Workplace Safety and Insurance Law

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision that refused to discontinue the respondent worker's Future Economic Loss benefits.

The worker had returned to full-time work 17 years after his injury, but his benefits had been locked-in after the statutory 60-month review window.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's interpretation of the legislation and policy directives—that benefits could not be reviewed after 60 months absent specific exceptions—was reasonable and respected the legislative objective of finality.

The plaintiff's slip and fall action was dismissed against the remaining defendants (Marriott entities) after the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) determined it had exclusive jurisdiction, barring the civil claim.

This decision concerns the costs of the action and the defendants' motion to dismiss.

The court found both counsel responsible for the unnecessary motion due to poor communication and unreasonable cost claims, particularly the defendants' inclusion of WSIAT costs which are not recoverable.

The court fixed the costs of the action for the remaining defendants at $2,500 all-inclusive and awarded no costs for the motion itself, emphasizing the waste of court resources and unrecoverable legal fees caused by counsel's failure to communicate meaningfully.

The worker, a caseworker, appealed a decision denying initial entitlement for a right L4-5 paramedian disc herniation.

The worker claimed the injury resulted from prolonged sitting and repetitive pivoting required by his job duties.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker's condition emerged gradually over time and was medically compatible with his pre-accident job duties, which involved sitting for an average of 6.5 hours per day.

The appeal was allowed, granting initial entitlement for the disc herniation.

The worker suffered a compensable back injury and was later offered modified indoor work at the employer's shop.

After attempting the commute for three days, the worker stopped working, citing the lengthy drive home which exacerbated his back condition.

The Case Manager determined the work was suitable and denied further loss of earnings (LOE) benefits.

On appeal, the Appeals Resolution Officer found that while the duties themselves were suitable, the commute home took up to two hours and violated the worker's permanent medical precaution against prolonged sitting.

The modified work was therefore deemed unsuitable, and the worker was granted full LOE benefits from January 7, 2017, until his retirement in May 2017.

The worker and employer both objected to decisions of the WSIB.

The worker objected to the suitability of the Dispatcher suitable occupation (SO) and the payment of partial loss of earnings (LOE) benefits based on minimum wage.

The employer objected to the 25% relief granted under the Second Injury and Enhancement Fund (SIEF).

The Appeals Resolution Officer found the Dispatcher SO was suitable and available, and that partial LOE benefits were appropriately paid.

The employer's objection was allowed in part, with SIEF relief increased to 50% based on a minor accident and a minor pre-existing condition.

The union filed grievances alleging the employer failed to provide a harassment-free and safe workplace, seeking monetary damages for mental distress.

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

The arbitrator held that the Board lacks jurisdiction to award monetary damages for mental distress resulting from workplace harassment, as such claims fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the WSIA regime.

However, the Board retains jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief and other monetary remedies not compensable under the WSIA.

The worker appealed a Case Manager's decision denying Loss of Earnings (LOE) benefits from December 27, 2017 to March 9, 2018, following a workplace slip and fall that resulted in a lower back injury.

The employer maintained they were not provided with updated restrictions and did not offer modified work.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker remained disabled and unable to perform his regular duties during the period in question, and that the employer failed to offer suitable modified work despite being aware of the injury.

The worker's appeal was allowed, and full LOE benefits were granted for the disputed period.

The employer appealed a Case Manager's decision granting the worker loss of earning (LOE) benefits from January 25, 2018 to February 16, 2018.

The worker had suffered a workplace neck injury and was offered modified duties, which she later stopped performing, claiming they were unsuitable.

An Appeals Resolution Officer found that the modified duties required the worker to lift items exceeding her functional abilities when co-workers were unavailable to assist.

Consequently, the modified work was deemed unsuitable, and the worker was entitled to full LOE benefits for the disputed period.

The employer's objection was denied.

The worker appealed a decision denying entitlement to full loss of earnings (LOE) benefits for two shifts missed after sustaining a head injury at work.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the attending emergency physician had medically cleared the worker to return to full regular duties immediately following the incident.

As there was no clinical authorization supporting the need for time off work during the claimed period, the worker did not meet the policy requirements for LOE benefits.

The appeal was denied.

The worker, a Staff Sergeant at a Detention Centre, appealed the denial of initial entitlement for a mental stress injury (PTSD) claimed to be caused by workplace harassment and discrimination, particularly during her pregnancy.

The Appeals Resolution Officer reviewed numerous incidents, including denied developmental opportunities, vacation requests, and accommodation delays.

The Officer concluded that the events were either normal decisions and actions stemming from the employment function or interpersonal conflicts that did not rise to the level of being egregious, abusive, or objectively traumatic.

As the criteria for Traumatic Mental Stress and Chronic Mental Stress were not met, the appeal was dismissed.

The worker appealed several decisions regarding her entitlement to benefits following a work-related psychological injury (PTSD).

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker's secondary gastrointestinal symptoms were causally linked to her accepted psychological condition.

The Officer also determined that the worker was totally disabled and unable to participate in a graduated return to work plan, entitling her to full Loss of Earnings benefits from April 2016 onward.

Furthermore, the date of Maximum Medical Recovery was adjusted to November 2016, and the worker's Non-Economic Loss award for psychotraumatic disability was increased from 25% to 35%.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his application for judicial review against the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board and the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal.

The application concerned the denial of reimbursement for non-prescription pain medication, cessation of coverage for prescription medication, and denial of benefits for certain dates in 1998.

The application judge found no urgency as required by the Judicial Review Procedure Act and dismissed the application as premature, as the appellant had not exhausted the administrative appeal process.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, finding no legal error in the application judge's analysis regarding the reasonableness of the WSIB's request for updated medical information.

The worker, a former Child Protection Worker, appealed the denial of her claims for Traumatic Mental Stress (TMS) and Chronic Mental Stress (CMS) benefits.

She alleged that learning of the sudden death of an infant on her caseload and receiving a letter from her employer requiring her to participate in a 'Best Practice Review' meeting caused her severe stress and anxiety.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the employer's letter was not harsh or threatening, but rather a standard requirement following such events.

Furthermore, the officer concluded that hearing about the child's death remotely did not constitute an objectively traumatic event for TMS, nor a substantial work-related stressor for CMS.

The appeal was dismissed.

The worker sought loss of earnings (LOE) benefits following knee surgery for a work-related injury.

Benefits were denied under section 43(1)(b) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act because the worker was over 65 years of age at the time of the surgery.

The worker argued this provision violated section 5(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that section 2.1(1) of the WSIA removed jurisdiction to consider a violation of the Code for a distinction based on age.

Alternatively, the Officer concluded that the age limitation did not result in substantive discrimination and could be justified as a bona fide requirement.

The objection was denied.

The plaintiff's action, stemming from a 1972 workplace accident and subsequent denied WSIB claims, was referred for dismissal under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found the action to be an abuse of process, as it attempted to re-litigate claims dismissed in a 2004 summary judgment.

Furthermore, new allegations of bribery, corruption, and conflict of interest were deemed frivolous and vexatious.

The action was dismissed, with no order as to costs.

The worker suffered a compensable right foot injury and was subsequently offered a modified job as a forklift operator.

After experiencing increased pain, the worker submitted a medical note indicating a new restriction of no prolonged or repetitive force with the right foot.

The employer could not accommodate this restriction and sent the worker home.

The Case Manager denied the new restriction, found the forklift job suitable, and denied Loss of Earnings (LOE) benefits and Work Transition Services (WTS).

On appeal, the Appeals Resolution Officer found that the restriction was work-related, given the nature of the accepted injury and the worker's functional abilities.

Consequently, the forklift operator job was deemed unsuitable because it required prolonged and repetitive force to operate the pedals.

The worker's appeal was allowed, granting entitlement to LOE benefits as of August 23, 2017, and further WTS.

The worker suffered an electric shock at work and subsequently developed severe anxiety and depression.

The WSIB initially denied entitlement for psychotraumatic disability and terminated loss of earnings (LOE) benefits.

On appeal, the Appeals Resolution Officer found that the workplace accident was a significant intervening event that exacerbated the worker's pre-existing psychological conditions.

Applying the thin skull doctrine, the Officer allowed the appeal, granting entitlement for Major Depressive Disorder and Generalized Anxiety Disorder, and reinstating LOE benefits from September 2, 2017.

The worker appealed decisions denying entitlement to benefits for chronic pain disability (CPD), psychotraumatic disability, and loss of earnings (LOE) benefits beyond December 7, 2015, following a work-related head injury.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the worker met the criteria for CPD and granted a Non-economic Loss determination for this condition.

The worker was not entitled to benefits for a psychotraumatic disability or permanent organic impairment.

Full LOE benefits were granted from December 8, 2015, to January 26, 2017, with further entitlement to be determined by the Operating Area following a work transition assessment.

The worker, a delivery agent, sustained a muscle strain while lifting a parcel.

She appealed a decision denying her loss of earnings (LOE) benefits and sought to add an intercostal strain to her accepted diagnoses.

The Appeals Resolution Officer allowed the appeal in part, granting entitlement for the intercostal strain based on medical evidence.

However, the claim for LOE benefits was denied because the worker was not totally disabled from working and suitable modified duties were available without wage loss.

The worker objected to a Case Manager's decision that her loss of earnings (LOE) benefits should be based on her ability to earn minimum wage in the suitable occupation (SO) of a Cashier.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the SO of a Cashier was unsuitable given the worker's permanent functional restrictions from a work-related lower back injury, her limited education, and the lack of available employment opportunities in her local labour market.

The worker's objection was allowed, and she was granted full LOE benefits from the deferred final review date to age 65.