Workplace Safety and Insurance Law

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability by the WSIB.

The applicant claimed the WSIB discriminated against him by initially refusing treatment for depression, failing to accommodate his language disability, and finding his depression not compensable.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the applicant's ongoing WSIB proceedings, noting that the WSIB and WSIAT have jurisdiction to apply the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, following her termination for refusing to perform her pre-injury job after a work-related shoulder injury.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the outcome of a related proceeding at the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB).

Finding considerable overlap between the issues in both proceedings, including whether the applicant had a disability at the time of termination and whether the respondent offered suitable work and accommodation, the Tribunal ordered that the application be deferred until the WSIB proceeding is complete.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal with respect to employment on the basis of disability, following a workplace injury.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance was dealt with by the WSIB.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the completion of the ongoing WSIB proceedings.

Finding that the WSIB claim and appeal directly related to the human rights allegations and involved overlapping remedies, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the WSIB matter.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the ground of disability by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board regarding his benefits and work transition services.

The applicant noted an ongoing WSIB appeal and agreed to defer the application.

The respondent confirmed the ongoing appeal and supported deferral.

The Tribunal found that the WSIB appeal dealt with the same facts and allegations, and ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the WSIB process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed or deferred because the applicant had an ongoing Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) appeal regarding the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal found significant overlap between the WSIB matters and the human rights allegations, and ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the WSIB process to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent findings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically regarding threats and accusations related to his return to work following a workplace injury.

The respondents brought a request to defer the application pending the completion of ongoing Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) proceedings dealing with the appropriateness of the return to work plan.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed to avoid the risk of inconsistent findings of fact between the Tribunal and the WSIB.

The Attorney General for Ontario sought leave to intervene in an application challenging the validity of certain sections of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal granted the intervention request.

The Tribunal also requested written submissions from all parties on the Attorney General's request to defer the application pending a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal on the basis of disability, claiming she was not provided with appropriate modified work and was terminated for failing to meet production quotas.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant was concurrently pursuing appeals before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) regarding the same facts and issues.

Finding significant overlap between the WSIB proceedings and the human rights allegations, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the WSIB process to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent findings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability following a work-related knee injury.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had an ongoing claim for benefits at the WSIB regarding the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal found that the factors favouring deferral, including avoiding duplicate proceedings and inconsistent findings, outweighed the factors against deferral.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the WSIB proceedings.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of proceedings under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The applicant argued that the WSIB had made a decision confirming his loss of earnings benefits.

The respondent opposed the reactivation, noting that an appeal was currently before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate, finding that the WSIA proceedings were not yet concluded and the request was premature.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against his employer and the WSIB, relating to the suitability of an accommodated position and loss of earnings benefits.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed or deferred pending the outcome of ongoing WSIB appeals.

The Tribunal denied the employer's premature request for production of the WSIB file.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the human rights application, finding significant factual and legal overlap between the application and the concurrent WSIB proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, related to an ongoing effort to have her job modified following a workplace injury.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss because the WSIB proceedings were still ongoing.

However, the Tribunal granted the respondents' request to defer the application pending the outcome of the WSIB matter, as the subject matter and remedies substantially overlapped.

The defendant was charged with five offences under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act: one count of wilfully failing to inform the WSIB of a material change in circumstances within 10 days, and four counts of knowingly making false or misleading statements to the WSIB.

The charges arose from the defendant's failure to report various work activities and his responses on WSIB forms regarding his employment status and medical condition.

The court found that the WSIB failed to establish a clear communication strategy to ensure claimants understood what constituted a "material change" and that the defendant's understanding of "work" as paid employment was reasonable given the WSIB's own forms.

The court acquitted on all five counts, finding reasonable doubt as to the defendant's knowledge and intent.

The worker objected to the denial of full loss of earnings (LOE) benefits from August 20, 2007, following a workplace injury to his low back and subsequent depression.

The worker argued that his physical injury and depression rendered him unemployable.

The Appeals Resolution Officer reviewed the medical evidence and concluded that the worker was partially impaired, not totally impaired, and was capable of working 20 hours per week.

The objection was allowed in part, granting partial LOE based on a 20-hour work week.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming the respondents failed to accommodate his workplace injuries and unfairly terminated his employment.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed or deferred because the applicant's WSIB claim regarding the same injuries was denied and an appeal was pending.

The Tribunal found significant factual overlap between the application and the concurrent WSIB proceeding, particularly regarding the alleged injury, medical restrictions, and cessation of employment.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the WSIB proceedings to avoid inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate her work-related back injury and discriminatory termination.

The respondents sought to defer the application because the applicant had an ongoing claim before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) Appeals Resolution Officer regarding the same injury and return-to-work issues.

The Tribunal found a substantial overlap between the issues in the two proceedings, particularly regarding the nature of the disability and accommodation.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred until the WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer issues a final decision.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging that the denial of his WSIB claim for chronic mental stress under s. 13(5) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act was discriminatory on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal convened a three-member panel to determine whether it had jurisdiction to hear a complaint alleging discrimination in the provision of statutory benefits.

The Tribunal concluded that benefits provided under a statute are 'services' within the meaning of the Human Rights Code.

While the Tribunal does not have the power to review the substantive correctness of WSIB decisions or act as an appellate body, it has jurisdiction to hear challenges alleging that the statutory scheme itself is discriminatory.

The Tribunal affirmed its jurisdiction and directed the parties to file detailed pleadings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging disability discrimination and constructive dismissal due to the employer's failure to accommodate her physical restrictions.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application because the applicant was concurrently pursuing a WSIB appeal regarding the same factual issues.

The Tribunal found significant overlap between the factual allegations and legal issues in both proceedings and ordered the deferral of the human rights application pending the conclusion of the WSIB proceedings.

The employer objected to the WSIB's initial decision allowing the worker's claim for Idiopathic Parkinson's Disease, which had been attributed to moderate workplace exposure to N-Hexane and welding fumes containing manganese over 20 years.

At the hearing, expert medical and toxicological evidence demonstrated that the worker's exposures were low and below threshold limit values.

Furthermore, the scientific literature links such exposures to Parkinsonism and Manganism, not Idiopathic Parkinson's Disease.

The Appeals Resolution Officer concluded there was no causal relationship between the workplace exposures and the worker's condition, granted the employer's objection, and overturned the allowance of the claim.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate a work-related repetitive strain injury.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had concurrent proceedings before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) regarding the same issues.

The Tribunal found that the WSIB has the authority to consider the accommodation issues and that proceeding concurrently would risk inconsistent findings and be unfair to the parties.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the completion of the WSIB process.