Key Facts:

• John Blanchard was injured in a workplace accident on February 25, 2005. He claims ongoing effects and has sought assistance under the Workers’ Compensation Act.
• The WCB initially accepted responsibility for shoulder and back injuries but later deemed him recovered and fit to work (April 2005).
• Several subsequent attempts by Blanchard to reopen his claim, citing new medical evidence, were rejected between 2006 and 2021, as the evidence was deemed not new.

Legal Issues:

1. Whether the Appeals Commission misapplied the Workers’ Compensation Act and WCB Policy regarding new evidence.
2. Whether the Appeals Commission ignored evidence and violated natural justice principles.
3. Procedural fairness and compliance with natural justice.

Court Findings:

• The court applied a reasonableness standard, concluding that the Appeals Commission acted within its discretion. It found no significant procedural unfairness or errors in interpreting the Act or WCB policies.
• The medical evidence provided by Blanchard, including a 2021 letter from Dr. Verma, did not constitute “new evidence” under WCB policy.

Outcome: The court upheld the Appeals Commission’s decision and dismissed Blanchard’s application for judicial review. Costs were awarded to the WCB. No amount was specified.