Workers' Compensation - ODC

The applicant sought judicial review of three Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) decisions regarding his entitlement to benefits following two workplace injuries.

The tribunal had allowed his appeal in part for a temporomandibular joint injury but denied benefits for headaches, post-concussion syndrome, and psycho-traumatic disability, finding they were unrelated to the workplace incidents.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, concluding that the tribunal's decisions were coherent, transparent, and firmly based on the medical evidence.

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 sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision that calculated his partial loss of earnings benefits based on an ability to earn minimum wage.

The applicant argued he was entitled to full benefits because he did not complete his labour market re-entry plan, having voluntarily withdrawn to take a temporary job.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's interpretation of section 43(4) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 to be reasonable and entitled to deference.

The City of Toronto applied for judicial review of WSIAT decisions granting breast cancer benefits to three communications dispatchers under the firefighter occupational disease presumption.

The WSIAT had ruled that evidence of the dispatchers' lack of exposure to fire suppression hazards could not be considered to rebut the presumption.

The Divisional Court found this interpretation unreasonable, as it contradicted the plain meaning of the statute and the binding WSIB policy, which allowed the presumption to be rebutted by evidence that employment was not a significant contributing factor.

The WSIAT decisions were quashed and the original WSIB decisions denying benefits were restored.

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.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) denying his claims for ongoing permanent disability pensions and other benefits related to workplace injuries from 1985.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that WSIAT's decisions were logical, transparent, and amply supported by the medical evidence and applicable policies.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Tribunal decision barring their civil action for a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant was struck by a dump truck driven by a co-worker while walking back from a personal bank errand during his workday.

The Tribunal found the applicant was in the course of employment because he was required to carry and answer a work-issued cell phone during his break, thereby retaining employer control.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's interpretation of its policies and the resulting decision were reasonable and owed deference.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal regarding his entitlement to workers' compensation benefits for a left shoulder injury sustained after falling from a ladder at work.

The Tribunal had expanded his initial entitlement to include bicipital tendinitis and a rotator cuff tear but upheld the termination of benefits as of September 2015 and denied entitlement for left shoulder impingement and subsequent surgery.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Tribunal's decisions were justified, intelligible, and transparent, as they were supported by the evidentiary record.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision denying him benefits for a back injury following a workplace fall.

The Tribunal had found the fall was not a significant contributing factor to the injury, relying heavily on the applicant's delay in seeking medical treatment and reporting pain.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's decision unreasonable because it failed to account for uncontradicted medical evidence from the applicant's treating physician and physiotherapist.

The Court granted the application, set aside the decision, and, given the inevitable outcome and lengthy delay, declared the applicant entitled to benefits under s. 13(1) of the WSIA, remitting the matter only for the assessment of those benefits.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision denying him long-term benefits for depression allegedly caused by a workplace injury.

The applicant argued he was denied natural justice because the Tribunal relied on a hearsay letter from his daughter, and that the decision was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Tribunal is permitted to admit hearsay evidence and the applicant had ample notice of the letter.

The Court also held that the Tribunal's conclusion that non-work-related factors outweighed the contribution of the workplace injury was reasonable and supported by ample evidence.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision declaring he had no right to sue his employer, Ontario Hydro, for injuries allegedly sustained in a nuclear accident.

The applicant argued that the federal Nuclear Liability Act created a statutory tort that ousted the provincial Workers' Compensation Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Nuclear Liability Act does not create a federal statutory tort and that federal jurisdiction over nuclear power does not oust provincial jurisdiction over employees' compensation schemes.

The court confirmed that the applicant must pursue his remedies under the provincial workers' compensation scheme.

The respondent, Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, sought costs of $2,000 following a successful application.

The applicant opposed the costs award due to financial circumstances.

The court awarded the requested $2,000, noting it was a fair and reasonable amount given the total bill of costs exceeded $17,000.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision calculating his pre-accident earnings based on his actual hourly wage of $20.00 rather than the $25.20 rate mandated by his union's collective agreement.

The Divisional Court applied a patent unreasonableness standard of review, given the Tribunal's specialized expertise and the strong privative clause.

The Court held that the Tribunal's task under the pre-1997 Workers' Compensation Act was to determine actual earnings, not what ought to have been paid, and that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to enforce the collective agreement.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding an employee's refusal to follow a directive to go to a hospital emergency department.

The arbitrator found that under s. 33(1) of the Act, the employee had the right to make the initial choice of health professional, and that the 'obey now, grieve later' rule did not apply because grieving later would be meaningless.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of the statute correct and the application of the 'obey now, grieve later' exception reasonable.

The applicants sought judicial review to set aside a settlement reached by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board in a subrogated action against the respondent.

The Board, acting as dominus litis, settled the action for $130,000 after considering an independent legal opinion and the applicants' position.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review and found that the Board's decision to compromise the lawsuit was reasonable, dismissing the application.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal denying his claim for benefits related to seizure symptoms and denying his reconsideration request.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review, finding that the Tribunal carefully weighed conflicting medical opinions and properly applied its test for reconsideration.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with no costs.

The applicant was seriously injured at work and received WSIB benefits.

The WSIB failed to recognize a potential third-party claim against the equipment manufacturer and did not send the applicant an election form.

When the applicant later sought to sue the manufacturer, the WSIB ruled his receipt of benefits constituted a deemed election and refused to allow him to withdraw his claim without immediate repayment of all benefits.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court quashed the decision, finding the WSIB made a patent error in finding a deemed election where the applicant was uninformed, and improperly applied an inflexible rule rather than exercising its discretion based on the merits of the case.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal denying her claims for benefits.

The Tribunal had found the applicant not credible and concluded that her job duties did not cause her absence and that no specific accident occurred.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review and found that the Tribunal carefully reviewed the evidence and gave reasons for its decision.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal regarding whether a workplace injury caused her to suffer a traumatic brain injury.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal failed to explain its rejection of unchallenged sworn evidence from a co-worker regarding a second blow to the head.

The Court quashed the Tribunal's decision as patently unreasonable and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal to resolve the conflicting medical opinions.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal denying her request to reconsider a previous decision that denied her benefits for carpal tunnel syndrome.

The Tribunal had found a lack of temporal connection between her condition and her work.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was patent unreasonability and found that the Tribunal's findings of fact and refusal to reconsider were supported by medical evidence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.