Workplace Safety and Insurance Law - ONSCDC

The applicants sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision that allowed an injured Ontario worker to sue an out-of-province employee and his Schedule 1 employer in Ontario.

The tribunal had held that the statutory bar to civil actions under s. 28 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 did not apply because the out-of-province employee had no connection to Ontario, relying on the constitutional doctrine of extra-territoriality.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding that the tribunal misapplied the constitutional doctrine, as the legislation regulates the property and civil rights of the injured Ontario worker, not the out-of-province defendant.

The matter was remitted to a differently constituted tribunal to interpret s. 28 without the extra-territoriality considerations.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) denying benefits for neck and left wrist injuries and reducing benefits for non-cooperation with a work transition plan.

The applicant argued the Tribunal was biased and ignored his evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Tribunal's factual findings were supported by the evidence and its decisions were reasonable.

The court noted that disagreement with the Tribunal's findings does not establish bias or unreasonableness.

The proposed interveners brought a late motion for leave to intervene in an application for judicial review.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing the interveners lacked a distinct perspective and sought to supplement the evidentiary record.

The Divisional Court granted leave to intervene on strict terms, limiting the interveners to five minutes of oral submissions, prohibiting them from repeating the applicant's submissions, and barring them from supplementing the evidentiary record or taking a position on the ultimate disposition.

During the hearing, the interveners attempted to rely on new evidence, which the court rejected as procedurally unfair.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision granting benefits to a worker who sustained paraplegia in a motor vehicle accident while driving a company truck.

The worker was driving home from work with coworkers and was found to be impaired by alcohol.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal reasonably concluded the worker was in the course of employment and that, despite his serious and wilful misconduct in driving impaired, he was entitled to benefits under s. 17 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act because his injuries resulted in a serious impairment.

The applicant was awarded loss of earning benefits by the WSIB, which included an indexed amount calculated according to a WSIB policy.

The applicant submitted an Intent to Object to the indexation calculation, but the WSIB dismissed it, stating that its policy was not subject to appeal.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court found the WSIB's decision unreasonable because it ignored section 126 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, which expressly contemplates the WSIAT reviewing Board policies.

The court set aside the WSIB's decision and directed the matter to proceed to appeal, emphasizing the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies.

The applicant municipality sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision granting loss of earnings benefits to a firefighter who was terminated for cause but subsequently diagnosed with work-related post-traumatic stress disorder.

The Tribunal applied the 'worker conduct' line of cases, finding that the worker's condition rendered him unemployable and that his loss of earnings resulted from the compensable injury rather than his termination.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Tribunal's interpretation of section 43 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act and its assessment of the medical evidence were reasonable.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision that precluded them from suing the respondent for personal injuries sustained by the applicant at her workplace.

The Tribunal found that both the applicant's employer and the respondent were Schedule 1 employers under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, and that the applicant was injured in the course of her employment while returning from a smoke break.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's decision was reasonable, well-reasoned, and consistent with the evidence, the law, and Board policies.

The applicant sought judicial review of a WSIAT decision denying his claim for chronic or traumatic mental stress benefits.

The WSIAT had found that the applicant's psychological condition was primarily caused by his job reclassification and resulting wage impact, which are employer decisions excluded from compensation under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the WSIAT's decision reasonable and supported by the medical evidence.

The applicant, a telecommunications contractor, sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) decision that refused to change its business classification from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2, or alternatively, to reclassify it from Rate Group 704 to Rate Group 983.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the WSIAT's conclusions were justified, transparent, and intelligible.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The applicant sought judicial review of five decisions of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal spanning from 2008 to 2018.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application regarding the first four decisions due to inordinate and inexcusable delay, noting both presumed and actual prejudice as the Tribunal's records had been destroyed.

The Court also upheld the Tribunal's 2018 decision refusing to reconsider a 2009 decision, finding it reasonable given the unexplained seven-year delay in requesting the reconsideration.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision that barred their civil action against the respondents for constructive dismissal and assault.

The Tribunal had found that the underlying incident was a workplace accident, not an intentional assault, and that the civil claims were inextricably linked to the workplace injury, thus barred by section 28 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Tribunal's factual findings were reasonable, the barring of the constructive dismissal claim was justified as a disguised tort claim, and there was no denial of procedural fairness.

The respondents brought a motion to adjourn or stay an upcoming appeal pending the outcome of an application before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal.

The respondents argued that the Tribunal might find the subject matter of the underlying action to be within its exclusive jurisdiction, which would preclude the Superior Court from enforcing a settlement of that action.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the issue on appeal—whether a legally enforceable settlement agreement was reached—was distinct from the merits of the claim and likely outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The court also found that the respondents failed to bring their jurisdictional challenge and request for a stay on a timely basis.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision barring her civil action against the respondents for injuries sustained in a parking lot fall.

The Tribunal found that although the applicant was paid by a numbered company, the respondent Sargent Farms Limited was her de facto employer and she was in the course of her employment at the time of the accident.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's conclusion that the respondent extensively controlled her employment was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The applicant estate sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision denying survivor benefits following the death of a firefighter from a heart attack.

The Tribunal found that the statutory presumption for firefighters did not apply because the deceased had not attended a 'fire scene' within 24 hours of the heart attack, and that the injury did not otherwise arise out of and in the course of employment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Tribunal's decision and its subsequent refusal to reconsider were reasonable and supported by the evidence and applicable policies.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision denying him loss of earnings benefits.

The Tribunal had found that the applicant's inability to work was due to his personality rather than his compensable chronic pain disorder, basing this on negative credibility findings.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal's decision was unreasonable because it substituted its own opinion for uncontroverted medical evidence and failed to account for the Board's own policy describing the symptoms of the applicant's condition.

The application for judicial review was allowed and the matter remitted for a new hearing.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a Grievance Settlement Board decision which held that the Board lacked jurisdiction to award damages for mental stress arising from workplace bullying and harassment.

The Board concluded that the injury would be compensable under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, relying on previous tribunal decisions that found the acute mental stress limitation unconstitutional.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision reasonable and declining to consider new arguments regarding the employment function bar and the Occupational Health and Safety Act that were not raised before the Board.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision that refused to discontinue the respondent worker's Future Economic Loss benefits.

The worker had returned to full-time work 17 years after his injury, but his benefits had been locked-in after the statutory 60-month review window.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's interpretation of the legislation and policy directives—that benefits could not be reviewed after 60 months absent specific exceptions—was reasonable and respected the legislative objective of finality.

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 three decisions by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal denying him temporary total disability benefits for a specific period.

The applicant argued the Tribunal failed to apply Board policies, breached its duty of fairness, made findings contrary to the record, and violated s. 15 of the Charter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's decisions were not patently unreasonable, the duty of fairness was met, and the Charter claim could not be raised for the first time on judicial review without an evidentiary record.

The applicant sought declaratory or prerogative relief regarding whether she had elected to receive WSIB benefits and whether such an election was valid.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, noting that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board and the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal had not yet decided these issues.

The Court emphasized that the Board should provide election forms to workers as soon as it becomes aware of an illness to ensure they seek legal advice promptly.