Workplace Safety and Insurance Law

The moving party brought a motion to set aside an ex parte order that froze her bank accounts and made her personally liable for a judgment regarding funds allegedly misappropriated from the responding party's elderly father.

She also argued the seized funds were exempt from seizure under the Wages Act as they originated from a WSIB settlement.

The court dismissed the motion to return the seized funds, exercising its discretion to reduce the wage exemption to 0% for the already seized amounts due to strong prima facie evidence of financial impropriety.

However, the court varied the order to allow an 80% exemption for future wages and directed a trial of the issue regarding her ultimate liability.

The applicant, acting as an estate trustee, commenced an application for judicial review without a lawyer.

The Divisional Court adjourned the hearing, holding that under Rule 15.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a party acting in a representative capacity must be represented by a lawyer.

The court ordered the applicant to retain counsel by a specified date, failing which the application would be dismissed.

The worker appealed the denial of his claim for occupational noise induced hearing loss.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that while the worker had a sensorineural hearing loss consistent with occupational noise exposure, his calculated noise exposure of 83 dB over 8 hours per day for 40 years did not meet the WSIB's minimum threshold of 84 dB for 40 years.

The appeal was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board discriminated against him on the basis of disability when it denied him full benefits for a workplace injury.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction questioning its jurisdiction to hear the matter.

After receiving written submissions from the applicant, the Tribunal dismissed the application on a preliminary basis, finding that it does not have the jurisdiction to review decisions made under statutory benefit programs to determine if they are correct.

The applicant requested to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of a related WSIB proceeding.

The WSIB Appeal Resolution Officer had rendered a decision, which the applicant was appealing to the WSIAT.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate, finding that proceeding with the application while the WSIAT appeal was pending would amount to an inappropriate collateral attack and risk inconsistent findings of fact.

The application remains deferred.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging his employment was terminated because of a workplace injury and a WSIB claim.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the outcome of the applicant's WSIB appeal regarding loss of earnings benefits.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding significant overlap between the proceedings, as the WSIB appeal would likely require determining whether the termination was related to the work injury or the claim for benefits.

The respondent requested reconsideration of an interim decision that denied its request to defer the human rights application pending a WSIB proceeding.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the interim decision was not a final decision and therefore could not be reconsidered under Rule 26.1.

However, acting on its own motion under Rule 16, the Tribunal decided to defer the application because the respondent had filed a Notice of Objection to the WSIB decision, creating an ongoing proceeding with overlapping issues regarding the duty to accommodate and re-employment obligations.

The applicant, an injured worker, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination after the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board reduced his wage loss benefits for failing to comply with a Work Transition plan.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of the applicant's ongoing appeal before the respondent's Appeal Branch.

The Tribunal found that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, as there was a clear overlap in facts and issues, raising the potential for duplication and inconsistent findings.

The application was deferred.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability following a workplace injury, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate him and terminated his employment.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed or deferred due to an ongoing union grievance and ongoing appeals before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB).

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code because the parallel proceedings were not yet completed.

However, the Tribunal granted the request to defer the application, finding a significant overlap of facts and issues between the application, the grievance, and the WSIB appeals.

The application was deferred pending the completion of the grievance and WSIB proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board and a claims adjudicator regarding the administration of her benefits and a labour market re-entry program.

The respondents requested early dismissal on the basis that their adjudicative functions do not constitute a 'service' under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the respondents' statutory decision-making responsibilities are not susceptible to review under the Code, and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) regarding the handling and denial of his claim for statutory benefits.

The Tribunal considered whether it had jurisdiction over the substance of the application.

The Tribunal found that the allegations related to the adjudicative function of the WSIB and its interpretation of its enabling legislation, rather than the provision of a 'service' within the meaning of the Human Rights Code.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services regarding the termination of his WSIB benefits and a determination of his employability.

The respondents requested early dismissal on jurisdictional grounds, arguing the Tribunal lacks authority to review WSIB decisions, or alternatively, deferral pending the applicant's internal WSIB appeals.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the parties to provide written submissions on whether the application falls within its jurisdiction and whether deferral is appropriate.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability after his Labour Market Re-entry program was terminated early by the WSIB.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of the applicant's ongoing WSIB appeal.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding that the WSIB appeal involved substantially the same facts, legal issues regarding the duty to accommodate, and potential remedies.

The respondent requested that the human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability be deferred pending the completion of proceedings before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The applicant had suffered a workplace injury and disputed whether the modified duties offered by the employer met his medical restrictions.

The Tribunal found that the suitability of the modified work was a central issue in both proceedings and that the WSIAT proceedings were well underway.

To avoid concurrent overlapping proceedings and the potential for conflicting findings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the WSIAT proceedings.

The employer brought a motion challenging the Public Service Grievance Board's jurisdiction to hear a grievance concerning the grievor's exposure to asbestos in the workplace.

The employer argued the claim was essentially for workplace injury and mental stress, falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB).

The Board found it had mixed jurisdiction: claims relating to personal injury and health consequences of asbestos exposure were deferred to the WSIB, while claims alleging the employer breached the Occupational Health and Safety Act by failing to warn or train the grievor remained within the Board's jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability following his dismissal from employment.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a Workplace Safety and Insurance Board Appeals Resolution Officer (ARO) decision had already dealt with the substance of the application.

Alternatively, the respondent requested deferral pending the applicant's appeal of the ARO decision to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The Tribunal found the dismissal request premature as the ARO decision was not final, but directed the applicant to provide submissions on the deferral request in his Reply.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act discriminates against him on the basis of age by terminating his benefits at age 65.

The respondents raised a jurisdictional issue, arguing that s. 2.1(1) of the WSIA explicitly exempts the Act from the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal amended the style of cause and directed the applicant to address the jurisdictional issue in his Reply before determining whether to dismiss the application.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss the complainant's human rights complaint without a hearing, arguing that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) had exclusive jurisdiction over the accommodation of his workplace injury, and that the complaint was barred by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, issue estoppel, and abuse of process.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the Human Rights Code has primacy and provides concurrent jurisdiction over discrimination issues.

The Tribunal also found that issue estoppel and abuse of process did not apply because the WSIB had not issued a final decision on whether the employer could accommodate the complainant, and the parties were not identical.

A request for a stay of proceedings pending judicial review was also denied.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under s. 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the responding party employer failed to return the grievor to work following a workplace injury.

The responding party failed to file a Request for Hearing and Notice of Intent to Defend.

The applicant requested the Board determine the matter based solely on its filed materials.

The Board declined to make the requested declarations and orders, finding the applicant's pleadings insufficient to establish that work was available for the grievor at the relevant times.

The scheduled hearing was ordered to proceed.

The applicant requested to withdraw its application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.