Workers' Compensation

The worker sustained a thumb amputation when their hand was caught in a machine roller, and subsequently developed a psychotraumatic disability.

The employer appealed a Case Manager's decision denying cost relief under the Second Injury and Enhancement Fund (SIEF), arguing the worker's pre-existing anxiety enhanced their psychological reaction.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found the workplace accident was of major severity, as the machine roller weighed over a tonne and could cause serious permanent disability.

The worker's pre-existing anxiety was deemed of minor significance.

Under WSIB policy, an accident of major severity combined with a pre-existing condition of minor significance warrants zero percent SIEF relief.

The employer's appeal was dismissed.

The worker, a former paramedic, appealed the denial of entitlement for traumatic mental stress (TMS), chronic mental stress (CMS), and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) under the first responders presumption.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found the worker did not meet the criteria for the PTSD presumption because he was not employed as a first responder on or after April 6, 2014.

While the worker had been exposed to objectively traumatic events during his career, the ARO concluded this exposure did not significantly contribute to his psychological condition, which instead emerged due to interpersonal conflicts and typical workplace stressors.

As interpersonal conflicts and typical employment tensions do not constitute substantial work-related stressors, entitlement for CMS and TMS was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability regarding the WSIB's handling of his labour market re-entry plan and loss of earnings benefits.

The applicant had previously appealed the WSIB's decisions to the WSIAT, which found in his favour and awarded him benefits reflecting a more suitable occupation.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the WSIAT proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the application, despite the WSIAT lacking jurisdiction to award damages for injury to dignity.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB).

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, as the applicant had also appealed WSIB decisions to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The Tribunal found that the WSIAT had appropriately dealt with the substance of the applicant's allegations regarding his employability and participation in Work Transition Services, and dismissed those claims.

However, the Tribunal allowed the application to proceed regarding the allegation that the WSIB failed to accommodate the applicant's request to communicate through his legal representative, as this issue was not addressed by the WSIAT.

The worker appealed decisions regarding the quantum of his permanent disability (PD) award, his level of employability, and the denial of an independent living allowance (ILA).

The worker suffered a right arm amputation in 1987 and later developed left arm and thumb issues.

The Appeals Resolution Officer confirmed the 72% total PD award, finding the ratings for the left wrist and thumb were appropriate based on the Ontario Rating Schedule and medical evidence.

The Officer also determined the worker was not essentially unemployable, noting the provision of a new myoelectric prosthesis and custom thumb brace.

Finally, the request for an ILA was denied because the worker's PD rating did not meet the 100% threshold required by policy.

The worker appealed the denial of loss of earnings (LOE) benefits for various periods following a workplace slip and fall that resulted in a nasal fracture, left radial head fracture, and soft tissue injuries.

The WSIB had denied full LOE benefits on the basis that the employer offered modified work.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the medical evidence supported the worker's inability to perform even modified work during the acute recovery phase and following nasal surgery.

The worker's appeal was allowed, granting full and partial LOE benefits for the disputed periods.

The employer objected to a decision granting the worker loss of earnings (LOE) benefits beyond February 19, 2016, following arthroscopic knee surgery.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker was only partially disabled by that date and that the employer had offered suitable modified work, which the worker failed to accept or attempt.

The employer also demonstrated a willingness to provide transportation if needed.

Consequently, the worker was not participating in the work reintegration process and was not entitled to further LOE benefits.

The employer's objection was allowed.

The applicant, an injured migrant worker living in Jamaica, filed a human rights application alleging the WSIB discriminated against him in the administration of his healthcare benefits by requiring him to pay out-of-pocket for services and transportation before being reimbursed.

The WSIB requested a deferral of the application pending the applicant's WSIB appeals, and a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal denied both requests, finding that the human rights issues regarding the administration of benefits were not addressed in the WSIB appeals, and that the allegations of discriminatory impact required a full evidentiary record to determine.

The applicant sought to reactivate her human rights application alleging discrimination by the WSIB regarding her Labour Market Re-entry plan.

The Tribunal granted the reactivation despite a delay in filing.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) had already appropriately dealt with the substance of the application when it determined that the applicant's return-to-work plan was suitable and adequately accommodated her disability.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to defer the human rights application pending the resolution of the applicant's Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) appeal.

The applicant alleged a failure to accommodate his disability-related needs when he sought to return to work with restrictions.

The Tribunal found a significant overlap in the facts and issues between the WSIB appeal and the human rights application.

To avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate her disability following two workplace injuries.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed or deferred because the applicant was pursuing a concurrent WSIB appeal regarding her termination.

The Tribunal found that while the WSIB process might address whether the termination was related to her injury, it did not appear to address the separate claim of failure to accommodate to the point of undue hardship.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide particulars of her failure to accommodate claim and the respondent to provide an update on the WSIB appeal before deciding on deferral.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of an appeal before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The WSIAT had remitted the matter to the WSIB, which issued a decision on benefits.

However, the respondent indicated its intention to appeal the WSIB decision.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to reactivate, finding that the related proceedings under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act were still ongoing and the reasons for deferral remained valid.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate her workplace injury and terminated her employment while on sick leave.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss due to a potential delay in filing.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the parties were involved in ongoing WSIB and WSIAT proceedings dealing with the same factual issues.

The Tribunal found that the subject matter of the WSIB proceedings overlapped significantly with the human rights application and ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the WSIB proceedings.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the human rights application pending the resolution of ongoing WSIB appeals.

The applicant opposed deferral, arguing the WSIB appeals concerned loss of earnings, non-economic loss quantum, and physiotherapy benefits, which were substantively different from the human rights issues of workplace discrimination, accommodation, and return to work.

The respondents supported deferral, arguing there was significant overlap with WSIB early and safe return to work policies.

The Tribunal found that the active WSIB appeals would not be determinative of the discrimination and harassment issues raised in the application.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application and ordered it to proceed.

The applicant alleged that sections 13(4) and (5) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, which restrict benefits for mental stress, discriminate on the basis of disability.

The Attorney General for Ontario and the respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the resolution of a more advanced, similar challenge before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The applicant did not oppose the deferral, though intervenors did.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to defer the application to avoid duplicative litigation and the risk of inconsistent decisions, noting the WSIAT case was much more fully developed.

The applicant, who receives loss of earnings benefits from the WSIB, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability because the WSIB refused to deposit his benefits directly into his bank account.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's arguments that he was discriminated against because other organizations offered direct deposit, or because the WSIB offered it to its employees and grandfathered benefit recipients.

However, the Tribunal allowed the application to proceed on the issue of whether the failure to provide direct deposit amounted to constructive discrimination by denying the applicant equal access to benefits due to his mobility limitations.

The applicant, an injured worker with a learning disability, alleged that the WSIB discriminated against him by changing his Labour Market Re-Entry (LMR) plan from a multi-year academic upgrading program to a short-term retail training program upon learning of his disability.

The WSIB challenged the HRTO's jurisdiction, arguing it had exclusive jurisdiction over benefits under the WSIA.

The HRTO found it had concurrent jurisdiction to hear the human rights claim.

On the merits, the HRTO held that the WSIB discriminated against the applicant by failing to explore accommodations for his learning disability before changing his LMR plan.

The HRTO awarded $5,000 for injury to dignity and ordered the WSIB to amend its LMR policies.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically that the respondent employer failed to accommodate his workplace injury.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the conclusion of ongoing Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) proceedings.

The applicant's union also requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene and deferred the application, finding that the WSIB proceedings dealt with the same factual background and human rights allegations regarding the failure to accommodate.

The parties sought clarification regarding the interpretation and application of a prior settlement dated September 16, 2009.

On consent, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered that the total settlement amount payable was $10,139.73, from which the employer was entitled to deduct $4,339.90 for the recovery of WSIB benefits paid to the grievor prior to November 5, 2009.

The employer was directed to pay the net amount of $5,799.83 to the grievor.

The union filed health and safety grievances seeking monetary compensation for a workplace injury.

The employer brought a preliminary motion arguing that the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction to award monetary compensation because the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA) grants exclusive jurisdiction over such compensation to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board.

The Board dismissed the employer's motion, finding that while the predecessor legislation extinguished 'all rights and rights of action', section 26(2) of the current WSIA only extinguishes 'rights of action'.

Since a grievance is not an action, the Board retained its remedial jurisdiction to award compensation for a violation of the collective agreement.