 2026/06/18, both calculated from the March 20, 2026 effective date. The worker's letter notifying him of this decision — the document that, as a matter of practical reality, started the clock on his ability to respond — is dated March 23, 2026, three days later. The result is that WorkSafeBC's own system calculated the worker's statutory review window from a date three days before he was given any notice that a decision existed. The worker submits that a statutory limitation period intended to give an injured worker a defined window to respond to a decision cannot fairly be calculated from a date that precedes the worker's notification of that decision. At minimum, this discrepancy should be resolved in the worker's favour for the purposes of any limitation calculation arising from this claim. More broadly, the worker submits that a three-day gap between an internal ‘SYSTEM’-recorded decision and the dispatch of the notification letter to the worker is itself a procedural irregularity warranting explanation, particularly given the matters raised in Part II.C below. Evidence: The Three-Day Gap