Workers' Compensation

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board regarding his workers' compensation claims.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed.

The parties agreed that the question of whether the applicant had an ongoing disability was critical to the allegations and was currently the subject of an appeal before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The Tribunal deferred the human rights application pending a final decision from the WSIAT.

The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application alleging the respondent breached Minutes of Settlement by failing to pay travel expenses for his psychiatric treatments.

The respondent argued it was only obligated to pay expenses for treatments it deemed 'necessary as a result of the injury' under the WSIA, and that the applicant negotiated in bad faith by not disclosing an anticipated increase in treatment frequency.

The Tribunal found the settlement agreement did not condition travel expense reimbursement on an adjudicative finding of medical necessity, provided the treatments were for the compensable injury.

The Tribunal also found no evidence of bad faith by the applicant.

The respondent was ordered to pay past and future travel costs and $1,000 in compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent employer failed to accommodate his disability-related needs following a workplace injury.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that an ongoing WSIB appeal dealt with the same substance, or alternatively, that the application be deferred.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, as the WSIB appeal was still pending and had not yet dealt with the substance of the application.

However, the Tribunal granted the request to defer the application pending the conclusion of the WSIB proceedings due to the significant overlap in facts and issues.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision which found that decisions of Claims Adjudicators under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act do not constitute a 'service' within the meaning of section 1 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that while there is a division of opinion within the Tribunal on this issue, the original decision reflected one branch of evolving jurisprudence rather than a departure from established case law.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate a workplace injury.

The respondent requested dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the application was already dealt with by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The Tribunal found that the WSIAT had appropriately applied human rights principles in determining that the work offered to the applicant was suitable and in rejecting his claims of harassment and discrimination.

The application was dismissed to avoid duplication of proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and sex, and requested that the application be deferred pending the resolution of a related WSIB appeal.

The respondent consented to the deferral request.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application, noting the overlap in issues and the WSIB's expertise in addressing disability matters.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) discriminated against him in the design and implementation of his Labour Market Re-entry Program and related benefits.

The respondent requested dismissal on the basis that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over the contents and reasons of WSIB decisions.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the term 'services' in section 1 of the Human Rights Code does not include the content and reasons of a WSIB claims adjudicator decision determining entitlement to benefits.

The application was dismissed, with the Tribunal noting that such allegations must be raised within the WSIB appeals system.

The applicant requested to reactivate his human rights application alleging age discrimination after it was deferred pending a WSIAT proceeding.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate.

The Tribunal also directed a hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Code because the WSIAT allowed the applicant's appeal on the underlying labour market re-entry issue.

Finally, the Tribunal requested written submissions on whether the personal respondent, a WSIB claims adjudicator, is immune from the proceeding under s. 179 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of age and disability by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) and its staff in the handling of her workers' compensation claim.

The WSIB brought a request to dismiss the application on jurisdictional grounds, arguing that its decision-making functions are not 'services' under the Human Rights Code, that its staff are protected by judicial immunity, and that the WSIB has exclusive jurisdiction over the matter.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed the WSIB's request, finding that the functions of WSIB Case Managers and Case Nurses constitute 'services' under the Code, that they do not act as independent adjudicators entitled to judicial immunity, and that the WSIB's exclusive jurisdiction under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act does not oust the Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear human rights complaints.

The applicant alleged that the WSIB discriminated against him on the basis of disability by coercing him to sign a return-to-work mediation agreement and by issuing discriminatory decisions regarding his entitlement to benefits and a Labour Market Re-entry Program.

The respondent requested dismissal on the basis that the alleged acts do not fall within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the term 'services' in section 1 of the Human Rights Code does not include the content and reasons of a WSIB claims adjudicator decision or a mediated agreement.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The respondent requested that the human rights application alleging failure to accommodate and reprisal be dismissed or deferred because the substance of the application was being dealt with by the WSIB.

The Tribunal found it had insufficient information to determine the request and directed the applicant to provide an update on the status of his WSIB appeal before making a determination.

The respondents requested an order to dismiss the human rights application on the grounds that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction, arguing that the WSIB has exclusive jurisdiction over matters arising under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability regarding accommodation in a Labour Market Re-entry program.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding it was not plain and obvious that it lacked jurisdiction, as the provision of the program and benefits may constitute 'services' under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability by a WSIB claims adjudicator who allegedly made inappropriate comments about the applicant's depression and denied benefits.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the WSIB has exclusive jurisdiction over matters arising under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application at the preliminary stage, noting developing jurisprudence on the application of the Code to statutory decision-makers, and directed the matter to proceed to a hearing where the jurisdictional issue could be fully argued.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the WSIB and its employees on the basis of disability and creed in the handling of his Labour Market Re-entry program and benefits.

The respondents brought a request to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the actions complained of, including the denial of accommodation and bereavement leave, fell within the WSIB's adjudicative functions.

As purely adjudicative functions do not constitute a 'service' under the Human Rights Code, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the WSIB and its adjudicators aided and abetted her employer in refusing to accommodate her disability by terminating her loss of earnings benefits.

The respondents requested early dismissal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the purely adjudicative functions of a statutory tribunal do not constitute a 'service' under the Human Rights Code, and the WSIB's decisions did not make it a party to the employer's alleged discrimination.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the resolution of a related proceeding before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) or the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeal Tribunal (WSIAT).

The applicant opposed the deferral and objected to the respondent's disclosure of her confidential medical documents.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide further submissions on the deferral request and the status of the WSIB/WSIAT proceeding before making a determination.

The parties agreed to adjourn the union's application indefinitely pending a final determination of the grievor's WSIB claim and human rights complaint.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the adjournment sine die on consent.

An employee complained that the City improperly disclosed his personal information to the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) after his claim for a back injury was denied.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner investigated whether the records contained personal information and whether they were disclosed in accordance with section 32 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The investigation concluded that most of the disclosures, including medical records, sick leave records, and claim-related employee history, were authorized under the Act.

However, the disclosure of non-claim-related employee history, such as speeding suspensions, breached the Act.

The City was recommended to sever non-claim-related personal information from records provided to the WCB.

The complainant alleged that the Workers' Compensation Board improperly collected and disclosed personal information concerning her sexual life to her employer.

The information was contained in a psychiatrist's Non Economic Loss (NEL) Assessment.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner found that the information was personal information, but that the Board had the authority to collect it as it was necessary to assess the complainant's permanent impairment.

The Commissioner also found that the disclosure to the employer was authorized by the Workers' Compensation Act.

The Commissioner recommended that the Board use confidential envelopes when mailing medical information to employers.

The union filed a construction industry grievance alleging the employer breached the collective agreement by laying off senior employees while retaining two less senior employees who had recently returned from compensable injuries.

The employer argued it was required to retain the injured workers under the re-employment obligations of the Workers' Compensation Act.

The Board held that section 54(15) of the Workers' Compensation Act explicitly provides that the statutory re-employment obligations do not displace the seniority provisions of a collective agreement.

The Board declared that the employer breached the collective agreement by retaining the less senior employees.