Rebecca Rosenberg

The defendant was charged with three offences under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997: wilfully failing to inform the WSIB of a material change in circumstances between August 23, 2011 and September 25, 2012; and knowingly making false or misleading statements on September 9, 2011 and October 17, 2011 regarding his claim for benefits.

The prosecution presented evidence including testimony from a WSIB case manager and a private investigator, as well as surveillance video showing the defendant working at his former place of employment (Mystic Restaurant) while receiving benefits and claiming he was unable to work or drive.

The defendant was convicted on all three counts.

The defendant was charged with willfully failing to inform the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) of a material change in circumstances in connection with his entitlement to benefits, contrary to section 149(2) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997.

The charge arose from surveillance conducted in December 2011 that showed the defendant engaging in activities including driving, making deliveries, and shopping, which the WSIB alleged constituted material changes that should have been reported.

The defendant was found not guilty after the court determined that the Crown had failed to prove the mens rea element of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant was charged with willfully failing to inform the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board of a material change in circumstances in connection with his entitlement to benefits within 10 days after the change occurred, contrary to section 149(2) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997.

The charge covered the period between October 11, 2010, and September 1, 2011.

The prosecution alleged that the defendant was gainfully employed and had demonstrated improved physical and psychological functioning, which constituted material changes he failed to report.

The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt and dismissed it.

The defendant was charged with five offences under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act: one count of wilfully failing to inform the WSIB of a material change in circumstances within 10 days, and four counts of knowingly making false or misleading statements to the WSIB.

The charges arose from the defendant's failure to report various work activities and his responses on WSIB forms regarding his employment status and medical condition.

The court found that the WSIB failed to establish a clear communication strategy to ensure claimants understood what constituted a "material change" and that the defendant's understanding of "work" as paid employment was reasonable given the WSIB's own forms.

The court acquitted on all five counts, finding reasonable doubt as to the defendant's knowledge and intent.

The appellant appealed a License Appeal Tribunal decision directing the Registrar to revoke his appointment as a bailiff for allegedly participating in unlawful entries.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal's conclusion regarding the first incident was unreasonable because the evidence established the client had a right to occupy the premises.

The Court further held it was administratively unfair to rely on a second, much older incident as an independent basis for revocation due to delay and prejudice.

The Tribunal's decision was set aside.