7 total
Judicial review of WSIAT decision denying time extension for WSIB appeal dismissed as reasonable.
The applicant, a migrant farm worker, sought judicial review of decisions by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal denying his request for an extension of time to appeal a 2008 decision denying his WSIB claim.
The applicant argued the tribunal overlooked his diligence, miscalculated the delay, and failed to consider his vulnerability as a migrant worker.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the tribunal's decisions were reasonable, properly applied a holistic approach to the delay, and adequately considered the applicant's circumstances.
Leave to intervene granted on strict terms due to late motion and attempts to introduce new evidence.
The proposed interveners brought a late motion for leave to intervene in an application for judicial review.
The respondent opposed the motion, arguing the interveners lacked a distinct perspective and sought to supplement the evidentiary record.
The Divisional Court granted leave to intervene on strict terms, limiting the interveners to five minutes of oral submissions, prohibiting them from repeating the applicant's submissions, and barring them from supplementing the evidentiary record or taking a position on the ultimate disposition.
During the hearing, the interveners attempted to rely on new evidence, which the court rejected as procedurally unfair.
Request to defer human rights application pending WSIB claim denied as issues did not overlap.
The respondent requested to defer the human rights application pending the disposition of the applicant's concurrent WSIB claim.
The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to employment because of disability after the respondent withdrew accommodated work following a workplace injury.
The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding that the substance of the human rights application—whether the respondent failed in its duty to accommodate—would not be addressed in the WSIB proceeding, which focused on whether ongoing ankle problems were attributable to the workplace injury.
The Tribunal also noted that the WSIB proceedings were not at an advanced stage.
Seasonal agricultural workers cease to be eligible for OHIP coverage once their work permits expire.
The respondents were seasonal agricultural workers who were seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident shortly after arriving in Ontario.
They remained in Ontario for medical treatment after their work permits expired and sought continued OHIP coverage.
The Health Services Appeal and Review Board found they were eligible for continued coverage.
The appellant appealed.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the plain wording of the regulation requires a valid work permit for OHIP eligibility, and the respondents ceased to be eligible once their permits expired.
Human rights application deferred pending outcome of concurrent WSIB appeal regarding termination of employment.
The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a WSIB decision regarding the applicant's workplace injury had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.
The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss because the WSIB proceedings were ongoing and under appeal.
However, the Tribunal deferred consideration of the application pending the outcome of the WSIB appeal to avoid the risk of inconsistent findings of fact regarding the reasons for the termination of the applicant's employment.
Request to testify by telephone denied; adjournment granted to explore in-person or video conference options.
The applicant, a migrant worker residing in Trinidad, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.
He requested an order permitting him and a witness to testify by telephone, arguing he lacked status in Canada and could not attend the hearing in person.
The respondent opposed the request.
The Tribunal denied the request to testify by telephone at this time, finding insufficient evidence that the applicant could not attend in person or via video conference.
However, the Tribunal granted an adjournment to allow the applicant to explore obtaining a visitor's visa or arranging compatible video conferencing from Trinidad.
Leave to intervene granted to four organizations regarding a section 45.1 dismissal issue.
Four organizations sought leave to intervene on the issue of whether the Tribunal should dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.
The requests were unopposed and deemed appropriate.
The Tribunal granted leave to intervene and directed the Registrar to schedule a teleconference to address evidence and the scope of intervention.
