Financial Support for Appellants: A Casualty of Clawbacks
There aren’t many places to turn for workers who’ve been denied WCB benefits. They’re financially distressed and physically compromised—unable to work, or at least no longer competitively employable. They may not qualify for EI or other forms of government support. More often than not, they’ve already burned through their savings and maxed out their credit cards just trying to stay afloat. Debt piles up. The wolves circle.
It’s an incredibly grim situation. As bills go unpaid, the dominoes start to fall—first the car loan, then the mortgage, and before long, it’s regular visits to the food bank. No Christmas tree. No gifts for the kids. Just fear, dread, and the shame of being unable to provide.
For years, I’ve been quick to tell such workers about a little-known port in the storm: a benefit called interim relief. “Little-known” because WCB has never made any real effort to publicize it—and frontline caseworkers rarely mention it, even when it could change everything.
Interim relief paid roughly the same as EI—about $2,000 a month. Not enough to thrive, but often just enough to cover the mortgage and forestall complete financial collapse. For many, it’s been the difference between sleeping in their beds or sleeping in their cars.
But alas, interim relief is now going the way of the dodo—mostly. Just last week, WCB introduced changes to the eligibility criteria for IR. Under the old rules, IR was payable for the full duration of the appeal process—even if that meant the worker had to wait six months or more for a video or in-person hearing. The delay, no fault of the injured worker, was softened by the lifeline of IR.
Under the new rules, IR is only payable to workers who agree to a documentary review. These reviews happen much quicker—usually within a month of the G040 submission—because there’s no hearing involved.
At first glance, that might seem like a fair trade. Faster decision, faster support. Why wouldn’t everyone opt for a documentary review?
Because in exchange for speed, you give up your voice.
You—or your representative—won’t get to explain your story. You won’t get to respond to misunderstandings or add context to your case. You won’t be heard, because there’s no one there to listen. To the resolution specialist reviewing your claim, you’re not a person. You’re a seven-digit file number.
As your representative, I won’t be given the chance to present your case, to describe how your physicians see your injury, or to persuade the reviewer to consider alternate interpretations of policy that favour your entitlement. It’s all done on paper—and if you don’t represent yourself (which most people don’t), you can probably guess how those decisions usually turn out.
Let’s just say WCB prefers documentary reviews—especially when Blue Collar Consulting is on the case.
So here’s my advice: if you absolutely need interim relief—and therefore choose a documentary review—then your written submissions must be massively compelling. They need to do all the talking. They must leave no stone unturned, no question unanswered, no objection to entitlement unaddressed.
And if you need a hand with that, you know where to find us.
