CITATION: Scaduto v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, 2017 ONSC 2345
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 601/16 DATE: 20170413
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
NORDHEIMER, CORBETT and DiTOMASO JJ.
BETWEEN:
GIULIANO SCADUTO
Applicant
– and –
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Respondent
Giuliano Scaduto, acting in person
Daniel S. Revington, for the Respondent
HEARD at Toronto: April 13, 2017
NORDHEIMER J. (Orally)
[1] Mr. Scaduto seeks judicial review of the December 5, 2016 decision of the Chair of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) not to assign the applicant’s third request for reconsideration for further review.
[2] The applicant’s claim has received three decisions from the Tribunal. The first decision was in August 2007 when the Tribunal determined that the applicant was not entitled to a disability award for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), nor was he entitled to an award for psychotraumatic disability, because the Tribunal did not find, on the evidence, that the applicant’s claimed injuries were related to his work. In March 2008, the Tribunal dismissed his first request to reconsider the decision. In September 2009, the Tribunal dismissed his second request to reconsider the decision.
[3] The applicant sought judicial review of all three of these decisions. His application for judicial review was dismissed by this court on June 11, 2010: Scaduto v. Ontario (Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal), [2010] O.J. No. 3580. In dismissing his application, the court said, at para. 7:
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.
[4] The applicant sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. His request for an extension of time to do so was dismissed by a single judge of the Court of Appeal. His appeal of that dismissal to a panel of the Court of Appeal was also dismissed. In each of those decisions, the Court of Appeal found, in essence, that there was no merit in the applicant’s appeal.
[5] An application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was dismissed on February 28, 2013.
[6] More than three years later, on July 25, 2016, the applicant submitted a third reconsideration request to the Tribunal. That reconsideration request was refused in a thorough set of reasons given by the Tribunal. In reaching that conclusion, the Tribunal said, at p. 5:
After carefully reviewing the reconsideration materials, I am satisfied that your submissions in support of this third reconsideration request are, for the most part, a re-argument of the appeal.
[7] The applicant, through this application for judicial review, is similarly attempting to reargue the same issues, all of which were dealt with in the earlier proceedings, as outlined above.
[8] The standard of review of decisions of the Tribunal is reasonableness. The applicant has been unable to show any basis upon which this court could conclude that the Tribunal’s decision not to engage in a third reconsideration was unreasonable. While the applicant produced a report from a doctor dated July 25, 2016 in support of his request, there was no new information in that report. It simply reviewed the earlier medical evidence, all of which was before the Tribunal when it made its previous decisions.
[9] In declining to order a third reconsideration, the Tribunal found that its prior decisions had already addressed all of the issues raised in the applicant’s third reconsideration request. The Tribunal therefore exercised its discretion not to order a further reconsideration.
[10] There is nothing unreasonable in the Tribunal’s exercise of its discretion in that regard and, consequently, there is no basis upon which this court could properly interfere with the Tribunal’s decision.
[11] We appreciate that the applicant does not agree with the decision reached in his case. Of course, he is entitled to disagree with the Tribunal's decision. However, that does not change the fact that he has had his case heard by the Tribunal and he has exhausted all of his appeals from that decision. The matter is over.
[12] The application for judicial review is dismissed.
costs
[13] I have endorsed the Application Record as follows: “This Application is dismissed for oral reasons given. Costs payable by the applicant to the respondent fixed in the amount of $750 all inclusive.”
___________________________ Nordheimer J.
I agree
Corbett J.
I agree
DiTomaso J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: April 13, 2017
Date of Release: April 21, 2017
CITATION: Scaduto v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, 2017 ONSC 2345
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 601/16 DATE: 20170413
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
NORDHEIMER, CORBETT and DiTOMASO JJ.
BETWEEN:
GIULIANO SCADUTO
Applicant
– and –
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
NORDHEIMER J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: April 13, 2017
Date of Release: April 21, 2017