Case In Point
Game, Set, Compensable: When Workplace Pickleball Becomes a Competitive Sport
Date: August 4, 2026
In Decision No.: 2026-0342, the Appeals Commission for Alberta Compensation (Appeals Commission) decided that a claim made by a worker for injuries he sustained to his arm while playing pickleball as part of group exercise at the workplace, was compensable under Alberta’s Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) Policy 02-01 (Policy) because the athletic activity was a competitive sport that was expressly pre-authorized by the employer and consistent with the worker’s regular job duties.
Although workers compensation frameworks differ by jurisdiction and the applicable legislation and policy in each province are to be reviewed separately, this decision highlights considerations for employers regarding how workplace athletic activities are approved, organized, supervised and linked to work expectations, particularly where participation forms part of a broader health, wellness or team-building program.
Background
The worker was a first responder who injured his right arm while playing pickleball as part of group exercise at the workplace. The WCB declined to accept the worker’s claim because when he was injured he was participating in competitive sporting activity that the employer did not expressly authorize. The Dispute Resolution and Decision Review Body (DRDRB) subsequently found that the worker did not have an acceptable claim for a right arm injury.
The worker appealed the DRDRB’s decision to the Appeals Commission.
Decision of the Appeals Commission
Contrary to the DRDRB’s decision, the Appeals Commission deemed that the worker had an acceptable claim for a right arm injury under one of the four exceptional circumstances covered under the Policy: where “the activity is a competitive sport expressly pre-authorized by the employer and consistent with the worker’s regular job duties”.
Is pickleball a competitive sport?
The Appeals Commission first considered whether pickleball was a competitive sport pursuant to the Policy, which provides that competitive sports include all “sports played against another person or team (such as tennis, basketball, etc.) at any time.”
The Appeals Commission found that even though the workers played pickleball on an informal basis, did not compete in a league, and “sometimes just hit back and forth and not even keep score”, the activity fell within the Policy’s definition of competitive sport because the game was “played against others hitting a game piece across a net.”
Was playing pickleball expressly pre-authorized by the employer?
The Appeals Commission next found thatplaying pickleball was expressly pre-authorized by the employer: it provided equipment and allowed employees to mark out the court for games on the work premises with peer fitness trainers employed by the employer measuring the court on the floor. The Appeals Commission also noted that workers would ask their supervisors if they could play pickleball, and the supervisor was present when the game was played.
Was playing pickleball consistent with the worker’s regular job duties?
Finally, the Appeals Commission considered whether playing pickleball was consistent with the worker’s regular job duties. It noted that although playing pickleball was not a stated job duty for the worker as a first responder, the activity was consistent with the worker’s job duties: which were physically demanding, and required the worker to maintain a high level of fitness, and mental and emotional health and resilience. Furthermore, according to the former Health and Wellness Coordinator, pickleball had come to her attention because it was an easy game to play at the workplace and “a good way to get more people involved,” and she stated that games were “an excellent way to build trust among the workers, which is important for their job duties.” The Appeals Commission also applied a principle from one of its previous decisions that “the provision of the equipment [was] sufficient to establish that the employer consider[ed] that playing pickleball [was] integral to the worker’s duties.”
Conclusion
The Appeals Commission concluded that the worker’s injury arose out of and occurred during the course of employment and therefore he had an acceptable claim for a right arm injury.
Key Takeaways
Encouraging workplace sports can foster teamwork, improve morale, and promote employee physical fitness and mental wellness. This decision serves as a useful reminder for employers to carefully examine whether workplace athletic activities could give rise to compensable workplace injuries.
Workers compensation frameworks differ by jurisdiction. It is important to keep in mind that the example discussed in this publication is highly specific to the Alberta workers’ compensation regime and should not be assumed to apply in the same manner in Ontario or other jurisdictions. The entitlement analysis will ultimately depend on the governing legislation, policy framework, and case law applicable in the particular province.
For advice on how this decision could affect your workplace, please contact a member of our Workplace Safety & Insurance team.
The article in this client update provides general information and should not be relied on as legal advice or opinion. This publication is copyrighted by Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie LLP and may not be photocopied or reproduced in any form, in whole or in part, without the express permission of Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie LLP. ©