Articles

For those who were unable to attend the recent WSIAT stakeholder event, the notes below touch upon the highlights of each presentation from the event.

Julie Weller and Tristan Hunter provide insightful analysis on a recent WSIAT decision involving chromatic mental stress entitlement and its potential implications for employers.

What happens when a worker receives a COVID-19 vaccine as a mandatory requirement of their employment and suffers a serious and unexpected reaction? Cassandra Ma summarizes WSIB's new guidelines on the adjudication of COVID-19-related benefits.

In this article, John Bartolomeo of the Workers' Health and Safety Legal Clinic shares his thoughts on two of 25 recent recommendations that resulted from an operational review of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, which include various amendments to the current appeals system.

The following is a case summary of Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), a Federal Court of Appeal decision considering whether the use of Jurisprudential Guides, a form of "soft law" authorized under the Immigrant and Refugee Protection Act, improperly interferes with adjudicative independence.

The government's response to COVID-19 has been, thankfully, to create various benefits for suffering workers. The result, however, is potential overlap of compensation schemes that leave employees confused and in danger of "double dipping." This article discusses one area of overlap: receipt of COVID-19 benefits and Loss of Earnings (LOE) benefits for injured workers.

In Toronto Star v. AG Ontario, 2018 ONSC 2586, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that it was contrary to the Charter to apply the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to adjudicative documents of administrative tribunals. This article reviews the Superior Court's decision, the subsequent enactment of the Tribunal Adjudicative Records Act, and privacy obligations specific to the WSIAT.

In 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada overhauled the established framework for determining the appropriate standard of judicial review. A reasonableness standard is now the presumptive standard. This article discusses both the new standard of review framework and the recent decision in Radzevicius v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, wherein the new framework was applied to a WSIAT decision for the first time.