The Yukon Court of Appeal has dismissed a case concerning the interpretation of a section of Yukon legislation regarding workers’ compensation.

The case stems from a fatal helicopter accident that happened in the Carcross area in 2012.

Horizon Helicopters had been contracted by the Yukon government to fly two researchers (Jonathan Postma and Raphael Roy-Chauvin) to the Southern Lakes region to study its grizzly bear population.

When the helicopter crashed near Carcross, the pilot was killed.

Postma sustained multiple injuries and ended up paralyzed from the waist down.

Roy-Jauvin was knocked unconscious, but ultimately stabilized Postma and used a satellite phone to call for help.

Postma and Roy-Jauvin sued Horizon, winning their compensation case in 2014.

Their suit alleged negligence, saying high winds were forecast that day and Horizon knew the adverse weather conditions could make it difficult for the helicopter to operate.

In March 2016, Horizon took the case to the Supreme Court, seeking an interpretation of a section of the Workers’ Compensation Act that would limit its payout to what was covered by its liability insurance policy.

Horizon argued the act was silent as far as what happens when an insurance policy doesn’t cover damages awarded under this section of the act.

The appeal said Justice Ron Veale, who originally heard the case in Yukon Supreme Court, had made errors in the interpretation of the act.

Canadian courts follow a principle of statutory interpretation. That involves the examination of the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words, legislative intent and compliance with legal norms.

Horizon pointed to similar legislation in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut which does specifically provide for a cap on such damages.

The company argued the Yukon legislation should be read in the same way.

“I am of the view that it is too great a leap from the words ‘protected by liability insurance’ to read in and expand the meaning to be that the insurance coverage will create a cap to civil liability or to oust the general compensation principles that apply in tort law,” said Veale.

He said the intention of the act was to limit the cost to the workers’ compensation fund by putting the burden on a company’s liability insurance.

However, that didn’t limit the amount to which the worker was entitled by limiting the payout to what might be covered by the employer’s insurance policy.

Veale’s ruling was upheld by Chief Justice Robert Bauman in the court of appeal on Sept. 30.

In his decision, Bauman said Horizon was calling on the court to fill a gap in legislation by implementing what the company said must have been the intent of the legislature, “namely, to cap recovery in an insured vehicle action against another employer or employer’s worker.”

However, Bauman found the wording of the legislation to be “clear and unambiguous in its terms.”

“There is no room for this court to literally ‘legislate’ a cap on damages in the cause of action it sanctions,” he said.

“Although it is by no means clear that it does, if that leads to unacceptable results from a policy perspective, it is a matter for the Yukon Legislature.”