Earlier this year, the Ontario Superior Court overturned three WSIAT decisions that awarded presumptive entitlement to cancer claims for Communications Dispatchers, ruling the WSIAT decisions were unreasonable and illogical. This landmark ruling restores evidentiary balance and highlights important aspects of rebutting presumptive entitlement.
This Tribunal decision granted an employer’s appeal, ultimately reversing a 2021 ARO decision which had granted entitlement to full loss of earnings (LOE) benefits to age 65. The principal issue in this appeal was whether the seriousness of the worker’s workplace injury completely prevented them from returning to any work, including the alternate job offered by the employer.
This ARO decision regarding a claim for presumptive Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) for First Responders (Police) granted the employer’s appeal, in part. The ARO denied total disability and denied the conclusion that the worker was not fit to engage in any RTW activities. Most importantly, the ARO found that the restriction of ‘no RTW with the accident employer’ was not valid.
This Tribunal decision granted an Employer’s appeal of a 2018 ARO decision which allowed ongoing Loss of Earnings (LOE) benefits and Work Transition Services (WTS) after a worker was terminated pursuant to specific provisions of the collective agreement regarding absence notification.
The Employer’s appeal of the allowance of Loss of Earnings (LOE) benefits during a period of disciplinary suspension was granted by the Tribunal. The case involved an electrical technician who was injured during an equipment repair activity due to failure to follow lock-out policy.
An employer was successful in an appeal to the Tribunal for Secondary Injury Enhancement Fund (SIEF) relief of costs in allergic reaction injury (dermatitis) case.