Marisa La civita

The employer appealed a decision denying cost relief for a worker's claim arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The worker was a passenger in a non-emergency transport vehicle that was involved in a multi-car pile-up during whiteout conditions.

The employer sought to have the claim costs removed from its experience record, arguing third-party negligence.

The Appeals Resolution Officer dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence to establish the identity of the third party or to prove on a balance of probabilities that a third party's negligence caused the accident, given the severe weather conditions.

The employer, a municipality, objected to a decision finding it associated with three affiliated municipal service corporations for the purposes of classification and premium rate setting under the rate framework.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that while the employers did not meet the test of cooperation through primarily ancillary operations, they did meet the test through integrated operations, as they shared a substantial amount of staff, equipment, and processes to carry out their business activities.

The objection was denied, and the effective date of the association was confirmed as January 1, 2020.

Employer One appealed a decision denying the transfer of claim costs to Employer Two following a motor vehicle accident.

Employer One's worker rear-ended Employer Two's worker on a highway.

Employer One argued Employer Two's worker was negligent by merging slowly from the shoulder.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that even if Employer Two's worker had merged from the shoulder, there was no evidence of negligence, as the vehicle was fully in the lane and moving forward when struck.

The appeal was denied and costs remained with Employer One.

The employer objected to a WSIB audit decision that transferred insurable earnings for rock truck drivers supplied to mining clients from Rate Group 929 (Supply of Non-clerical Labour) to Rate Group 570 (Supply of Drivers and Helpers) for the years 2017 to 2019.

The employer argued the transfer was a retroactive classification change prohibited by policy and contrary to a prior WSIAT decision.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found the transfer was a correction of incorrectly reported earnings between existing classification units, not a classification change, and thus retroactive adjustment to 2017 was permitted under the Two-Year Rule.

The Officer also found no basis for issue estoppel or detrimental reliance, as the employer had been instructed in subsequent audits to report drivers under Rate Group 570.

The objection was denied.

Employer One (E1) appealed a decision denying a transfer of claim costs to Employer Two (E2).

E1's worker slipped and fell on ice in E1's parking lot.

E1 argued that E2, contracted for winter maintenance, was negligent in failing to salt the lot.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that E2 met its contractual obligations by checking the property daily and that the weather conditions did not reasonably warrant salting on the morning of the incident.

The standard of care is reasonableness, not perfection.

The appeal was dismissed and costs remained with E1.

The objecting party, NS, appealed a decision ruling them an executive officer without coverage.

NS held the title of Chief Operating Officer and owned 5% of the company.

However, examining the substance of the relationship, the Appeals Resolution Officer found that NS had no authority to act independently, was not responsible for the overall direction of the company, and could not bind the organization.

The WSIB concluded that NS was a worker, not an executive officer, and granted the objection.

The employer objected to a decision denying a transfer of costs for a worker's slip and fall claim to the respondent, a snow removal contractor.

The worker slipped on ice and snow on a sidewalk outside a building where they provided janitorial services.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the respondent had a reasonable system of maintenance in place and had cleared the sidewalk prior to the accident.

The employer failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the respondent was negligent.

The objection was denied and the costs remained on the employer's accident record.

The employer objected to a WSIB audit decision finding that two contractors, a mechanic (GL) and an accountant (CR), were workers rather than independent operators.

The Appeals Resolution Officer applied the organizational test under WSIB Policy 12-02-01, analyzing factors such as control, ownership of equipment, and opportunity for profit or loss.

Despite the parties' intentions and the contractors' status with other government agencies, the Officer found that both individuals were highly integrated into the employer's operations, lacked significant financial risk, and were subject to the employer's control.

The objection was denied, and both individuals were classified as workers.