Rebecca Woodrow

The applicant sought judicial review of WSIAT decisions that dismissed his appeals regarding the quantification of his benefits for a workplace knee injury.

The applicant raised numerous procedural and substantive objections, including allegations of Charter and human rights violations, bias, and unreasonable findings of fact.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard and dismissed the application, finding that the WSIAT's procedures were fair, its jurisdictional findings were correct, and its factual determinations were reasonable given the evidence and the applicant's refusal to participate in an oral hearing.

The applicant sought judicial review of three Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) decisions regarding his entitlement to benefits following two workplace injuries.

The tribunal had allowed his appeal in part for a temporomandibular joint injury but denied benefits for headaches, post-concussion syndrome, and psycho-traumatic disability, finding they were unrelated to the workplace incidents.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, concluding that the tribunal's decisions were coherent, transparent, and firmly based on the medical evidence.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision that calculated his partial loss of earnings benefits based on an ability to earn minimum wage.

The applicant argued he was entitled to full benefits because he did not complete his labour market re-entry plan, having voluntarily withdrawn to take a temporary job.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's interpretation of section 43(4) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 to be reasonable and entitled to deference.

The applicant, a migrant farm worker, sought judicial review of decisions by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal denying his request for an extension of time to appeal a 2008 decision denying his WSIB claim.

The applicant argued the tribunal overlooked his diligence, miscalculated the delay, and failed to consider his vulnerability as a migrant worker.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the tribunal's decisions were reasonable, properly applied a holistic approach to the delay, and adequately considered the applicant's circumstances.

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 sought judicial review of preliminary evidentiary and procedural rulings made by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) before a final decision was rendered on his workers' compensation appeal.

The applicant challenged the admission of an unsigned Medical Discussion Paper and alleged bias and Charter violations.

The Divisional Court held that the application was premature, as courts generally do not interfere in administrative proceedings until they have run their course.

The application was stayed pending WSIAT's final decision.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging his termination was discriminatory and a reprisal.

Prior to the application, his union filed a grievance for unjust termination, which proceeded to arbitration.

The arbitrator found the employer had just cause to terminate the applicant.

The applicant and union explicitly chose not to raise human rights issues at the arbitration.

The Tribunal held that the substance of the application—the termination of employment—was appropriately dealt with by the arbitrator.

Allowing the applicant to re-litigate the termination by raising discrimination arguments that could have been raised at arbitration would be an abuse of process.

The application was dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award upholding discipline against a grievor who refused to clean a workplace washroom.

The grievor, who had Hepatitis C, suffered a nosebleed and disposed of bloody tissues in the washroom.

When directed to clean and sanitize the area, he refused, claiming discrimination based on his disability.

The arbitrator found the employer's request reasonable and held that a single instance did not constitute a course of vexatious conduct under the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no error in the arbitrator's conclusion that the incident was a matter of industrial discipline rather than discrimination or harassment.