Skip to content

Brought to you by

Dentons logo

Canadian Occupational Health & Safety Law

Keeping you current on OHS Laws and Developments in Canada.

open menu close menu

Canadian Occupational Health & Safety Law

  • Home
  • About Us

Appeal Court Revives Class Action against the WSIB

By Chelsea Rasmussen
February 23, 2017
  • Caselaw Developments
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn

The Ontario Court of Appeal has revived a proposed class action brought by the appellant, Pietro Castrillo, on behalf of a class of injured workers whom he alleges have been wrongfully denied the full extent of benefits to which they were entitled under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 (the “Act”), by the respondent the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (“WSIB”).  The class action alleges misfeasance in public office, bad faith, and negligence on the part of the WSIB.

The class action claims that injured workers were “denied the full extent of benefits to which they were entitled” as a result of a “secret policy” implemented by the WSIB, which policy adopted a broader interpretation of the term “pre-existing impairment” to include asymptomatic pre-existing conditions, which had previously been excluded.   The appellant claims that this change in interpretation was illegally made in order to save WSIB money by reducing injured workers’ non-economic loss awards.  The class action seeks declarations that the WSIB “perpetrated a misfeasance in public office” in how it handled the non-economic loss claims of the class, “breached its duty to act in good faith” to the class, and, in the alternative, was negligent.  According to the Toronto Star, the alleged “secret policy” was in force between 2012 and 2014.

Two years ago, the WSIB successfully brought a motion to strike the statement of claim, asserting there was no cause of action, and that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the class action due to the privative clause in the Act, which gives the WSIB exclusive jurisdiction to examine, hear and decide all matters and questions arising under the Act. The motions judge granted the motion to strike the statement of claim, without leave to amend.  The motions judge held that the WSIB’s decisions to reduce the class members’ non-economic loss benefits were “legal decisions that fall within the four corners of the privative clause”, and were therefore beyond court challenge.

The appellant appealed the motion judge’s ruling to the Court of Appeal.  On appeal, the court considered two issues: 1) were the causes of action properly pleaded, and 2) does the privative clause in the Act prevent the appellant from pursuing the causes of action.  The Court of Appeal held that, except for the allegation of bad faith, the claim was properly pleaded, and the privative clause in the Act does not prevent the appellant from pursuing claims of misfeasance in public office and negligence against the WSIB.  As a result, the class action against the WSIB has been granted permission to proceed.

The decision of Court of Appeal may be accessed here.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn
Subscribe and stay updated
Receive our latest blog posts by email.
Stay in Touch
Chelsea Rasmussen

About Chelsea Rasmussen

Chelsea advises and represents employers in all areas of employment and labor law, including employment standards, employee hiring, discipline and termination, human rights, and labor relations. She also provides employment and labor advice on corporate transactions.

All posts Full bio

RELATED POSTS

  • Caselaw Developments
  • Safety - Risk Management

Employees Win Approximately 10% of Ontario Safety-Reprisal Decisions in 2011

Employees won only 2 of 17 reported Occupational Health and Safety Act reprisal cases decided by the Ontario Labour Relations Board […]

By Adrian Miedema
  • Caselaw Developments
  • Safety - Risk Management
  • Safety Professionals - Practice Issues

Contractor loses lawsuit against city for alleged breaches of OHSA’s asbestos-disclosure rules

A construction contractor has lost its bid for damages from a city, relying on a little-used section of the Ontario […]

By Adrian Miedema
  • Caselaw Developments
  • Government Safety Investigations
  • Prosecutions / Charges

MOL engineer not qualified to give expert evidence: he was too involved in the investigation, too closely identified with prosecution at trial

An Ontario judge has refused to permit a professional engineer employed with the Ontario Ministry of Labour to testify as […]

By Adrian Miedema

About Dentons

Dentons is the world’s largest law firm, delivering quality and value to clients around the globe. Dentons is a leader on the Acritas Global Elite Brand Index, a BTI Client Service 30 Award winner and recognized by prominent business and legal publications for its innovations in client service, including founding Nextlaw Labs and the Nextlaw Global Referral Network. Dentons’ polycentric approach and world-class talent challenge the status quo to advance client interests in the communities in which we live and work. www.dentons.com.

Digital Dentons

Twitter

Categories

  • Amendments to Safety Laws
  • Caselaw Developments
  • COVID-19
  • General
  • Government Safety Investigations
  • International Standards
  • Other Safety Developments
  • Prosecutions / Charges
  • Safety – Risk Management
  • Safety Professionals – Practice Issues
  • Violence and Harassment

Subscribe and stay updated

Receive our latest blog posts by email.

Stay in Touch

Dentons logo

© 2021 Dentons

  • Legal notices
  • Privacy policy
  • Terms of use
  • Cookies on this site