Workplace Safety and Insurance Law

The applicant alleged that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board discriminated against her on the basis of age regarding her placement in a Labour Market Reentry program.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it had no jurisdiction because section 2.1(1) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act explicitly provides that decisions under the Act authorizing age distinctions apply despite the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming a denial of accommodation upon returning to work after a back injury.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending an ongoing WSIB proceeding.

Finding substantial overlap between the issues to be determined by the WSIB and the Tribunal, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the WSIB proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of his disability against his employer, his union, and the WSIB.

The respondents requested that the HRTO defer consideration of the application pending the conclusion of the applicant's appeal before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The HRTO dismissed the request for deferral, finding that the main issues and timeframes before the WSIAT and the HRTO were different, as the WSIAT proceeding focused on the period up to February 2007, while the HRTO application focused on the accommodation process from September 2007 onwards.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination in employment, claiming his non-economic loss benefit was calculated based on his age at the time of his workplace accident.

The respondent Workplace Safety and Insurance Board requested the application be dismissed, arguing that section 2.1(1) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 permits age-based distinctions despite the Human Rights Code.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal found that section 2.1 of the Act exempts age-based distinctions from review under the Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a transitional application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code.

On consent of both parties, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the outcome of the applicant's Workplace Safety and Insurance Act appeals.

The application may be re-activated within 60 days of the conclusion of the WSIA proceedings.

The applicant suffered a workplace injury at age 63 and received loss of earnings benefits from the WSIB for two years.

The benefits were terminated when he turned 65, pursuant to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

He filed an application alleging age discrimination.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because section 2.1 of the Act expressly exempts its age-based distinctions from the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed an application alleging age discrimination in the calculation of his non-economic loss benefit by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board.

The respondent requested dismissal, arguing the application was barred by section 2.1(1) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act and fell outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

Noting the applicant's failure to respond to the request, the Tribunal issued an interim decision granting the applicant ten days to provide written or oral submissions before determining the dismissal issue.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of her human rights application pending the outcome of her concurrent Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) claims regarding the same events.

The respondents opposed the deferral, arguing the proceedings involved different legal theories and noting they had already incurred mediation costs.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding a clear overlap between the issues and potential damages in the two proceedings, and noted that the extent of WSIB compensation would be relevant if the human rights application later proceeded.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed on a preliminary basis for failing to establish a prima facie case, or alternatively, deferred pending the completion of WSIB proceedings.

The Tribunal held that it lacked the power to dismiss the application without hearing oral submissions under s. 43(2) of the Human Rights Code.

However, as the applicant consented and there was overlap between the proceedings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the WSIB proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the WSIB failed to refer him to a medical electro-industrial specialist.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the applicant's ongoing WSIB appeal regarding his entitlement to benefits.

Finding that the facts and issues were substantially the same as those in the concurrent WSIB proceeding, the Tribunal deferred the application until the conclusion of the WSIB appeal.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging failure to accommodate a work-related injury.

The respondent school board requested that the applications be deferred under s. 45 of the Human Rights Code because the issues were currently before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Tribunal (WSIAT) on appeal.

The Tribunal found sufficient overlap in the factual issues and concluded that deferring the applications pending the WSIAT outcome was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability against his employer, his union, and the WSIB.

The employer and union requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the application pending the conclusion of the applicant's appeal before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the WSIB and the union to file full written submissions on the deferral issue, and allowing the applicant to file a reply, before making a determination.

The applicant filed an application under s. 53(5) of the Human Rights Code alleging the respondent failed to offer her employment after she recovered from a work-related injury.

The respondent sought early dismissal due to technical deficiencies, or alternatively, deferral pending a related proceeding before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The Tribunal waived the technical deficiencies but deferred the application, finding that the issues before the WSIAT regarding the obligation to re-employ were sufficiently similar to warrant deferral to avoid inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging harassment based on disability following a workplace injury.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code or deferred pending the applicant's appeal to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) regarding her chronic pain claim.

The Tribunal found it premature to dismiss the application under section 45.1 as the WSIB proceeding was not yet final.

However, given the overlap in issues regarding the applicant's disability, the Tribunal deferred the application pending a decision from the WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer.

The applicant sought to amend his human rights application to include allegations that the respondent made false statements to a WSIB claims investigator, which allegedly resulted in the denial of his WSIB benefits.

The Tribunal denied the request to amend, finding that the proposed amendment would fundamentally alter the focus of the original complaint regarding workplace harassment and termination.

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the WSIB has exclusive jurisdiction to determine entitlement to benefits under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The applicant alleged that the WSIB discriminated against him by failing to accommodate his learning disability in a Labour Market Re-Entry program.

The WSIB requested an order dismissing the application, arguing that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the WSIB has exclusive jurisdiction over matters arising under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, and its adjudicative decisions are not 'services' under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding it was not plain and obvious that it lacked jurisdiction, and deferred the issue to be determined with a full factual matrix.

The respondent requested to defer an application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of disability, arguing that it was contemplating an appeal of a recent Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) decision regarding the applicant's work-related injury.

The Tribunal dismissed the deferral request, finding that because an appeal was only being contemplated, there was no current legal proceeding underway that would justify deferring the application.

The Tribunal directed the matter to mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application challenging the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board's policy on 'non-work related conditions', which had initially resulted in a denial of her benefits when she stopped working due to pregnancy.

The respondent requested an order dismissing the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the essence of the complaint was a challenge to an adjudicative decision, and purely adjudicative functions do not constitute a 'service' under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination by the WSIB and a claims adjudicator regarding his participation in a labour market re-entry program.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the application pending the conclusion of concurrent proceedings before the WSIB's Appeals Branch and the WSIAT.

The Tribunal found that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, as the applicant was raising the same facts and issues in both forums.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the workplace safety and insurance proceedings.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability following a work-related injury.

The Tribunal Registrar issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant was pursuing an appeal at the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) regarding whether he refused to accept suitable work.

The Tribunal found that the WSIAT decision would deal with matters highly relevant to the human rights application and ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the WSIAT appeal.