Workers' Compensation - SCJ

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the action of Jacqueline Delanty and Katherine Reilly.

Delanty's claim arose from a motor vehicle collision, but the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) had previously determined her right of action was taken away by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997.

Reilly's claim was a derivative claim under the Family Law Act.

The court dismissed Delanty's action, affirming the WSIAT's exclusive jurisdiction and finality.

Consequently, Reilly's derivative claim was also dismissed as it could not exist independently.

In the alternative, the court found that the action would have been dismissed for inordinate and unexplained delay.

The plaintiff, an Ontario resident, was injured in British Columbia while driving for an Alberta-based company.

He elected to receive Alberta workers' compensation benefits and subsequently initiated a tort action in Ontario against the defendant, the truck's owner and also an Ontario resident, alleging improper maintenance.

The defendant moved to stay or dismiss the action, arguing it was statute-barred by the plaintiff's election to receive workers' compensation benefits and constituted an abuse of process.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice allowed the motion, finding the tort action was statute-barred based on principles of inter-provincial comity and that it represented an abuse of process, as it sought to relitigate a matter covered by the workers' compensation scheme and allowed for potential double recovery, thereby circumventing the 'historic trade-off' inherent in such legislation.

Following a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff sued multiple parties, including her employer.

The Workplace Safety and Insurance Tribunal (WSIAT) eventually ruled that the plaintiff's claim against her employer was statute-barred under s. 28 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997.

The employer and the vehicle owner sought their costs of the civil action on a partial indemnity scale.

The court awarded costs but limited them to the pleadings stage, noting the exceptional circumstances, including the plaintiff's proactive approach, the WSIAT's institutional delay, and the employer's retroactive WSIB registration.

The defendants sought their costs of defending a civil action after the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal ruled the plaintiff's claim was barred by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The plaintiff argued the defendants should have brought the WSIA application earlier to avoid unnecessary litigation costs.

The court agreed that the defendants should have been aware of the WSIA issue by the time productions were delivered and limited their costs recovery to the end of the pleadings stage, awarding $4,181.

Following the dismissal of the self-represented plaintiff's $17 million action against the WSIB and WSIAT for lack of jurisdiction, the defendants sought costs.

The WSIB claimed $7,000 on a substantial indemnity basis, and the WSIAT claimed $3,000.

The court considered the principles of indemnification, reasonableness, and access to justice, noting that the plaintiff's claim, while lacking a viable cause of action in the Superior Court, was not frivolous or vexatious.

Recognizing the plaintiff's self-represented status and the need to balance access to justice with discouraging improper litigation, the court fixed costs at $3,000 payable to each defendant.

Elizabeth Dias initiated two actions in Hamilton Superior Court against the Workplace Safety & Insurance Board/Tribunal and the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, similar to previous actions dismissed in Toronto as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The Hamilton actions were referred to the court under Rule 2.1.01(7) for potential dismissal on the same grounds.

Despite being given an opportunity to provide submissions, Dias failed to address the frivolous or vexatious nature of the claims or the lack of jurisdiction against the defendants.

The court adopted prior reasoning that no claim could be made against WSIB or LCBO for unsuccessful workers' compensation claims or workplace injuries, as remedies lie exclusively with WSIB.

The court found the Hamilton actions to be attempts to re-litigate or collaterally attack previous decisions and dismissed them with costs, finding them frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

This motion concerned the defendants' entitlement to costs after the plaintiffs' action was dismissed on consent, as the right of action was removed by s. 28 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA).

The defendants sought costs for defending the action and for a related hearing before the Workplace Safety Insurance and Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The court determined that costs related to the WSIAT hearing were not recoverable in the action, consistent with the WSIAT's no-costs regime.

Furthermore, the court significantly reduced the defendants' claimed costs for the action itself, finding that certain steps like examinations for discovery and pretrial attendance were unnecessarily incurred due to the defendants' delay in bringing the WSIAT application and their initial denial of the employment relationship.

The court fixed the party and party costs of the action, payable by the plaintiffs to the defendants, at $3,000.00 all inclusive.

The plaintiff sought an order staying a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) application and a declaration that the defendants were estopped from bringing it.

The defendants had pleaded that the action was statute-barred under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, and had initiated a WSIAT Right to Sue Application.

The plaintiff argued that the defendants had attorned to the Superior Court's jurisdiction by consenting to a pre-trial conference date.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding that the WSIAT has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the right to sue issue and that the defendants had not waived their right to proceed with the WSIAT hearing.

The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff's action as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The self-represented plaintiff sought $2 million in damages against the WSIB for refusing to pay for an elbow brace and related grievances.

The court found the statement of claim to be prolix, incoherent, and disclosing no known cause of action.

Furthermore, the action duplicated an ongoing appeal from the plaintiff's provincial offences convictions for misleading the WSIB.

The action was dismissed with costs.

The plaintiff brought a civil action against the WSIB and WSIAT regarding an unsuccessful worker's compensation claim.

The court noted that Ontario law does not permit a claimant to sue the WSIB or the Tribunal when a claim is disallowed.

Finding the action frivolous, the court applied the abbreviated process under Rule 2.1.01(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and dismissed the action with costs.

The defendants requested that the plaintiff's action be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01.

The plaintiff's claim related to an unsuccessful workers' compensation claim.

The court found the statement of claim appeared frivolous on its face and raised concerns about abusive litigation.

The court directed the registrar to issue a notice that it was considering dismissing the action and stayed the proceeding pending the outcome of the written hearing.

The defendants brought a motion to lift a stay imposed in 2001 pending determination of a right-to-sue application before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal and sought dismissal of the action for delay.

The self-represented plaintiff requested that the stay continue while she pursued reconsideration or judicial review of the tribunal decision.

The court held that the stay should be lifted because the tribunal decision constituted a final determination and further proceedings should not delay the civil action.

However, despite the long history of delay, the court declined to dismiss the action, finding that the existing documentary record would permit a fair trial and that the defendants had consented to the stay and delayed bringing the motion.

The action was restored to the trial list with expedited pre-trial and trial dates.

The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the defendant's counterclaim.

The WSIB had previously obtained summary judgment on its claim for overpayment of benefits.

The defendant's counterclaim alleged that the WSIB mistakenly or unfairly dealt with medical evidence.

The court granted the WSIB's motion, finding that under sections 26 and 118 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, the WSIB and its appeal tribunals have exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter of the counterclaim.

The motion was granted without costs due to the WSIB's bifurcated approach to summary judgment.