Most injured workers believe that if WCB makes a mistake, the system will eventually correct it—and that when it does, full retroactive compensation will follow. That used to be the case. But a new and troubling trend has emerged: when WCB reduces a worker’s wage-loss benefits based on a so-called “suitable” job—only for that job to later be overturned on appeal—WCB doesn’t necessarily restore full benefits. Instead, they reach back in time to invent hypothetical jobs that never existed, were never proposed, and were never scrutinized, all in an attempt to justify the original reduction.
It’s a move that doesn’t just stretch credibility—it raises serious questions about accountability and fairness. While it may be framed as administrative prudence, to the injured worker, it feels more like strategic damage control.
I. The Vanishing Act of “Suitable Work”
Here’s how the process typically unfolds: WCB determines that a worker is no longer fit for their pre-injury job, but is deemed capable of some type of employment. A job is identified—often one the worker has never performed, has no qualifications for, or simply can’t reasonably obtain—and this becomes the foundation for estimating the worker’s post-injury earning capacity. The difference between this estimated income and their pre-injury wage is used to calculate reduced benefits. In short, the worker is deemed only partially disabled and is paid accordingly.
But what happens when that job lead is successfully appealed? The logical response would be for WCB to restore full benefits and backdate the adjustment to when the error was first made. That’s not what’s happening. Instead, WCB is retroactively inserting entirely new, unvetted job leads—ones that never existed in real time—into the historical record to justify its earlier decision.
II. ALIS: A Database Misused
One of the main tools WCB leans on for this practice is the ALIS database (Alberta Learning Information Service). Originally intended to provide general labour market trends, job descriptions, and wage data, ALIS was never designed to act as a substitute for actual job availability. Despite this, WCB increasingly uses it as a kind of crystal ball, generating hypothetical occupations complete with median wages to justify wage-loss reductions after the fact.
This approach completely disregards critical realities: whether the job existed at the time, whether it was actually available to workers, whether the injured worker met the qualifications, and whether the role was consistent with their medical restrictions. None of that seems to matter. If a generic occupation exists in ALIS, WCB may claim the worker could have done it—retroactively.
III. Rewriting the Past to Avoid Paying What’s Owed
Imagine this: in 2021, WCB decided you could work as a “Logistics Coordinator.” Your benefits were reduced accordingly. After two years of appeals, the job lead is struck down—maybe you lacked the qualifications, maybe the role required a post-secondary credential, maybe it simply didn’t exist in your labour market. You finally win.
But instead of restoring full benefits from the date of reduction, WCB now claims that back in 2021, you could have worked as a “General Clerk” or “Retail Associate,” citing ALIS data from that year. Never mind that these new jobs were never suggested, never reviewed, and never challenged. Based on this retrospective fiction, WCB pays you only partial retroactive wage loss, as though this new job was somehow an equivalent replacement.
The outcome? WCB minimizes its financial exposure. The injured worker, despite winning the appeal, walks away with less than they deserve.
IV. Case Study: When a Blue Collar Client Won—But Still Lost
Consider the case of “John Doe,” a 67-year-old client of Blue Collar Consulting. Despite his age, chronic health problems, and lack of modern, transferable skills, WCB repeatedly subjected him to vocational programs and return-to-work efforts. Eventually, they deemed him fit for a role and reduced his wage-loss benefits based on that supposed opportunity.
Blue Collar challenged the decision. The Appeals Commission sided with John, recognizing that WCB had acted unreasonably in relying on that particular job lead. But even after the job lead was quashed, WCB refused to pay full retroactive benefits. Instead, they claimed that John could have worked in another capacity, some other abstract job—one that had never been identified, reviewed, or communicated at the time of the original decision.
There was no evidence John was capable of performing this alternate ‘job’, nor any indication such a position was ever actually available. Nevertheless, his retroactive wage loss was calculated based on that imaginary substitute. The result? A diminished victory. Technically, he won. Practically, he lost.
V. Why This Undermines Procedural Fairness
When a job lead is removed, it’s typically because it failed to meet the test of suitability—whether due to medical, educational, or experiential incompatibility. To then go back in time and retroactively substitute a different job—one that was never discussed or proposed—violates basic procedural fairness.
More importantly, it robs workers of the chance to challenge those new assumptions. After all, how can a worker appeal a job they were never told existed? WCB sidesteps its own accountability by rewriting history, and in doing so, creates a precedent where injured workers must not only fight to disprove the past, but also guard against new fiction inserted after the fact.
VI. The Real-World Consequences for Injured Workers
This isn’t just a policy issue. For the worker, it becomes personal. They’ve complied with the process. They’ve submitted to assessments, tried vocational programming, and appealed decisions in good faith. When they finally win, the system rewards them not with justice, but with another curveball: invented jobs, retrospective rationalizations, and watered-down benefits.
This practice doesn’t just undermine finances—it erodes trust. It sends a message that even if you win, WCB will find a way to diminish the result. The long-term psychological toll includes feelings of futility, gaslighting, and institutional betrayal.
VII. Is It Time for an Audit of WCB Policy?
Given the growing number of cases exhibiting this pattern, it may be time to ask: is WCB still using ALIS as a labour market tool—or has it become a retroactive justification engine? Are these post hoc job leads even legally defensible? Or are they being used primarily to shield WCB from financial liability?
An independent review or policy audit may be long overdue. Injured workers have the right to be assessed in real time, based on evidence that existed then—not on reconstructed hypotheticals that conveniently reduce payouts.
VIII. The Meredith Principles Are Being Forgotten
Canada’s workers’ compensation systems were built on the Meredith Principles—no-fault coverage, collective liability, security of benefits, and compensation without resorting to litigation. But the increasing use of retroactive job substitutions undermines these core values.
When even a successful appeal no longer guarantees fair compensation, something fundamental has broken down. If WCB won’t own its mistakes, and instead fabricates replacements to mask them, then the system is no longer serving the worker—it’s serving itself.
IX. What Has to Change
This practice can’t continue. Policymakers, adjudicators, and the public must demand:
-
No more fictional retroactive jobs. If a job lead is overturned, and no suitable replacement existed at the time, full retroactive compensation should be paid.
-
Use of ALIS for context, not justification. Labour market data is helpful for forecasting trends, but it must not substitute for real job opportunities.
-
Independent oversight. The Appeals Commission, Ombudsman, or Auditor General should investigate how often and under what circumstances these substitutions occur.
-
Clearer policy guidelines. WCB must be required to document and communicate any job leads in real time—and take responsibility when they’re wrong.
X. The Wrap: Accountability Requires Honesty, Not Hypotheticals
Workers’ compensation isn’t supposed to be speculative fiction. When WCB begins to rely on imagined job histories to deny retro pay, it compromises its mandate and damages its legitimacy.
If you’ve had your benefits reduced based on a job that was later invalidated—and WCB refused to restore full retro pay—don’t assume you’re out of options. Blue Collar Consulting has seen this playbook before. We know the tactics. And we know how to fight back.
Because in the real world, justice doesn’t require a time machine.
