B. Patlik

The employer objected to a WSIB decision finding that a safety consultant injured in a motor vehicle accident was a worker rather than an independent operator.

The Appeals Resolution Officer applied the organizational test, analyzing factors such as control, profit/loss, and integration into the employer's business.

The officer found that the employer controlled the worker's schedule, provided the necessary equipment, and that the worker had little opportunity for profit or loss.

The objection was denied, and the individual was confirmed to be a worker.

The employer, a construction company, appealed a WSIB audit decision that found the earnings of its executive officer were insurable for the 2013 calendar year.

The executive officer had not applied for an exemption from compulsory coverage until the audit in May 2014.

The employer argued the exemption should be applied retroactively to January 1, 2013, and alternatively, that the earnings should be classified under rate group 755 instead of 751.

The Appeals Resolution Officer denied the appeal, finding that exemptions from compulsory coverage take effect on the date the declaration is received, not retroactively.

The officer also found no exceptional circumstances to justify waiving the policy under the Merits and Justice policy.

The request for reclassification to rate group 755 was also denied because the employer had not submitted the required application form for that rate group for the 2013 year.

The employer, a repair garage, objected to the WSIB's decision to classify portions of its payroll under the rate groups of its associated customers rather than entirely under the garage rate (rate group 630).

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the employer performed ancillary operations for associated companies, and under WSIB policy, such operations must be classified at the rate of the associated companies.

The garage rate only applied to work performed for non-associated customers where payroll could be segregated.

The objection was denied.

The employer objected to a WSIB audit decision that reallocated its log hauling payroll from a roadbuilding rate group to a logging operations rate group, retroactive to January 1, 2011.

The employer argued the adjustment should only apply from November 2013, when it was notified, suggesting the WSIB was responsible for the initial incorrect allocation.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found no evidence that the WSIB instructed the employer to use the incorrect rate group and concluded the retroactive adjustment was consistent with WSIB policy for correcting errors.

The employer's objection was denied.

The employer objected to the WSIB's decision to retroactively reclassify the insurable earnings of 10 individuals from the supply of clerical labour to the supply of construction labour for the years 2005 and 2006.

The Appeals Resolution Officer allowed the retroactivity objection, finding that the reallocation of payroll constituted a classification change, which under WSIB policy limits adjustments to the current year (2007).

On the issue of the correct classification, the Officer found that the workers were providing construction project management services rather than acting as a supply of labour, and reclassified their earnings under CU 4411-000 (Construction Project Management).

The employer appealed a WSIB auditor's decision that it did not maintain proper payroll segregations for 2005 and 2006, resulting in all insurable earnings being classified under the higher-rated 'Motor Vehicle Assembly Ops' rate group rather than split with the lower-rated 'Quality Assurance' rate group.

The employer argued that records were lost in a flood and provided reconstructed estimates.

The Appeals Resolution Officer dismissed the appeal, finding that the reconstructed records were unreliable and inconsistent, and that WSIB policy requires verifiable records to permit payroll segregation.

Without proper segregations, the entire payroll must be classified under the single applicable rate group with the highest premium rate.

The employer objected to a WSIB audit decision finding that amounts paid to the employer's spouse in 2006 and 2007 were insurable earnings.

The employer argued the spouse was a partner, not a worker, as she had no employment contract, received no T4, and her drawings depended on business profitability.

The Appeals Resolution Officer dismissed the objection, finding insufficient evidence of a partnership under the Partnerships Act or WSIB policy.

The business was registered as a sole proprietorship, and the spouse herself stated her husband owned the company.

Consequently, the spouse was deemed a worker and her remuneration was insurable.

The employer objected to retroactive premium charges and interest for 2006 and 2007 after being identified through a joint WSIB-CRA program as an unregistered business.

The employer argued they were unaware of the requirement to register and could not afford the retroactive amounts.

The Appeals Resolution Officer denied the objection, finding that the business was compulsorily covered and that ignorance of the law did not exempt the employer from their obligations.

The WSIB's policy of limiting retroactive charges to two years under the joint program was applied correctly, and financial hardship was deemed a matter for the collections department, not a basis for waiving premiums.