5 total
Judicial review dismissed; WSIAT reasonably concluded shoulder injury did not significantly contribute to wage loss.
The applicant sought judicial review of four WSIAT decisions that denied his claim for Loss of Earnings (LOE) benefits under s. 43 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997.
The applicant had suffered a compensable right shoulder injury but later resigned due to severe non-compensable hearing loss.
The WSIAT found that the shoulder injury was not a significant contributing factor to his wage loss after resignation.
The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding that the WSIAT properly applied the 'significant contributing cause' test and its decisions were justifiable, transparent, and intelligible.
Human rights application dismissed for delay; pursuing WSIB benefits does not justify late filing.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual, verbal, and physical harassment by a co-worker between 2002 and 2009.
She delayed filing the application because she was pursuing a claim with the WSIB, which was ultimately denied.
The Tribunal found that the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal held that pursuing WSIB benefits does not justify a failure to file a human rights application in a timely manner, and therefore the delay was not incurred in good faith under section 34(2).
The application was dismissed.
Application for judicial review dismissed; Tribunal reasonably interpreted statute to cap permanent disability supplements at old age security levels.
The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Tribunal regarding permanent disability entitlements under the Workers' Compensation Act.
The applicants argued that the Tribunal erred in capping the maximum permanent disability supplement at the amount of a full old age security pension under section 147(8), asserting that the calculation formulas in sections 147(9) and (10) should prevail.
The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding that the Tribunal's interpretation accorded with the plain language of the statute and gave meaning to all provisions.
Judicial review dismissed; Tribunal's policy requiring self-directed vocational rehabilitation for partial disability benefits was reasonable.
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal that reduced his temporary partial disability benefits.
The Tribunal had applied a policy requiring partially disabled workers to engage in a self-directed vocational rehabilitation program to demonstrate reasonable efforts to return to work.
The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and held that the Tribunal did not exceed its jurisdiction in interpreting the legislation.
The court found the Tribunal's decision to reduce benefits due to inadequate effort to seek employment was reasonable and dismissed the application.
Action for interest on retroactive CPP disability payments struck as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.
The appellant received a retroactive lump sum payment for a Canada Pension Plan disability pension and brought a proposed class action claiming interest on the payment.
The Attorney General moved to strike the statement of claim.
The motion judge struck the claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment but allowed the claims based on constructive trust and the inherent power of the court to award interest to proceed.
On appeal and cross-appeal, the Court of Appeal held that it was plain and obvious that none of the claims could succeed, as the comprehensive statutory scheme of the Canada Pension Plan does not provide for the payment of interest on benefits.
The appeal was dismissed, the cross-appeal was allowed, and the action was dismissed.
