Accommodating
Disabilities(current)
Applications for
Judicial Review
AGE
Discrimination



Constitutionality
of WCB Laws
Employee Waiver
Not Valid
Healthcare Benefits
Other Than Prescriptions
Institutional Delays
Within Workers Compensation System
Marine Law v.
Workers Comp Law
Presumption of
Work Injury
Retroactivity of
Tribunal Decisions
Subjective vs
Objective Findings
Sue a
Third Party
Suing a
WCB/WSIB/WorkSafe
Suing
WCB/WSIB/WorkSafe Doctors
Unemployable
Injured Worker
Wrongful Conviction of IWs
for Allegded Fraud

Supreme Court of Canada Decisions

Important Caselaw - Accommodating Disabilities

Knowledge and Information for Injured Workers, by Injured Workers

Accommodating Disabilities


Lawson v. WSIB (ON WCB) - Positive Case
Decision issued by the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal

Frankson v. WSIB (ON WCB) - Positive Case
Decision issued by the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal


In most common law jurisdictions there is both caselaw and legislation, which confirms that both the government (all levels) and private business

MUST accommodate persons with disabilities.

For example in Ontario, the Ontario Human Rights Code clearly states that
employers MUST accommodate persons with disabitlities.

Furthermore the code also states that persons with disabilities are defined in the Code as person with mental and/or physical disabilities.
It goes on to state that if a person applies for workers compensation (WSIB) benefits then this too is considered a disability. This is also the case even if they are denied the claim for benefits. More importantly, in the Code under section 10(3) it also states and I quote

"The right to equal treatment without discrimination because of disability includes the right to equal treatment without discrimination because a person has or has had a disability or is believed to have or to have had a disability."

Also there is the Ontarians with Disabilities Act is a law that governs the actions of government agencies such as workers compensation board (WSIB) in the law it defines barriers as:
"“barrier” means anything that prevents a person with a disability from fully participating in all aspects of society because of his or her disability, including a physical barrier, an architectural barrier, an information or communications barrier, an attitudinal barrier, a technological barrier, a policy or a practice; (“obstacle”)"

So it is clear to see that person, specifically injured workers with disbaitlies do in fact have rights when dealing with government agencies such as the Workers Compensation Board(WSIB) and private business such as employers.

While these cases and the laws referenced above are for Ontario, Canada. There likely are similar legislation in other Provinces, States, and common law Countries.
As I add more cases from other Provinces, States, and Countries, I will also make a brief reference to their applicable laws as well.

If you know of other good relevant cases,
please let me know by using the contact page,

or e-mail me at fightwcb@gmail.com.

I will add them here. I will gladly give you full credit for finding the case and providing it to me,
as I did for Lisa and Rob!
Thanks again to them and to you, for all your help to make this website better,
for injured workers, by injured workers!
Lawson v. WSIB
Mr. D. Lawson brought complaints against the Ontario workers compensation board (WSIB). The foundation of his complaints was that the WSIB had knowingly and intentional violated his Human Rights under the Ontario Human rights Code.

May 2009
In May 2009 Mr. Lawson had filed a complaint, arguing that he should have received his benefits as direct deposit as opposed to a cheque. The matter was resolved between the parties.

Lawson v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2009 HRTO 1594

September 29, 2009
Mr. Lawson filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal - OHRT, which claimed that the Ontario workers compensation board (WSIB) discriminated against him on the grounds of disability, age, record of offences and reprisal, in the areas of employment, contracts and goods, services and facilities.

Lawson v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2015 HRTO 850

June 24, 2015
Mr. David Lawson had filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal - OHRT against the Ontario workers compensation board (WSIB). Mr. Lawson complaint was that the WSIB reprised against him because of an earlier application to the OHRT and has discriminated against him in the way that it interacts with him as an injured worker with a psychological disability. In May 2009 Mr. Lawson had field a complaint arguing that he should have received his benefits as direct deposit as opposed to a cheque. The decision maker agreed that the WSIB needed to communicate with Mr. Lawson in an appropriate manner and adjourned the hearing in attempt to utilize the medications services of the Tribunal.

Lawson v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2015 HRTO 1253

September 21, 2015
This decision dealt with a request for the OHRT chair to recuse himself due an apprehension of bias. ​the foundation of the complaint was the OHRT chair was a former WSIB decision maker and thus has an inherent conflict of internet or bias. The OHRT chair stated in his decision, that he never worked for the WSIB aside from the assist with the establishment of the "Fair Practice Commission" he never worked for the WSIB. However the OHRT chair admits he did in fact work for the Workplace Safety & Insurance Appeals Tribunal - WSIAT. The WSIAT is an administrative tribunal that handles appeals form the WSIB and is directly finically connected to the WSIB. Ultimately, the OHRT chair basing his decision on Landau v. Ontario decided that he would not recuse himself in the matter.


Return to Top of Page
Frankson v. WSIB
Frankson v. Workplace Safety & Insurance Board, [2011] HRTO No. 2107
Deals with pre-existing non work related disabilities - WSIB failed to accommodate
Deals with violation of Human Rights

This case was one of the first where the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal stepped in and made a ruling against the WSIB.
The WSIB was found at fault and order to pay $5,000 in punitive damages and was ordered to amend its LMR[retraining program] policy documents so that any references to the requirement to have regard to non-work related disabilities in conducting a LMR assessment, and to the WSIB’s accommodation of disabilities in a LMR plan, include non-physical disabilities such as a learning disability.


Return to Top of Page