Workplace Safety and Insurance Law - ODC

The applicant, a former bus driver, sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision denying him benefits for traumatic mental stress.

The Tribunal had found that the applicant's psychological condition was primarily related to personal issues and a non-compensable employer investigation (the 'Apple incident'), rather than earlier workplace assaults.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Tribunal's decisions to deny benefits and refuse reconsideration were reasonable, and that the Tribunal provided adequate reasons and appropriately weighed the medical evidence.

The Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal brought a motion to strike and dismiss an application for judicial review as an abuse of process.

The applicant had previously sought judicial review of a Tribunal decision regarding her non-economic loss benefit, which was dismissed by the Divisional Court.

She then brought a new application seeking judicial review of the Tribunal's reconsideration decision on the same issue.

The court found the new application to be an abuse of process and an improper collateral attack on the earlier Divisional Court decision, as the grounds were substantially the same and the issues had already been determined.

The motion was granted and the application was dismissed with costs.

The applicant municipality sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) decision granting workers' compensation benefits to an off-duty paramedic.

The paramedic injured his bicep while assisting on-duty paramedics with a medical emergency at a music festival.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that WSIAT reasonably applied the 'place, time and activity' criteria from the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board's policy to conclude the injury occurred in the course of employment.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision denying her request to convert her non-economic loss (NEL) benefit from a lump sum to a monthly payment retroactive to 1993.

The applicant argued that her cumulative NEL awards exceeded the statutory threshold for monthly payments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's interpretation of section 42 of the Workers Compensation Act—that the threshold applies to the amount of compensation as it is awarded, rather than cumulatively—was reasonable.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision granting a worker loss of earning benefits.

The Tribunal found the worker was involuntarily terminated and no suitable modified work was available.

The Divisional Court quashed the decision, finding it unreasonable because the Tribunal ignored uncontradicted evidence that the worker accepted a voluntary severance package while suitable modified work was available.

The court declared the worker was not entitled to benefits beyond his surgery recovery period.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal's decision refusing his third request for reconsideration of a 2007 decision denying him benefits for carpal tunnel syndrome.

The applicant had previously exhausted all appeals, including to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Tribunal's decision not to order a further reconsideration was reasonable, as the applicant was merely attempting to reargue issues already decided.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) decision that barred their civil action for personal injuries sustained in a bridge collapse.

The WSIAT had determined that the injured applicant was a 'worker' rather than an 'executive officer' of his company, thereby precluding the lawsuit under the historic trade-off of the workplace insurance scheme.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and found that the WSIAT did not err in its treatment of the evidence, its allocation of the burden of proof, or its ultimate conclusion.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.