|
WSIA - General. Irving Consumer Products Limited v. Singh
In Irving Consumer Products Limited v. Singh (Ont Divisional Ct, 2024) the Ontario Court of Appeal allowed a JR, this from a WSIAT decision and associated reconsideration that a respondent could sue a corporation and it's employee under WSIA s.28 ['Certain rights of action extinguished'] "for compensation for injuries suffered by Mr. Singh in the course of his employment".
Here the court reviews the cross-Canada workers' compensation scheme:Workers’ Compensation is a Shared Canadian Policy
[75] Cases like British Airways and Decision No. 462/88 rely heavily on constitutional presumptions limiting or precluding extra-territoriality in provincial legislation and limiting the interpretation of provincial legislation to preclude extra-territorial reach.
[76] But those presumptions are not the entirety of the interpretive analysis. Nor are they even a primary part of either a constitutional analysis or a statutory interpretation exercise in 2024.
[77] Workers’ compensation schemes have to be understood in the firmament of the national approach to workers’ compensation associated with the decisions of each and every province to replace common law tort law with statutory no-fault benefits. Since the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Morguard, provinces are seen less as independent foreign states at common law and more as part of a cooperative federal whole. Today, legislation is interpreted by the modern approach - to carry out its intended purpose as may be properly within the legislature’s constitutional jurisdiction – rather than by the primary application of limiting presumptions.
[78] Justice Whitten recently provided a thorough review of the prevailing approach to the interpretation of workers’ compensation legislation in Thomson v. Watson, 2020 ONSC 4409 (CanLII). In that case the plaintiff was an Ontario resident who was injured while driving his employer’s truck in British Columbia. His employer was based in Alberta. The plaintiff received workers’ compensation benefits under the Alberta workers’ compensation scheme. The plaintiff sued an Ontario resident for damages for negligent maintenance of the truck. The defendant was the corporate owner of the Alberta employer and also owned the truck that was driven by the plaintiff.
[79] The defendant moved to dismiss the action on the basis that it could not be sued under s. 28 of WSIA, 1997.
[80] Whitten J. commenced his analysis of the statute with the following history:[15] A compelling analysis of the origins of workmans' compensation legislation which exists in every province is provided by Sopinka J. writing for the court in Pasiechnyk v. Saskatchewan (Workers' Compensation Board), 1997 CanLII 316 (SCC), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 890, [1997] S.C.J. No. 74, in paras. 24 through to 27: [page110]Workers' compensation is a system of compulsory no-fault mutual insurance administered by the state. Its origins go back to 19th century Germany, whence it spread to many other countries, including the United Kingdom and the United States. In Canada, the history of workers' compensation begins with the report of the Honourable Sir William Ralph Meredith, one-time Chief Justice of Ontario, who in 1910 was appointed to study systems of workers' compensation around the world and recommend a scheme for Ontario. He proposed compensating injured workers through an accident fund collected from industry and under the management of the state. His proposal was adopted by Ontario in 1914. The other provinces soon followed suit. Saskatchewan enacted The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1929, S.S. 1928-29, c. 73, in 1929.
Sir William Meredith also proposed what has since become known as the "historic trade-off" by which workers lost their cause of action against their employers but gained compensation that depends neither on the fault of the employer nor its ability to pay. Similarly, employers were forced to contribute to a mandatory insurance scheme, but gained freedom from potentially crippling liability. Initially in Ontario, only the employer of the worker who was injured was granted immunity from suit. The Act was amended one year after its passage to provide that injured Schedule 1 workers could not sue any Schedule 1 employer. This amendment was likely designed to account for the multi-employer workplace, where employees of several employers work together.
The importance of the historic trade-off has been recognized by the courts. In Reference re Validity of Sections 32 and 34 of the Workers' Compensation Act, 1983 (1987), 1987 CanLII 118 (NL CA), 44 D.L.R. (4th) 501 (Nfld. C.A.), Goodridge C.J. compared the advantages of workers' compensation against its principal disadvantage: benefits that are paid immediately, whether or not the employer is solvent, and without the costs and uncertainties inherent in the tort system; however, there may be some who would recover more from a tort action than they would under the Act. Goodridge C.J. concluded at p. 524:While there may be those who would receive less under the Act than otherwise, when the structure is viewed in total, this is but a negative feature of an otherwise positive plan and does not warrant the condemnation of the legislation that makes it possible. I would add that this so-called negative feature is a necessary feature. The bar to actions against employers is central to the workers' compensation scheme as Meredith conceived of it: it is the other half of the trade-off. It would be unfair to allow actions to proceed against employers where there was a chance of the injured worker's obtaining greater compensation, and yet still to force employers to contribute to a no-fault insurance scheme.
Montgomery J. also commented on the purposes of workers compensation in Medwid v. Ontario (1988), 1988 CanLII 193 (ON SC), 48 D.L.R. (4th) 272 (Ont. H.C.). He stated at p. 279 that the scheme is based on four fundamental principles:(a) compensation paid to injured workers without regard to fault;
(b) injured workers should enjoy security of payment;
(c) administration of the compensation schemes and adjudication of claims handled by an independent commission, and
(d) compensation to injured workers provided quickly without court proceedings. [page111] I would note that these four principles are interconnected. For instance, security of payment is assured by the existence of an injury fund that is maintained through contributions from employers and administered by an independent commission, the Workers' Compensation Board. The principle of quick compensation without the need for court proceedings similarly depends upon the fund and the adjudication of claims by the Board. The principle of no-fault recovery assists the goal of speedy compensation by reducing the number of issues that must be adjudicated. The bar to actions is not ancillary to this scheme but central to it. If there were no bar, then the integrity of the system would be compromised as employers sought to have their industries exempted from the requirement of paying premiums toward an insurance system that did not, in fact, provide them with any insurance. . 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.
|
