Workplace Safety and Insurance Law - ONSCDC

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 Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision that found she was an employee acting in the course of her employment when her parked vehicle was struck by a bus.

The Tribunal's decision barred her civil action against the bus company.

The respondent moved to dismiss the application for delay, which the court denied due to the applicant's medical and personal circumstances.

On the merits, the Divisional Court found the Tribunal's decision was reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review, declining to award costs due to the applicant's impecuniosity.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision which found that the plaintiffs' right of action for personal injuries sustained in a parking lot motor vehicle accident was not taken away under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in its treatment of post-hearing evidence and in its factual findings regarding the employment status of the defendants.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Tribunal's decision was reasonable, it did not breach procedural fairness, and its weighing of the evidence was entitled to deference.

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 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 school boards, as Schedule 2 employers, sought judicial review of the WSIB's refusal to disclose medical and employment information from injured workers' claim files.

The applicants sought this information to pursue subrogated claims against US Asbestos Compensation Trust Funds.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the right of subrogation under s. 30(11) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act does not confer a right of access to a worker's personal information.

The Court also held that the applicants' challenge regarding the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act was premature, as they had an adequate alternative remedy through the freedom of information request process.

The respondent Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the applicant's application for judicial review for delay.

The applicant sought to review a decision from December 2000, having applied for reconsideration six times until November 2007, and commenced the judicial review in January 2011.

The Divisional Court applied the three-part test for delay and granted the motion, finding extreme delay, a vague explanation, and real possibility of prejudice to the Tribunal's process.

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, a pipe fitter, was seriously injured in a gas explosion and commenced a civil action for damages.

The respondents brought a 'right to sue' application before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT), which determined the applicant was a worker, not an independent contractor, and thus barred from suing.

The applicant sought judicial review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the WSIAT's decision was reasonable, grounded in evidence, and properly applied the legal test for independent contractor status.

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 applicant employer sought judicial review of a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, which awarded compensation to a worker injured in a motor vehicle accident while driving home after responding to an emergency call outside normal working hours.

The Appeals Tribunal applied the Board's Travelling Policy, finding the worker was in the course of his employment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Appeals Tribunal's decision was reasonable, within its jurisdiction, and properly applied the mandatory Board policy.

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

The Tribunal had concluded that the applicant's repetitive strain injury resolved on the date of a normal EMG study, despite ongoing symptoms documented by treating physicians.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's decision unreasonable, as it could not be reconciled with the undisputed medical evidence confirming ongoing impairment.

The application was allowed and the matter remitted to a differently constituted panel.

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 sought judicial review of a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal regarding the nature and extent of injuries suffered in a workplace accident.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, applying the highest level of deference to the Tribunal's assessment of medical evidence and credibility.

The court also ordered the applicant to pay costs to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board for improperly adding them as an intervenor without an order.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, which denied its request to be reclassified to the manufacturing rate applicable to a company that owned 50% of its shares.

The Divisional Court held that the tribunal, as a specialized body protected by a privative clause, was entitled to curial deference.

The court found that the tribunal's conclusion that the companies were not 'associated' under the Act was not patently unreasonable and dismissed the application.