Rob Boswell

Three injured workers appealed convictions or acquittal reversals under section 149(2) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, which makes it an offence to wilfully fail to inform the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board of a material change in circumstances affecting entitlement to benefits.

The Court of Appeal clarified the mens rea requirement for this offence, holding that the Crown must prove the accused knew of a material change, intended not to inform the Board, and either intended to receive unentitled benefits or foresaw such receipt as substantially certain.

The court restored one acquittal and ordered new trials for two convictions.

The defendant was charged under section 149(2) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act with willfully failing to inform the WSIB of a material change in circumstances affecting his benefit entitlement.

Following a workplace accident in 2006 resulting in a temporal bone fracture, the defendant received benefits that were subsequently denied on appeal, leaving him subject to a potential repayment obligation exceeding half a million dollars.

During trial, the defendant collapsed in court, prompting a referral for fitness assessment under section 44 of the Provincial Offences Act.

The court found the defendant unfit to stand trial based on psychiatric evidence of conversion disorder and chronic post-traumatic stress disorder, and ordered the proceedings suspended.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming that his modified work following a workplace injury was unsuitable and led to further injury and harassment.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of the applicant's WSIB appeal regarding the same injuries and loss of earnings.

The Tribunal granted the request to defer, finding a significant overlap of facts and issues between the two proceedings and noting that the WSIB proceedings were more advanced.

The grievor, a former employee who voluntarily retired, filed a grievance claiming compensation for the employer's failure to conduct a performance evaluation and award pay for performance prior to his retirement.

The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the grievance was barred by Minutes of Settlement signed by the parties and by Regulation 977 under the Public Service Act.

The Public Service Grievance Board upheld the preliminary objections, finding that the comprehensive release in the Minutes of Settlement precluded any further claims arising from the employment relationship.

Furthermore, the Board held it lacked jurisdiction under subsection 31(4) of Regulation 977 to hear complaints regarding the method or outcome of performance evaluations.

The grievance was dismissed without costs.