Workplace injury and workers' compensation — Ontario Employment Law

Ontario (Ministry of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development) v. Greater Sudbury (City)

OHSA Appeal: Due Diligence and Standard of Review

An appeal of convictions under the Occupational Health and Safety Act against the City of Sudbury for alleged failures to ensure workplace safety. The court addressed the standard of review for OHSA prosecutions, finding that questions of law are reviewed on a correctness standard while mixed questions of fact and law are reviewed for palpable and overriding error. The appeal was allowed and acquittals entered because the trial judge's findings were unsupported by evidence and based on speculation.

L. v. K.

This is a judicial review application concerning the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal's (WSIAT) decisions on workers' compensation matters. The applicant challenged the tribunal's procedural fairness in separating Charter and Human Rights Code issues, its jurisdiction to defer entitlements pending WSIB review, the use of medical discussion papers, and allegations of bias. The Divisional Court found the tribunal's processes reasonable, fair, and consistent with the WSIA.

S. v. Queen’s University

Workplace Investigation Independence: OHS Act Injunction Refused

This is an interlocutory proceeding concerning an application for interim relief and a mandatory order related to an investigation under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test to determine whether to grant an injunction or mandatory order to compel or restrain an investigation, ultimately refusing relief as the balance of convenience favored the statutory duty to investigate and irreparable harm was speculative.

K. v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal

Judicial Review of WSIAT Decision on Workplace Injury

This is a judicial review application concerning the reasonableness of the WSIAT's decision on a worker's entitlement to compensation for workplace injuries. The Divisional Court reviewed the Tribunal's assessment of medical evidence and its refusal to grant reconsideration.

D. v. B.

Police Officer Tort Claim vs Discipline Proceedings

This is a procedural ruling on a motion to strike where the plaintiff, a police officer, sought to pursue tort claims linked to internal police discipline proceedings. The court determined it had residual jurisdiction because the dispute had moved beyond the collective agreement into the criminal justice system, and rejected arguments that statutory privilege barred the civil claims.

Toronto Transit Commission v. B. et al.

WSIB Settlement Approval Judicial Review

This is a judicial review of a WSIB decision approving a worker's settlement under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997. The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard under the Vavilov framework to determine whether the WSIB's interpretation of the statutory requirement for pre-settlement approval was valid. The court reviewed the WSIB's discretion to approve the settlement three years after it was made, and whether the decision was reasonable and consistent with the Act's remedial purpose.

Ontario (Ministry of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development) v. Corporation of the Town of Bancroft

OHSA Prosecution: Charge Dismissed for Inaccessible Area

This is a merits decision in a prosecution under the Occupational Health and Safety Act concerning whether an area along rails and under a compactor constituted a 'floor or other surface used by a worker.' The court dismissed the charge, finding that the space was inaccessible and did not present a slip and fall hazard, meaning the actus reus was not proven. The court also found that due diligence was established in the alternative.

Ontario (Ministry of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development) v. Apogee Ceramics Inc.

Workplace Safety Sentencing: Fine Increased to $55,000

This is a sentencing decision in a prosecution under the Occupational Health and Safety Act involving a corporate defendant for workplace safety violations. The court rejected a joint submission for a $35,000 fine, applying the public interest test from Anthony-Cook to determine that the proposed amount failed to account for inflation and deterrence. The court increased the fine to $55,000 to ensure it reflected current market realities and served as an effective deterrent.

Ontario (Ministry of Labour, Training and Skills Development) v. New Leaf

OHSA Sentencing: Worker Fatality & Corporate Liability

This is a sentencing decision regarding charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) following a worker fatality. The court addressed the liability of both a non-profit corporation and an individual supervisor for failing to take reasonable precautions, applying sentencing principles of deterrence and proportionality while considering aggravating and mitigating factors. The court also ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to order restitution or direct fines to the deceased worker's family.

Ontario (Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development) v. B.

This is an appeal for leave to appeal a directed verdict of acquittal granted at trial in a prosecution under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The Crown seeks to challenge the trial justice's application of the directed verdict test and the interpretation of worker obligations, specifically regarding the scope of responsibilities under s. 28(1)(a) and the relevance of private contracts and due diligence.

Ontario (Ministry of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development) v. The Econo-Rack Group Inc.

OHS Prosecution: Motion for Particulars Dismissed

This is a procedural ruling in a prosecution under the Occupational Health and Safety Act where the court addressed motions for particulars and the sufficiency of charges. The court dismissed the motion for particulars as unnecessary for trial fairness and held that the charge regarding the safe transportation of materials was factually sufficient.

Ontario (Ministry of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development) v. The Econo-Rack Group Inc.

OHSA Inspector Powers: Section 8 Charter Breach

This is a procedural ruling concerning the admissibility of evidence and costs in a regulatory matter under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The court addressed whether a Ministry inspector's search and seizure breached the employer's Charter rights under section 8, applying a contextual analysis of regulatory inspections. The court found no breach of the Charter and consequently denied the applicant's request for costs.

T. et al. v. Worksafe BC et al.

Class Action Costs: Workers' Compensation Dispute

This is a procedural ruling concerning costs and class action representation in a class action against provincial workers' compensation boards. The court addressed motions for funding legal costs, appointing amicus curiae, and compliance with class action rules, ultimately awarding costs to the successful defendants.

Ontario (Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development) v. Greater Sudbury (City)

OHSA Due Diligence Defence: City of Greater Sudbury Appeal

This is an appeal regarding a criminal or statutory infraction under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The Court of Appeal denied leave to appeal a decision that upheld the City of Greater Sudbury's acquittal for OHSA violations, finding that the lower courts correctly applied the due diligence defence.

W. v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal

Judicial Review: WSIA Tribunal Decision Upheld

This is a judicial review application concerning the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal's decisions on loss of earnings benefits for a workplace injury. The Divisional Court reviewed the Tribunal's interpretation of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, specifically regarding Labour Market Re-entry plans and the exclusion of non-compensable conditions, applying the reasonableness standard.

Toronto (City) v. WSIAT

Judicial Review: WSIAT Decision Quashed for Unreasonableness

This is a judicial review of a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) concerning a workers' compensation claim for a firefighter. The Divisional Court quashed the Tribunal's decision as unreasonable because it refused to consider evidence of work-relatedness and misinterpreted the rebuttable presumption under s. 15.1(4) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

G. v. Ontario (Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal)

Judicial Review: WSIAT Denies Extension of Time

This is a judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision that denied an extension of time to appeal. The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard under Vavilov to determine whether the Tribunal reasonably assessed factors such as diligence, prejudice, and the applicant's vulnerability as a migrant worker. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision as reasonable.

Irving Consumer Products Limited v. S.

Judicial Review: WSIA Bar on Suing Employer

This is a judicial review of a WSIAT decision concerning the statutory bar on actions under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA). The Divisional Court addressed whether constitutional extra-territoriality limits Ontario's bar on suing employers and workers, finding that such a constraint is untenable. The court set aside the WSIAT's decision for failing to apply modern statutory interpretation and remitted the matter.

P. v. Walmart Canada Corporation et al.

This is a judicial review proceeding concerning the Ontario Labour Relations Board's refusal to extend the time limit for filing an appeal under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The Divisional Court addressed procedural issues regarding stays of proceedings, the admissibility of fresh evidence on judicial review, and the scope of its jurisdiction under the Vavilov standard. The motion for a stay was dismissed, and permission to serve a notice of constitutional question was refused.

G. v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal

This is a judicial review application concerning the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, specifically addressing procedural fairness and the granting of leave to intervene. The court examined whether proposed interveners had sufficient interest and distinct perspective, and ruled on the appropriateness of limiting their submissions and prohibiting the supplementation of the evidentiary record to ensure fairness.