Screened as a public body · 4 yearly totals · 2023–2025

Workers Compensation Board Of BC

Printed asWorkers Compensation Board Of BCWorkers Compensation Board of BC

Two public bodies disclosed paying this name a combined $15,369,275.02 over three fiscal years.

$15.4M

from 2 public bodies over 3 fiscal years · #24 of 2,251 names by total disclosed

Who paid, and when

Each cell is one body’s yearly total for this name. Darker means more.

’232023’242024’252025

Victoria—not in schedule$6.72Mlarge share$6.27Mlarge share

Oak Bay$878KdisclosedNo schedulenot held here$1.51Mdisclosed

Schedule held, name not in itNo schedule held — a coverage gap, not zero

Disclosed to this name, by public body and fiscal year
Public body	2023	2024	2025
City of Victoria	Not in the schedule	$6,717,373	$6,267,594.02
District of Oak Bay	$877,838	No schedule held	$1,506,470

By year, all bodies

Stacked by payer.

2023$877,838

2024$6,717,373

2025$7,774,064.02

VictoriaOak Bay

Every disclosed amount

One line per body and year, exactly as published. Each source link opens the official document at the page.

Download these 4 rows (CSV)

City of Victoria · 20252025$6,267,594.02Workers Compensation Board of BC2025 schedule, row 433

City of Victoria · 20242024$6,717,373Workers Compensation Board Of BC2024 schedule, row 443

District of Oak Bay · 20252025$1,506,470Workers Compensation Board of BC2025 schedule, p. 106 · line 151

District of Oak Bay · 20232023$877,838Workers Compensation Board Of BC2023 schedule, p. 40 · line 151

All amounts in Canadian dollars. A year with no line means the name wasn’t in that schedule, or the schedule isn’t held here — not that the body paid nothing.

A line here doesn’t match its source? Report a correction →

Notices for this name

Automated screens. Each is a question to investigate, not a finding.

Paid by several bodiesNot reviewed

$15,369,275.02 across the schedules that print this exact name

Question to ask: Do more than one public body disclose this same exact-name label, and is it one legal entity or two? (An exact-name overlap is not an entity resolution.)
What it does not prove: It does not establish that the label is one legal entity. This is an exact-name overlap only; entity resolution, ownership, competition, or legal conclusions require separate source-backed evidence.

Public-body recipientNot reviewed

A candidate statutory remitter screen. It is left out of “top supplier” lists and the commercial concentration measure.

Question to ask: Is this large recipient a public body / remitter / utility / P3 entity / intergovernmental flow rather than a commercial supplier?
What it does not prove: A public-body / remitter / utility classification is a candidate screen, not a legal finding about a supplier or a competition outcome. It does not mean the flow was non-commercial or exempt from procurement rules.

New nameNot reviewed

Victoria: $6,717,373 in 2024, first year printed

Question to ask: Does the year-over-year change reflect a new or terminating relationship, or a re-classification or one-off, and what (if any) project or contract evidence explains it?
What it does not prove: A year-over-year change in a disclosed aggregate amount is not evidence of a new contract, a non-competitive award, or wrongdoing. Timing and context require project, contract, or council-record evidence.