Eric Kupka

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a WSIB decision approving a worker's third-party settlement retroactively, allowing the worker to claim 'top-up' benefits under s. 30(14) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The employer argued the statute strictly requires WSIB approval before a settlement is made.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the WSIB's interpretation reasonable.

Applying the modern principle of statutory interpretation and the mandatory/directory distinction, the court held that the pre-approval requirement is directory, and barring the worker from benefits due to timing would undermine the remedial purpose of the Act.

The applicant was awarded loss of earning benefits by the WSIB, which included an indexed amount calculated according to a WSIB policy.

The applicant submitted an Intent to Object to the indexation calculation, but the WSIB dismissed it, stating that its policy was not subject to appeal.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court found the WSIB's decision unreasonable because it ignored section 126 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, which expressly contemplates the WSIAT reviewing Board policies.

The court set aside the WSIB's decision and directed the matter to proceed to appeal, emphasizing the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies.

The defendants, Workplace Health & Cost Solutions (WHCS) and The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB), brought motions to strike the plaintiff, Dr. Brenda Steinnagel's, statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action or for being scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious.

The plaintiff alleged wrongful dismissal, economic torts, conspiracy, and fraudulent conduct, claiming the defendants orchestrated her termination for refusing to alter medical opinions to deny claimant benefits.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that the statement of claim, read generously, sufficiently pleaded the causes of action, including unlawful interference with economic relations, inducing breach of contract, and unlawful act conspiracy.

The court held it was not plain and obvious that the action could not succeed and that allegations of fraudulent conduct were relevant to the context of dismissal and potential punitive damages.

The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff's action as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The self-represented plaintiff sought $2 million in damages against the WSIB for refusing to pay for an elbow brace and related grievances.

The court found the statement of claim to be prolix, incoherent, and disclosing no known cause of action.

Furthermore, the action duplicated an ongoing appeal from the plaintiff's provincial offences convictions for misleading the WSIB.

The action was dismissed with costs.

The defendants brought Rule 21 motions to strike a Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim alleging malicious prosecution, negligent investigation, abuse of public office, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and Charter breaches arising from criminal fraud charges related to workers’ compensation benefits.

The court held that the action against the Crown was a nullity due to failure to comply with the notice requirement under the Proceedings Against the Crown Act.

However, it was not plain and obvious that the plaintiffs’ claims for malicious prosecution, negligent investigation, abuse of public office, or intentional infliction of mental suffering were untenable, even though the criminal charges had been withdrawn following a negotiated repayment.

Applying the jurisprudence on favourable termination, the court held that whether the withdrawal constituted a favourable outcome required a fact‑specific analysis and could not be resolved on a pleadings motion.

The Charter damages claim was struck because such relief is only available against the state and the action against the Crown was barred.

The remaining claims were permitted to proceed.

The applicant school boards, as Schedule 2 employers, sought judicial review of the WSIB's refusal to disclose medical and employment information from injured workers' claim files.

The applicants sought this information to pursue subrogated claims against US Asbestos Compensation Trust Funds.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the right of subrogation under s. 30(11) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act does not confer a right of access to a worker's personal information.

The Court also held that the applicants' challenge regarding the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act was premature, as they had an adequate alternative remedy through the freedom of information request process.

The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the defendant's counterclaim.

The WSIB had previously obtained summary judgment on its claim for overpayment of benefits.

The defendant's counterclaim alleged that the WSIB mistakenly or unfairly dealt with medical evidence.

The court granted the WSIB's motion, finding that under sections 26 and 118 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, the WSIB and its appeal tribunals have exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter of the counterclaim.

The motion was granted without costs due to the WSIB's bifurcated approach to summary judgment.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion to amend a statement of claim.

The underlying action had already been dismissed on a motion for summary judgment, which was confirmed by the Court of Appeal and for which the Supreme Court of Canada refused leave to appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the current appeal with costs fixed at $500.