Scaduto v. Workplace Safety & Ins. Appeals Tribunal, 2010 ONSC 3580

herold j. (ORALLY)

1Giuliano Scaduto seeks judicial review of decisions made by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, with respect to claims by Mr. Scaduto for benefits for carpal tunnel syndrome and for a psycho-traumatic disability award. The latter was abandoned at the opening of this hearing.

2In addition to the original decision, there have been, at the applicant’s request, two reconsiderations of the applicant’s claims.

3The standard of review is reasonableness, and reasonableness in a review of this sort cannot ignore the reality that the Tribunal is the beneficiary of what has been described by our Court of Appeal as one of the toughest privative clauses known to Ontario law.

4The material filed before the Tribunal was voluminous. It was all carefully and comprehensively reviewed and referred to at each procedural step along the way.

5In his application before us, the applicant purports to rely to a very significant extent on a chronology which is, in fact, inaccurate. Contrary to the applicant’s belief, there was no report prepared by Dr. Sokol dated June 24, 2004 before Mr. Scaduto left his employment. It is clear from a review of the documents that there was a typographical error and that in fact the letter was written a year later.

6It would also appear that the absence of any reference to carpal tunnel syndrome, with the typical symptoms thereof, in Dr. Sokol’s clinical notes and records made in the fall of 2004, was deemed to be, reasonably in our view, worthy of note by the Tribunal.

7It also seems to be clear that there was no diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome until long after the applicant left his employment and this absence of a clear temporal linkage was a significant factor in the Tribunal’s analysis. The Tribunal also made findings of credibility with respect to the evidence before it and made decisions with respect to the weight to be attributed to the medical opinions it considered, as it was not only entitled to but also required to do. It cannot be said that the Tribunal’s decision to deny a benefit for carpal tunnel syndrome was unreasonable in light of the ample evidence before it to support this conclusion.

8Accordingly, the application for judicial review is dismissed.

COSTS

9This application is dismissed for very brief oral reasons delivered today. No order as to costs.