Workers' Compensation - ONSCDC

The self-represented applicant moved under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside a single judge's orders adding the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal as a party to his judicial review application and dismissing the application for extreme delay.

The applicant argued that s. 9(2) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act and the Divisional Court's test for delay violated the Charter and the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no constitutional violations, no error in adding the Tribunal as a party, and no error in dismissing the application due to an extraordinary and unexplained 12-year delay.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding damages to the respondent for injuries sustained in a workplace altercation.

The deputy judge had relied on a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision, which found the appellant was the aggressor, to establish liability.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the deputy judge erred in law by failing to make an independent finding on liability, as the Tribunal had explicitly left that determination to the court.

The Divisional Court also found the deputy judge erred by dismissing the appellant's counterclaim without providing reasons.

The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the Small Claims Court for a new trial before a different judge.

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

The applicant had previously received benefits for an elbow injury caused by repetitive stress at work.

The Tribunal concluded that the shoulder injury arose after the elbow injury and was not caused by it, nor by a workplace accident.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the Tribunal's assessment of the medical evidence and application of the statutory presumption of causation.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal regarding his entitlement to Future Economic Loss (FEL) and Non-Economic Loss (NEL) benefits.

The applicant suffered a workplace back injury and later a non-work-related motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not totally disabled prior to the motor vehicle accident and upheld the 18% NEL award.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Tribunal's decisions were reasonable and fell within its specialized expertise.

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision that terminated his supplemental benefits under s. 147(4) of the Workers' Compensation Act and replaced them with benefits under s. 147(2).

The applicant argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to terminate the benefits and denied him procedural fairness by failing to provide notice or warn him of the downside risk of his appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal reasonably interpreted its home statute in determining the two benefit provisions are mutually exclusive.

The Court also found no breach of procedural fairness, as the applicant had initiated the appeal requesting the change in benefits.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision that denied her entitlement to loss of earnings benefits due to her failure to accept offers of modified duties from her employer.

The applicant argued she was not given proper notice of the possible permanent termination of her benefits.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal's decision was reasonable, as there was ample evidence supporting the finding of notice and the applicant's capability to perform modified work.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a Grievance Settlement Board decision which held that the Board could not award damages for workplace injuries compensable under the Workers' Compensation Act or the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The grievances alleged that exposure to second-hand smoke violated the health and safety provisions of the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Board's decision, confirming that the historic trade-off barring civil actions for workplace injuries also applies to grievance arbitrations seeking damages for such injuries, unless clear and careful language in the collective agreement provides for supplementary benefits.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal denying him compensation for a back injury allegedly sustained at work.

The applicant argued the Tribunal adjudicator was biased and that the decisions were unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias as the applicant failed to object at the hearing, and concluding the Tribunal's finding that no workplace accident occurred was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The applicant, a former registered practical nurse, sought judicial review of a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal denying her benefits for interstitial lung disease.

She claimed the illness was caused by workplace exposure to viruses.

The Tribunal, relying on an independent medical assessor, found it probable that the disease was idiopathic and only speculative that it was caused by workplace viruses.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's reliance on the medical assessor was reasonable and did not constitute an abdication of its decision-making power.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal regarding the calculation of his long-term average earnings.

The applicant, a drywall installer, argued his benefits should be based on his gross earnings.

The Tribunal concluded that, for fairness, his average earnings should be calculated based on the net income he declared for tax purposes, accounting for his business expenses.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal's decisions were reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

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

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review, noting the Tribunal's strong privative clause.

The court found that the Tribunal reasonably relied on the lack of temporal linkage between the applicant's employment and his diagnosis, as well as credibility findings and medical evidence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Tribunal regarding permanent disability entitlements under the Workers' Compensation Act.

The applicants argued that the Tribunal erred in capping the maximum permanent disability supplement at the amount of a full old age security pension under section 147(8), asserting that the calculation formulas in sections 147(9) and (10) should prevail.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding that the Tribunal's interpretation accorded with the plain language of the statute and gave meaning to all provisions.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal that reduced his temporary partial disability benefits.

The Tribunal had applied a policy requiring partially disabled workers to engage in a self-directed vocational rehabilitation program to demonstrate reasonable efforts to return to work.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and held that the Tribunal did not exceed its jurisdiction in interpreting the legislation.

The court found the Tribunal's decision to reduce benefits due to inadequate effort to seek employment was reasonable and dismissed the application.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) decision that denied him temporary disability benefits and found no permanent impairment from a workplace accident.

The applicant argued WSIAT erred by relying on a general medical discussion paper, failing to consult a medical advisor, and improperly weighing the evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding WSIAT's decision was reasonable, supported by the applicant's own medical records showing pre-existing back pain, and that WSIAT, as an expert tribunal, was not required to consult a medical advisor.

The applicant worker suffered a workplace injury and elected to receive workers' compensation benefits.

He subsequently commenced a civil action in negligence against the hospital, doctors, and college involved in his treatment.

The Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal determined that the action against the hospital and its employees was barred by the Workers' Compensation Act, but the action against the doctor and college could proceed, despite the Board waiving its right of subrogation.

The applicants and the counter-applicant doctor sought judicial review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding that the Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether rights of action are taken away, and its decision was not patently unreasonable.