Workers' Compensation

Regulatory prosecution under s. 149(1) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 arising from statements made in support of a workplace injury benefits claim.

The court found that surveillance evidence showing the defendant driving beyond stated limits and lifting objects far in excess of reported restrictions contradicted his statements to the WSIB and to health professionals that he had not improved and remained unable to return to work.

The court rejected the defence contention that the absence of an Arabic interpreter undermined the reliability of the communications, finding the defendant had sufficient English proficiency and had not unequivocally requested an interpreter.

The court also rejected a mistake of fact theory that the activity was only a one-time test of abilities, finding it lacked an air of reality and appeared to be a recent fabrication.

Conviction entered.

The employer brought a motion arguing that the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction to award compensatory damages to the grievor for workplace harassment and a poisoned work environment, asserting that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) had exclusive jurisdiction.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding that the employer's actions and inactions fell within the 'employment function bar' under s. 13(5) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997.

Because the WSIB had already denied benefits for the ongoing harassment on this basis, the claims were not compensable under the WSIA, leaving the GSB with jurisdiction to award damages for breaches of the collective agreement and the implied duty of care.

The Divisional Court remitted this matter to the Grievance Settlement Board to determine whether the employment function exclusion under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act applied to the grievor's mental stress injury.

The grievor suffered mental stress due to the employer's negligent delay in addressing a poisoned work environment after a co-worker assaulted him off-duty.

The arbitrator reviewed WSIAT jurisprudence and concluded that the employer's negligent conduct fell within the employment function exclusion, as it did not rise to the level of violence, threats, or egregious conduct.

Consequently, the grievor was not entitled to WSIA benefits, giving the Board jurisdiction to award monetary damages under the collective agreement.

The union filed several grievances on behalf of an employee regarding a workplace injury incident and accommodation issues.

The grievor alleged the employer failed to provide a safe workplace, improperly used video surveillance to dispute her WSIB claim, and failed to accommodate her need for an ergonomic chair.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding the employer had the right to dispute the WSIB claim and provide the requested video to the WSIB.

The arbitrator also found insufficient evidence that the employer failed to accommodate the grievor, noting the employer generally acted quickly to repair the shared ergonomic chair when it broke.

The Union filed grievances alleging discrimination and harassment by the Employer, seeking compensation for lost time and medical expenses due to chronic mental stress.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to grant these remedies because the claims fall under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA).

The arbitrator applied the Monk decision, finding that the alleged chronic mental stress arising from harassment would be a compensable disability under the WSIA, and therefore the claims for compensation for lost time and medical expenses must be struck.

The grievor, a correctional officer, was physically assaulted and racially slurred by a co-worker at an off-duty gathering.

He reported the incident to the employer, but the employer delayed investigating or taking steps to isolate the assailant from the grievor for nearly two months.

The union grieved the employer's failure to provide a harassment-free work environment.

The arbitrator found that the employer's delay perpetuated a poisoned work environment.

However, relying on recent jurisprudence, the arbitrator held that the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction to award financial damages for mental stress, as such claims fall under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The arbitrator issued a declaration against the employer and ordered temporary workplace safeguards to minimize contact between the grievor and the assailant.

The Association filed a grievance alleging the employer breached the collective agreement by failing to protect the complainant from personal harassment and reprisal, resulting in mental stress and illness.

The employer brought a preliminary motion arguing the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction to award damages because the injury was compensable under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA).

Although the WSIA at the time barred claims for chronic mental stress, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal had previously found those provisions unconstitutional and declined to apply them.

The Arbitrator held that the injury would have been compensable under the WSIA in light of the Tribunal's decisions, and therefore the Board lacked jurisdiction to award the requested damages.

The union grieved that the employer violated health and safety provisions when correctional officers were exposed to smoke from fires set by inmates.

The employer brought a preliminary motion arguing that the Board lacked jurisdiction to award monetary redress or damages because the injuries were compensable under the Workers Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA).

The arbitrator upheld the employer's motion, finding that the WSIA's historic trade-off precludes awarding damages for compensable workplace injuries, even if the union frames the claim as a series of collective agreement breaches.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance alleging exposure to second hand smoke in the workplace and sought compensatory damages for health impacts.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction to award such damages.

The Vice-Chair agreed, citing binding precedent that claims for compensation and damages for workplace injuries fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Worker's Safety Insurance Act.

The requested remedy was therefore outside the Board's jurisdiction.

The Union filed grievances alleging the Employer failed to address workplace harassment and bullying against the grievor, seeking compensatory damages for mental distress.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion arguing the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction to award such damages because the grievor's mental distress constituted an injury compensable under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA).

Relying on previous WSIAT decisions that found the WSIA's restrictions on mental stress claims unconstitutional, the Vice-Chair agreed that the grievor's claim for mental distress resulting from workplace harassment was a compensable injury under the WSIA.

Consequently, the Board upheld the Employer's preliminary objection, ruling it had no jurisdiction to award the requested damages.

The grievor, a Food Services Officer, fell from a ladder at work and broke her wrist.

She received benefits under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA).

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer breached the Occupational Health and Safety Act by providing an improper ladder, seeking compensation for the difference between her WSIA benefits and normal wages.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, holding that section 26(2) of the WSIA codifies the 'historic trade-off' and precludes the Board from awarding additional compensation for a workplace injury beyond the statutory benefits.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance alleging he was improperly denied overtime while on an accommodation plan for a workplace injury.

The grievor was working reduced hours subsidized by WSIB.

WSIB directed that the grievor was not permitted to work overtime as it would be outside his medical precautions and could put his recovery at risk.

The Employer complied with this direction.

The arbitrator found no breach of the Collective Agreement, the overtime protocol, or the duty to accommodate, and dismissed the grievance.

The grievor, who suffered a work-related injury, was accommodated by working four days a week.

He received WSIB benefits but experienced a wage shortfall for the fifth day.

The Employer denied him access to the Short Term Sickness Plan (STSP) for the fifth day, relying on article 41.5 of the collective agreement.

The Union grieved, arguing this constituted discrimination based on disability under the Human Rights Code, as employees with non-work-related disabilities could access the STSP.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the WSIB scheme and the STSP are two distinct plans with separate purposes.

Relying on arbitral jurisprudence, the Board held that providing differential benefits under separate schemes for work-related versus non-work-related disabilities does not amount to prohibited discrimination.

Ten grievances were filed by five correctional officers alleging the Employer refused to pay full WSIB benefits on holidays and discriminated against them by not reporting holiday time to the WSIB.

The grievors were absent due to work-related injuries and received WSIB benefits.

The union argued the Employer was obliged to pay a 15% salary top-up for holidays under the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that under the specific language of the collective agreement, employees absent on a holiday are not entitled to their salary, and the Employer satisfied its obligations by paying holiday pay.

The Board also found no discrimination on the basis of disability, as all employees who did not work a scheduled holiday were treated the same.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, suffered multiple workplace injuries resulting in intermittent absences.

The union grieved the employer's decision to cease full salary continuation under Article 41.2 of the collective agreement, arguing that each recurrence of an injury constituted a new claim triggering a fresh 65-day entitlement.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, following a previous arbitration decision which held that intermittent absences from the same originating injury do not trigger a new entitlement period, as the collective agreement specifically ties intermittent absences to the first absence of the originating claim.