Follow Us

Tweet Us! @MBOmbudsmanFind us on Facebook!Watch us on YouTube!

News

Four new investigation reports under The Ombudsman Act posted online

Return to listing

Feb 10, 2015

Today Manitoba Ombudsman released four investigation reports regarding matters under The Municipal Act, The City of Winnipeg Charter, The Wildlife Act, and Workers Compensation Board policy.

"This group of reports focuses on some diverse and important issues," said Acting Manitoba Ombudsman Mel Holley. "Using special tax revenues for the purpose which they were intended, the importance of giving reasons for decisions to the affected individual, how range of motion is assessed for injured workers, and the need to understand rules around inter-provincial transport of game birds – all are issues that will resonate with many Manitobans."

The following two reports are available at https://www.ombudsman.mb.ca/documents_and_files/municipal-investigation-reports.html:

Case 2013-0414 – Town of The Pas

If you stay in a hotel in The Pas, Manitoba, you will be charged a special accommodation tax intended for the purpose of promoting the town via a destination marketing strategy. We received a complaint that the Town of The Pas was using the special tax revenues it had collected for purposes other than destination marketing. The ombudsman’s investigation revealed that this was, in fact, the case, and that the town acted unfairly, unreasonably and contrary to its own by-law and The Municipal Act when it reallocated its special-use accommodation taxes for unrelated purposes. The ombudsman recommended that the town return the tax revenues it used for other purposes to its Destination Marketing Fund. The town accepted the ombudsman’s recommendation, and developed a plan to implement it.

Case 2011-0064 – City of Winnipeg – Board of Adjustment

For individuals affected by a decision, understanding the reasons for the decision can help them make a choice about exercising their right of review or appeal. We received a complaint from a City of Winnipeg resident that the city’s Board of Adjustment rejected a variance application without explaining why it believed the application did not meet the criteria for approving variances, as set out in The City of Winnipeg Charter. In this situation, the board was subject to the Board of Adjustment By-law No. 5894/92, which requires that it provide written reasons for decisions. The resident, however, received no explanation about which criteria were not met. The ombudsman’s findings in this case were twofold – that the board should have provided reasons for its decision, but also that in this specific case, that the board based its decision on irrelevant considerations. By the end of the ombudsman investigation, the city advised us that it was changing its process of issuing variance and conditional use orders to include reasons, and for the resident, it waived the application costs associated with submitting a new variance application.

The following two reports are available at:

https://www.ombudsman.mb.ca/documents_and_files/provincial-investigation-reports.html:

Case 2014-0176 – Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship

If you are a game bird hunter and plan to share your harvest beyond our borders, it’s important to understand the rules around inter-provincial transport. We received a complaint from a hunter who gave two legally-harvested game birds to his son, who then transported the birds to another province. At a wildlife check-stop in the other province, it was determined that the son did not have an export permit for the birds. The father believed that the birds were being transported and not “exported,” and that the requirement for an export permit was inconsistent with The Wildlife Act. He also believed that the Manitoba Hunting Guide did not clearly inform the public about the requirements regarding inter-provincial transport of game birds. After reviewing the facts of this case, the ombudsman found that the department’s requirements for the inter-provincial transport of game birds from Manitoba are consistent with The Wildlife Act, and that the department informs the public about those requirements in a reasonable manner. The ombudsman suggested that the department consider adding contact information to the hunting guide, should the public need more information about export permits.

Case 2013-0089 – Workers Compensation Board

Decisions made by the Workers Compensation Board (WCB) can significantly affect the life of an injured worker. We received a complaint from an injured worker about a WCB policy pertaining to loss of movement/function. The worker’s family physician and occupational health physician disagreed with the WCB’s policy that range of motion be measured on a passive range, rather than an active range. Using the passive range method, the WCB rated the worker’s permanent partial impairment. The worker and his doctors disagreed with the rating, and as a result, they appealed the WCB decision. At a WCB Appeal Commission hearing, the commission recognized the physicians’ concerns about the way the worker’s functional capacity was measured, but stated that it was required to apply WCB policy as written. The ombudsman noted that there have been advancements in the field of impairment assessment since the WCB policy was last revised in 1992, and that Manitoba’s policy was inconsistent with other provincial policies. In response to the ombudsman’s recommendations, the WCB reviewed and revised their policy. They also agreed to contact the complainant regarding a reassessment under the revised policy.