|
WSIA - Judicial Review. Weiler v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal [SOR]
In Weiler v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (Ont Divisional Ct, 2025) the Divisional Court dismissed a JR, here against a WSIAT-denied "claim for [SS: full] loss of earnings (“LOE”) benefits under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act".
Here the court considers the JR SOR for WSIA matters, argued unsuccessfully by the applicant on grounds that an exception applied to the normal 'reasonableness' standard for issues of central importance to the law:Standard of Review
[32] The standard of review of these decisions is reasonableness: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65). As stated by this Court in Radzevicius v. WSIAT, 2020 ONSC 319:The standard of review is reasonableness. None of the questions before the Court are constitutional questions, general questions of law of central importance to the legal system as a whole or questions regarding the jurisdictional boundaries between administrative bodies. The Act also contains a robust privative clause. The Legislature has clearly signaled its intention that the Tribunal’s decisions be given great deference (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at paras. 33, 53). [33] The Court of Appeal for Ontario has described the Tribunal as having “the toughest privative clause known to Ontario law”: see Liverpool v. (Ontario) Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, 2023 ONSC 2286 (CanLII), at para. 28, citing Rodrigues v. Ontario (Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal), 2008 ONCA 719, 92 O.R. (3d) 757, at para. 22, leave to appeal refused, [2008] S.C.C.A. No. 541.
[34] The Applicant argues that the standard of review is correctness, because interpreting the meaning of s. 43(4) of the WSIA, and when any worker “completes the plan”, affects all workers who may have unsuccessfully completed an LMR plan. He argues that this is a question of central importance to the legal system as a whole.
[35] This argument must be rejected. Vavilov explains, at para. 61, that “the mere fact that a dispute is “of wider public concern” is not sufficient for a question to fall into this category – nor is the fact that the question, even when framed in a general or abstract sense, touches on an important issue”. The Court stated: “The case law reveals many examples of questions this Court has concluded are not general questions of law of central importance to the legal system as a whole. These include whether a certain tribunal can grant a particular type of compensation…” [Emphasis added]. The legal question in this case falls neatly into this category of cases identified by the Supreme Court as not raising a general question of law of central importance to the legal system.
[36] The proper interpretation of the phrase “completes the plan” in s. 43(4)(a) of WSIA is not a “general question of law” that is of “fundamental importance and broad applicability”, “with significant legal consequences for the justice system as a whole or for other institutions of government”: Vavilov, at para. 59. While the question is important to the Applicant, and may be relevant in future cases, it does not have any impact outside the interpretation of this particular phrase in very specific circumstances. . Grant v. Ontario (Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal)
In Grant v. Ontario (Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal) (Ont Divisional Ct, 2025) the Divisional Court considers the SOR for WSIAT decisions:[43] As a specialized and expert tribunal, decisions of the WSIAT are accorded the “highest level of deference” with which the court will interfere only “where there are no lines of reasoning that would support the decision under review”: Morningstar v. Ontario (Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal), 2021 ONSC 5576, 158 O.R. (3d) 739, at para. 37 . Colella v. Ng
In Colella v. Ng (Div Court, 2024) the Divisional Court considered a JR from "decisions of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Tribunal ... that resulted in a determination that the Applicant ... was barred from proceeding with a civil action claiming damages for negligence from the" respondent employer.
Here the court considers deference owed to the WSIAT on a JR:[40] The Tribunal also responded to this application to provide assistance to the court in understanding the nature of the Act and the Tribunal’s role as a specialized decision-maker on the subject of workplace injuries. As set out in its comprehensive factum, the Tribunal submitted that courts have consistently held that significant deference is owed to the decisions of tribunals that are within its area of expertise. Further, the Court of Appeal for Ontario has described the Tribunal as having “the toughest privative clause known to Ontario law” (see: Liverpool v. (Ontario) Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, 2023 ONSC 2286 (CanLII), at para. 28 (“Liverpool”), citing Rodrigues v. Ontario (Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal), 2008 ONCA 719, 92 O.R. (3d) 757, at para. 22, leave to appeal refused, [2008] S.C.C.A. No. 541).
[41] Counsel for the Tribunal submits that when a specialized tribunal interprets policies connected to its area of specialization, such interpretations are owed deference. A court dealing with an application for judicial review of such interpretation generally should not “second-guess” them (see: Liverpool, supra). As a general proposition, an administrative tribunal holds the upper hand when a court is reviewing a tribunal’s interpretation of its own statute. I agree with the Tribunal the same logic applies to a tribunal’s interpretation of its own policies to the extent that they have been placed in issue (see: Canada Post Corp. v. Canadian Union of Postal Workers, 2019 SCC 67 (CanLII), [2019] 4 SCR 900). . Priolo v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal
In Priolo v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (Div Court, 2024) the Divisional Court considered the tribunal appeal and judicial review regime under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act:[1] The Applicant seeks judicial review of the Respondent’s decision “that the medical evidence does not establish that the worker’s 2006 accident made a significant contribution to his psychological impairments on the balance of probabilities” (Original Decision, para. 51) and the Respondent’s two subsequent reconsideration decisions denying the applicant’s request to reconsider the impugned decision.[1]
Jurisdiction and Standard of Review
[2] There is no appeal from a decision of the Respondent. Section 123 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, SO 1997, c.16, Sch. A, provides:(1) The Appeals Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide,
(a) all appeals from final decisions of the Board with respect to entitlement to health care, return to work, labour market re-entry and entitlement to other benefits under the insurance plan;
... .
3) On an appeal, the Appeals Tribunal may confirm, vary or reverse the decision of the Board.
(4) An action or decision of the Appeals Tribunal under this Act is final and is not open to question or review in a court.
(5) No proceeding by or before the Appeals Tribunal shall be restrained by injunction, prohibition or other process or procedure in a court or be removed by application for judicial review or otherwise into a court. [3] As stated by this court in Radzevicius v. WSIAT, 2020 ONSC 319:The standard of review is reasonableness. None of the questions before the Court are constitutional questions, general questions of law of central importance to the legal system as a whole or questions regarding the jurisdictional boundaries between administrative bodies. The Act also contains a robust privative clause. The Legislature has clearly signaled its intention that the Tribunal’s decisions be given great deference (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at paras. 33, 53). See also: Rodrigues v. Ontario (Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal), 2008 ONCA 719; Morningstar v. WSIAT, 2021 ONSC 5576 (Div. Ct.).
....
[6] The Applicant seeks to set aside the Tribunal’s decision and the two reconsideration decisions and asks this court to declare that the workplace injury was a significant contributing factor to his psychological impairment and thus that he is entitled to benefits in accordance with the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, SO 1997, c.16, Sched. A.
|
