What is the difference between a trip to downtown Vancouver for a work purpose and a personal purpose?

WCAT-2010-02933, Le v. Piesche, concerned a worker who drove to downtown Vancouver for a work purpose (picking up certain documents) and a personal purpose (shopping). That decision reasoned: I consider that the weight of the evidence supports a conclusion that the claimant’s predominant purpose in driving to downtown Vancouver was to pick up the completed forms from an employee. There is a lack of evidence to show other non-work reasons for this trip, apart from the stop to purchase underwear which could have been accomplished at other stores closer to the claimant’s residence. If the claimant had travelled to downtown Vancouver for personal reasons, and incidentally stopped to pick up the forms for work, workers’ compensation coverage would not apply for his overall journey. Conversely, if the predominant purpose for the claimant’s journey was to pick up the forms, but he incidentally engaged in personal shopping, workers’ compensation coverage would apply for the overall journey except in relation to any significant deviation for personal reasons. … While the claimant subsequently engaged in personal shopping, that deviation for a non-work reason had ended by the time he returned to his vehicle and did not affect the route for his return journey. I am not persuaded that the delay involving the claimant’s personal shopping was such as to alter the character of his return journey. I find that workers’ compensation coverage applied for the claimant’s return journey to his residence. Accordingly, I find that any injury suffered by the claimant in the May 7, 2007 accident arose out of and in the course of his employment.