The Yukon Supreme Court has thrown out the workers' compensation board's policy on handing out permanently injured workers all of their benefits in one payment.

Workers' advocate Mike Travill, who spoke out against the controversial policy, was pleased by the decision to throw it out.

'This supports our position that the policy wasn't in keeping with the (workers' compensation) act,' Travill said today.

Travill, as well as both opposition parties, was upset by the policy because it was felt it was unfair to injured workers.

Under the old workers' compensation act in place between 1982 and 1992, and which has since been replaced, any injured worker can request and possibly receive all of their benefits at once in one lump sum payment.

Even though the act has been replaced, any worker permanently injured under that act will forever be covered by that act, when it comes to that injury.

After a few injured workers received their lump sum payments, the board put a hold on handing out anymore payments until a policy was developed.

It was that policy, CL-53, which was derided because it required the worker to have a stable source of income other than the benefits; be in reasonable health; be able to demonstrate the ability to manage his or her financial affairs both before and after receiving the payment; have a stable work history over the past five years; and have independent financial and legal advice for which the worker pays.

Travill said at the time it was unfair.

Both opposition parties were happy the court had tossed out the controversial policy.

'I think it's great,' Steve Cardiff, the NDP workers' compensation board critic, said this morning.

'The changes were really draconian. It was a lump sum payment for the rich and famous.'

'It's very difficult to resist the temptation to say I told you so,'' quipped Liberal Leader Pat Duncan. She had opposed the policy since it was first introduced last February.

'It's obviously unfair.'

However, the board pointed out that Justice Ron Veale only threw out the policy because of how it was created, not because of what was in it.

'We're quite gratified by that, that the court did find there was nothing wrong with the content,' Becky Striegler, the Yukon Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board spokeswoman, said this morning.

In his decision, Veale noted the board had an obligation to hold public consultation on the policy.

'It did not publish notice of the draft policy, where it may be inspected nor notify the public of a process for submissions on the draft policy,' wrote Veale.

'This is a clear failure to comply with a mandatory requirement of the act. The result is that policy CL-53 is not a valid policy and therefore is not binding upon the appeal committee.'

In the ruling, Veale addresses the notion of whether the board's policy is asking too much of the injured workers.

He notes Travill's objections to the requirements.

'Counsel for the workers' advocate submits that the policy in question is unfair as it creates unnecessary hurdles for workers applying for commutation of their monthly payments to a lump sum,' Veale wrote.

He mentions the issue of a worker needing the opinion of an investment adviser.

'No evidence was presented to suggest that it was impossible or impractical to obtain these options. There was no evidence that the cost would be prohibitive,' the judge wrote.

'I find that each of the conditions in the policy can be supported by reference to the objectives set out in the act. The conditions, while more onerous than the previous policy, are generally designed to ensure that the worker has the ability to manage a lump sum as the worker cannot go back to the board if the lump sum is mismanaged or lost.'

He added that while the worker has the right to apply for a lump sum payment, they do not have a guaranteed 'right to a lump sum payment.'

Travill expects the board will return to administering the requests the way they had in the past. That method included having an actuary determine the specific value of the total benefits for an injured worker, then paying for a lawyer to explain the situation to the person and give them advice.

However, Striegler said the board still must look at the ruling and decide from there what it will do next.