|
WSIA - General. Interpaving Limited v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal
In Interpaving Limited v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court considered a JR by an employer in a WSIA case, here where a successful claimant employee had been injured while driving home from work under the influence of alcohol.
These initial quotes illustrate the extensive administrative reviews in WSIA cases:[1] On September 15, 2015, Jeremy Vaughan, a road crew foreman employed by Interpaving Limited, crashed a company-owned vehicle while driving home from work with two members of the road crew. There were open and closed beer cans found at the scene of the accident, Mr. Vaughan was found to have a blood alcohol level above the legal limit, and the police concluded that alcohol was a significant factor in the accident. Criminal charges were laid, and Mr. Vaughan eventually pleaded guilty to driving while impaired.
[2] Mr. Vaughan sustained a spinal cord injury resulting in paraplegia in the accident. He applied for benefits under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 16, Sched. A (the “Act”). On October 16, 2015, a WSIB Eligibility Adjudicator determined Mr. Vaughan was entitled to benefits because he was required to drive the company vehicle, with his coworkers, to and from the worksite for purposes of his employment, and he was in the course of employment when the accident occurred. Interpaving sought reconsideration of this decision by a Case Manager, who affirmed the Adjudicator’s decision in 2016. Interpaving then appealed unsuccessfully to an Appeals Resolution Officer. It then appealed to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, which held a de novo hearing. On April 4, 2022, in Decision No. 852/19, the Tribunal upheld the earlier decision granting Mr. Vaughan benefits.
....
[14] This court’s role is not to revisit these findings in the absence of a serious flaw in the Tribunal’s reasoning processes or a decision that cannot reasonably be made on the evidence. Interpaving has had three opportunities to litigate the facts in this case, first in its request for reconsideration, then in an appeal to an Appeals Resolution Officer, then in a de novo hearing before the Tribunal. An application for judicial review is not an opportunity to relitigate the evidence yet again. . Bell Technical Solutions Inc. v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal
In Bell Technical Solutions Inc. v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (Div Court, 2022) the Divisional Court summarized some basics of the WSIA regime:The Regulatory Scheme
[15] The WSIA is the legislation that provides coverage for workplace accidents for most employers in Ontario. It is a no fault system that provides employers with legal protection in the event an employee suffers an injury arising out of or in the course of their employment. It also provides workers with a variety of benefits and services.
[16] Under the WSIA, employers are divided into two schedules. Schedule 1 employers are required to pay premiums based on the Rate Group that they are classified into. Rate Groups provide a general description of business activities and the WSIB classifies employers into the group that is the “best fit” for the employer. Schedule 2 employers pay only the direct costs of claims and an administrative fee. The activities that fall into Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 are set out in the respective Schedules. The Schedules are contained in O. Reg 175/98, which was made pursuant to the WSIA.
[17] If an employer objects to its classification, it can appeal that decision through the WSIB’s internal appeals process. That process ends with a hearing before an Appeals Resolution Officer. In the event that the employer is still dissatisfied with the WSIB’s final decision, then the employer has the right to appeal that decision to the WSIAT. The WSIAT conducts a hearing de novo.
[18] As a final matter, the underlying legislation changed with the introduction of the WSIA in 1997, which became effective January 1, 1998. This new legislation replaced the Workers’ Compensation Act R.S.O 1990 c. W 11. Provisions and policies under each Act were considered by the WSIAT. However, given that the bulk of the provisions, and the adjudication of the issues, took place under the WSIA, I will refer to the statute as the WSIA throughout these reasons unless a distinction is necessary.
|
