Workers' Compensation - ONCA

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order dismissing her action against the respondents under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure without leave to amend.

The appellant alleged that the respondents breached a settlement agreement by: (1) appealing her WSIB benefits claim in violation of a release clause, and (2) breaching confidentiality provisions by disclosing settlement agreement information in an affidavit filed in a class proceeding.

The motion judge struck both claims and dismissed the action against the individual respondent.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding it was not plain and obvious that the claims could not succeed, and granted leave to amend the claim against the individual respondent.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his application for judicial review against the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board and the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal.

The application concerned the denial of reimbursement for non-prescription pain medication, cessation of coverage for prescription medication, and denial of benefits for certain dates in 1998.

The application judge found no urgency as required by the Judicial Review Procedure Act and dismissed the application as premature, as the appellant had not exhausted the administrative appeal process.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, finding no legal error in the application judge's analysis regarding the reasonableness of the WSIB's request for updated medical information.

The appellant, injured in 1997 while unloading goods from a truck, brought a civil action against the Workplace Safety & Insurance Board and the Workplace Safety & Insurance Appeals Tribunal seeking compensatory damages of $1,710,455 and punitive damages of $15 million.

The respondents moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and to strike the pleadings as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The motion judge granted the motions, holding that the Superior Court lacks jurisdiction over claims against these bodies and that relief must be sought through judicial review.

The appellant appealed, arguing the motion judge erred in dismissing the claim for lack of jurisdiction and in striking the pleadings for failing to disclose a cause of action for bad faith or misfeasance in public office.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the statutory scheme under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act vests exclusive jurisdiction in the Board and Tribunal, and that circumventing this scheme through a civil action constitutes an abuse of process.

The court also held that bad faith is not independently actionable and that the pleadings failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action for misfeasance in public office.

The appellant sought long-term disability (LTD) benefits from the respondent insurer following a motor vehicle accident while working.

The appellant initially collected Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) benefits but retroactively elected to pursue a tort action against the other driver.

The respondent sought to offset LTD benefits by the amount of WSIB benefits for which the appellant was eligible, rather than the amount actually received.

The motion judge granted summary judgment for the respondent, finding no meaningful distinction from the precedent in Richer v. Manulife Financial.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, dismissing the appeal with costs.

A proposed class action brought by injured workers who were denied full non-economic loss benefits under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act on the basis of asymptomatic pre-existing conditions.

The plaintiff alleged that the denials resulted from an internal policy illegally adopted to save money.

The action was pleaded in misfeasance in public office, bad faith, and negligence.

The motion judge struck the statement of claim as disclosing no cause of action, finding the claims fell within the privative clause.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the misfeasance in public office and negligence claims were properly pleaded and not plainly barred by the privative clause.

Bad faith was found not to be a free-standing cause of action but rather an element of misfeasance in public office.