WSIAT, OEA, and OWA at 40: An Origin Story

October 1, 2025 marked the 40th anniversary of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, the Office of the Employer Adviser, and the Office of the Worker Adviser. When they were established in 1985, the workers’ compensation system was in a period of intense scrutiny and rapid change. Their creation was an important component of that reform.

All three agencies had their genesis in the landmark 1980 report of Professor Paul Weiler, who had been appointed by the Minister of Labour to “study and make recommendations” regarding Ontario’s workers’ compensation system.[1] Additional reports followed in 1983 and 1986.[2] He recommended fundamental changes to benefits and structure of the system. This initiated a period of rapid and profound change, as a series of legislative changes were enacted, including Bill 101, Bill 162, and Bill 165.[3] Many of the reforms were controversial.

Before 1985, the workers’ compensation system had no independent appeals tribunal. The highest level of appeal was an Appeal Board of commissioners of the Workers’ Compensation Board.[4] Weiler observed that participants did not see the Appeal Board as “truly independent of the administrative process.”[5] The cure, in his view, was a “radical change,” and he recommended a “new Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal.”[6] The new tribunal would have the following defining features:

This body would be a specialist in workers’ compensation, rather than one with general jurisdiction over government programs. It would be administrative rather than judicial in character, in the sense that it would be capable of mounting its own investigation into problems rather than relying passively on a record prepared entirely by the parties and their representatives. Yet the tribunal would exhibit the important ingredients of an adjudicative body: a party would be afforded a hearing at which it could present its own case and meet the objections made to it. And this tribunal would display the other key attribute of natural justice: it would be independent of the Workers’ Compensation Board from which its appeal work comes, separate and distinct in membership, quarters, budget, and organizational authority.[7]

Weiler also recommended “an explicitly and thoroughly tripartite model” modeled on the composition of labour boards, such as the Ontario Labour Relations Board.[8]

The report also considered the role of representation within the system. He noted that “professional representation before the Board is now well established” and concluded that “Due process in the administration of public programs such as workers’ compensation normally requires some form of experienced representation in difficult, contested cases.”[9]

Before the creation of the OWA, the WCB employed three worker advisers “to assist claimaints who are having trouble with the system, to investigate the reasons behind a claim delay, to try to get the difficulty cleared up informally if possible, and to represent the worker in an appeal hearing if necessary.”[10] Weiler recommended expanding the program. In keeping with his broader theme of institutional independence and to address concerns over conflict of interest, he also recommended it be moved out of the WCB’s control:

In my view, the office of the Worker Adviser should be expanded and made more accessible, rather than contracted. But to meet the objection, the institution should be revised in accordance with the general principles which I have formulated for administration of workers’ compensation. In particular, the Worker Advisers should be extracted from the Workers’ Compensation Board itself, in terms of both their physical quarters and their organizational authority. The Ministry of Labour should select, pay, supervise, and house them.[11]

The WCB had no corresponding advisory program for employers. Weiler identified a need for one and so recommended that an Office of the Employer Adviser also be created and structured along the same lines as the Worker Adviser:   

Employers have a legitimate interest in and role to play in workers’ compensation. This will become even more significant in the future with the advent of mandatory experience rating of individual firms. The small businessman, in particular, often finds the rulings of the Workers’ Compensation Board as mysterious as does the injured employee. Unlike the latter, an employer does not have ready access to the impressive network of experienced representation as an alternative to expensive education through legal counsel which he pays for himself. A full-time Employer Adviser would be an equitable response to this concern.[12]

Weiler’s recommendations to create an independent appeals tribunal and offices of the employer and worker advisers were ultimately adopted and enacted in 1984’s Bill 101. On October 1, 1985, WSIAT, OEA, and OWA began operations.

In the 40 years since their inception, WSIAT, OEA, and OWA have served countless workers, family members, and employers. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize this achievement and recognize the dedication, professionalism, and commitment to public service of the many staff and appointees of all three organizations who made it possible.

This article is the personal opinion of the author and is not intended to represent the position of the Office of the Worker Adviser or the Ministry or Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development.

Any article or other information or content expressed or made available in this Section is that of the respective author(s) and not of the OBA.