Accommodating
Disabilities
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

Important Caselaw - Suing a WCB/WSIB/WorkSafe

Knowledge and Information for Injured Workers, by Injured Workers

Suing a WCB/WSIB/WorkSafe

There are two types of civil actions.
An individual action, where is is brought by one individual or Plaintiff, and
a Class Action, where it is brought by a lcass of indivduals or class Plaintiffs.
I have broken the caselaw invovling civil lawsutis against the WCB/WSIB/WorkSafes in two these two categories. Individual Civil Actions and Class Actions.

Individual Suing a WCB/WSIB/WorkSafe


Taylor v. the WSIB & the WSIAT (ON WCB & WCAT) - Negative Case
Decisions issued by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Onatrio Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court Canada
Shuchuk v. Wolfert & Alberta WCB - (AB WCB) - Positive Case
Decisions issued by the Alberta Court of Queens Bench, Alberta Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court Canada
Goodwin v. WHSCC (NB WCB) - Negative Case
Decision issued by the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench
Steinnagel v. WHCS and The WSIB (ON WCB) - Still Ongoing
Decision issued by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Class/Group Suing a WCB/WSIB/WorkSafe


??? v. Workplace Safety & Insurance Board - WSIB (Ontario WCB) - Status Unknown
Castrillo v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board - WSIB (Ontario WCB) - Postive Case
Decisions issued by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal for Ontario Suing someone in Civil court in a Common law country involves the Law of Torts.
The principle behind the Law of Torts is simple to compensate the victim and punish the aggressor.
There are many types of Torts, but generally there are two categories of tortsand they are, IntentionalTorts and Unintentional Torts.
From this, a civil lawsuit is filed against the respective WCB.

Note the most common used Tort for WCB/WSIB/WorkSafe is "Tort of Public Misfeasance" or the Tort of the Abuse of Public Office.

"Every official, from the Prime Minister down to a constable or a collector of taxes, is under the same responsibility for every act done without legal justification as any other citizen" - Tort Law 5th Edition Klar p. 296 Craswell - 2012.

In this section, I have provided successful cases as well as unsuccessful cases, where the WCB/WSIB/WorkSafe were sued.
My reasoning was for others to learn from the sucesses and the failures of others - including and especially from myself!

A "class action lawsuit” is a lawsuit that involves a group of people with the same or similar injuries
caused by the same product and/or action and are collectively suing the defendant(s) as a group or a class.


The benefit of a class proceeding is that the dollar value of the claims of the class add up. Suing as a class is also beneficial as there is a consolidating of attorneys, plaintiffs, defendants, evidence, witnesses, and most other aspects of the litigation. If the number of people affected by the product or action/inaction is high, it becomes impractical or even impossible for them to file individual lawsuits. Therefore, sometimes a defendant(s) may petition the court to make multiple claims as a class proceeding. However, most commonly, the plaintiffs are the ones who seek to be certified as a class proceeding.

When such an action is permitted, the group, or class of plaintiffs, files the lawsuit with a representative plaintiff -- called a "named plaintiff" or "lead plaintiff" -- at the forefront. This can be one individual or a small group of individuals.

A class action must be certified by the court to proceed forward with their lawsuit. This is done by filing a motion before a proper court (Superior Court, Court of Queens Bench, or Supreme Court). The motion is to ask permission of the court to certify the action as a Class Proceeding. The issue will be to prove that all the plaintiffs collectively have similar claims. The claims DO NOT have to be specifically the exact same in nature. There may also be a need to prove the legitimacy of the claim.

For example, in suing a WCB and/or a WCAT you would need to establish the elements of the Tort of Public Misfeasance, abuse of public office, or abuse of statutory power . In this case Torts, wrongs, are unwritten laws determined by the courts, which is known as common-law.

The Tort of Public Misfeasance requires the deliberate and dishonest wrongful abuse of the powers given to a public officer, combined with the knowledge that the misconduct is likely to injure the plaintiff(s). Knowledge is proven by the "reasonable person test". The test simply says "what would a reasonable person do, in that situation?"

So, in effect, the main elements of Tort of Public Misfeasance that must be proven by the plaintiff(s)are as follows:

1. The individual/group or agency is a public official/officer/public office

and was working as a public official/officer/office at the time.

2. The individual/group or agency acted with deliberate dishonesty,
and/or acted outside their lawful authority.

3. The individual/group or agency knew or ought to have known their actions
would cause harm to the plaintiff or class of plaintiffs.


If you know of any lawsuits whether individual or class actions, pending or completed against any WCB/WSIB/Worksafe ANYWHERE that is not listed here.
Then PLEASE by all means, PLEASE send me a message using my contact page, or email it directly to me at fightwcb@gmail.com.
I will gladly give you full credit for it!


Return to Top of Page


Taylor v. the WSIB & the WSIAT
WSIAT Tribunal Decisions
Decision No. 691/05, 2008 ONWSIAT 402
Deals with a multitude of issues
The injured worker, which is me, the creator of this site, Paul Taylor, was appealing 5 decisions of the Workplace Safety & Insurance Board - WSIB (Ontario's WCB) to the Workplace Safety Insurance Appeals Tribunal - WSIAT (Ontario's WCT).
The hearing was an oral hearing and took place January 10, July 3, 4, and 5, 2007 at Toronto, Ontario. The separation between January and July was that the WSIAT staff refused to allot me more time when I was booking the hearing.

Decision No. 691/05R, 2013 ONWSIAT 1292
Deals with Injured Worker filing a request for reconsideration of WSIAT decision.
The injured worker, which is me, Paul Taylor, after receiving the WSIAT decision No. 691/05 dated February 11, 2008, filed for a reconsideration of this decision. I also included with my fifteen page written submission, a considerable amount of new evidence. Unfortunately everything was ignored by the WSIAT in the reconsideration decision process.
Under normal court procedures one, would agree with the rules of evidence, however the WSIB and the WSIAT, which are governed by the WSIA, as well as other laws and WSIB polices have a very clear mandate to be objective and always give the benefit of the doubt. This was not the case and is why I filed a civil action against both the WSIB & the WSIAT.
Additioanlly, the majority of the fresh evidence was not proving or disproiving a case, but confirming a need for acommodations, which is something entirely different!


Ontario Superior Court of Justice Decisions
Taylor v. WSIB ONSC 1223
Deals with a civil lawsuit against the WSIB and the WSIAT
The injured worker, which is myself sued both the WSIB and the WSIAT for initially $6.5 million, then due to delays by the WSIB and the WSIAT increased it to $16.5 million. I have done this all on my own, without legal counsel. I have done this not because I think I am smarter than the average injured worker, because I am NOT! I have done this because like most injured workers I have no other choice! also because I was disgusted by the inhumane comments by both the WSIB and the WSIAT!
In response to my filing of the civil lawsuit, the WSIB and the WSIAT filed motions to dismiss my lawsuit. The WSIAT also filed a motion to have the audio recorded evidence excluded and sealed. This was a recorded conversation of the WSIAT panel during the hearing, as well as when they were in deliberations.
The judge decided that the claim is statue barred. Also that the WSIB and the WSIAT does NOT have the legal capacity to be sued. The judge also sated that the statement of claim disclosed no cause of action. The judge also stated in his decision that recording of tribunal hearings was a violation of deliberative secrecy and made reference to the case of Tremblay v. Quebec.

Decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario
Taylor v. Workplace Safety & Insurance Board, 2018 ONCA 108
The appellant, which is myself, appealed the previous decision of His Honour Justice D. Price to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.
The questions put to the Court of Appeal were:
1. Did the motion judge err in dismissing Taylor’s claim for lack of jurisdiction? and
2. Did the motion judge err either by striking Taylor’s pleadings as failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action for “bad faith” or misfeasance in public office, or by refusing to grant Taylor leave to amend his statement of claim?
The Court of Appeal, in the decision listed above, dismissed my appeal, on the grounds that s. 123 of the Workplace Safety & Insurance Act, ousts the constitutional authority of the Superior Court. The court of appeal also determined there was no tort of bad faith.
Respectfully, this was something I found to be contrary to the Rule of Law and s. 96 of the Constitution of Canada. I submit to you that Judges in the Superior Court/Supreme Court/Court of Queens Bench, are judges that are appointed by the Federal Government for life. They are also paid by the Federal Government. This is Canada’s attempt to avoid biased decision makings, which is a concern within the Rule of Law. However, unlike judges of the Superior Courts, workers compensation board & tribunal decision makers are appointed by the board and tribunal directly. They can be fired for any reason, at any time and are paid by the board and tribunal directly. Confirming they are biased decision makers. This is not just my opinion by the opinion of a famous Canadian legal scholar on administrative law Ron Ellis, in his book Unjust by Design.

My next step was to ask the Supreme Court of Canada, permission, or Leave, to appeal the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Judgement of the Supreme Court of Canada
Paul Taylor v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, et al. Case File No. 38980
In order to appeal a matter before the Supreme Court of Canada, an individual must first seek permission (or leave) of the Supreme Court of Canada. Unique to lower courts, here, one must argue not the wrongness of their case, but first the “public importance” of their case. Then if the Supreme Court of Canada feels like it, then the Supreme Court of Canada will allow you to bring an appeal before the Supreme Court of Canada. This is because the Supreme Court of Canada provides no reasons on application for leave to appeal, which makes it completely discretionary.

In my application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, I argued my case was of great public importance as it impacted not just myself, but all Canadians and migrant workers who suffered from work injuries, Canadians with disabilities, and self-represented litigants appearing before Canada’s administrative boards, tribunals, and courts. I also added that the public importance of all three of categories involved were all low-income individuals, which amplified the public importance of my case.

In my application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, I also argued my case was of great public importance as it impacted several public importance considerations within the various forms of law: Constitutional law, inconsistency with Provincial/Territorial laws, inconsistency in many Provincial/Territorial Courts of Appeal, and it involves a novel point of law.

With all that I had submitted in support of my “public importance” argument, the Supreme Court of Canada, appeared to be completely disinterested in my plight, and the plight of all injured workers in Canada. This was because they dismissed my leave application.
As there are no reasons provided. One can only speculate that the Supreme Court of Canada believes that injured workers only recourse is through Judicial Review. Therefore, either injured workers can obtain all forms of damages through judicial review, or that injured workers are NOT entitled to any damages because of intentional wrongs committed on them by Canada’s workers compensation boards and/or tribunals.

My next step in this matter is to ask the Supreme Court of Canada to reconsider their judgement in my leave application. Unfortunately, I am extremely skeptical of any success, as Supreme Court of Canada has never reconsidered any of their decisions in the history of the Supreme Court of Canada. If I am incorrect PLEASE let me know by E-mail at fightwcb.org.

Reconsideration of the Judgement of the Supreme Court of Canada
As I mentioned above, I will bring a motion to the Supreme Court of Canada on various grounds. Once the judgment has been issued, I will post it here in this part.

There are two more steps I maybe able to take to attempt to get justice for myself and all injured workers in Canada. The first would be to petition the Parliament of Canada to set aside the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision and order the Supreme Court of Canada to hear my appear. However, let us be honest I am extremely skeptical of this as well because the Parliament of Canada has NEVER interfered with a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada’s in all of Canada’s existence, including before confederation. Again, if I am incorrect PLEASE let me know by E-mail at fightwcb.org.
The next and final step would be to bring a formal complaint to the United Nations. It would be to the International Labour Organization, which is a branch of the United Nations. The International Labour Organization will hear complaints from citizens of countries who are signatories, which Canada is, and the individual must have exhausted all appeal options within their country.
So as the saying goes… “only time will tell the test of tales”.


Return to Top of Page
Cutis v. WSIB
Deals with a civil lawsuit against the WSIB. The plaintiff failed to disclose a cause of action in his pleadings. The plaintiff can and should file an appeal as the case should not have been denied. This does show that making a correct pleading is important to establish your case against the WCB in civil court.
This case was dismissed at the Superior Court level.
It is unclear if the Plaintiff intends to appeal at this time.


Click Here to Return to Top of Page
Shuchuk v. Wolfert & Alberta WCB
Deals with civil lawsuit against WCBs and employees - Very Important Case!
This case confirms that a WCB as well as its employees, can be sued in civil court.


Shuchuk v. Wolfert, 2001 ABQB 500
In this decision Thomas Shuchuk filed a civil lawsuit against the Alberta Workers Compensation Board as well as several employees of the board. In his decision Master in Chambers M. Funduk stated:
"Anyone who has not been living in a sealed glass bubble on an ocean floor for the last 25 years knows that there is a measure of dissatisfaction by some injured workers with The Workers Compensation Board. That is what this lawsuit is about."

He went on to state that Mr. Shuchuk did not have a reasonable prospect to succeed in a civil actin against the Alberta Workers Compensation Board and dismissed the claim in its entirety.

This however, would not be the end of the line....

Shuchuk v. Wolfert, 2001 ABQB 937
Mr. Shuchuk appealed the decision of Master in Chambers M. Funduk. In his decision Justice R. P. Marceau stated that:
"the Workers’ Compensation Board and its officers are not necessarily immune from an action for abuse of power or intentional infliction of mental suffering.""

Justice R. P. Marceau ultimately ruled that the statement of claim against the Alberta WCB and an employee was allowed to proved. In simple terms Justice R. P. Marceau overturned the previous courts decision.

It is interesting to note that this case was cited by eight other cases, across the country.
I have listed those cases here for your convenience

Please know I have not read all of these cases.
Freeman-Maloy v. Marsden, 2006 CanLII 9693 (ON CA)
MacLean v. Nova Scotia (Workers' Compensation Board), 2006 NSSC 338 (CanLII)
Birns v. CBI Medical International (Lethbridge) Inc., 2003 ABQB 904 (CanLII)
Abbasi v. Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Co., 2003 ABQB 760 (CanLII)
Goldman c. Houle, 2013 QCCDBQ 33 (CanLII)
Pierce v Alberta (Appeals Commission for Alberta Workers’ Compensation), 2019 ABQB 443 (CanLII)
McDougall v. Nova Scotia (Workers’ Compensation Board), 2016 NSSC 333 (CanLII)
Schulte v Alberta (Appeals Commission for Alberta Workers' Compensation), 2015 ABQB 17 (CanLII)

Yet again this would still not be the end of the line...

Wolfert v. Shuchuk, 2003 ABCA 109
In response to Justice R. P. Marceau decision the Alberta WCB appeal the decision to the Alberta Court of Appeal. The case was heard on February 25, 2003 by Madam Justice Fruman, Mr. Justice Costigan, and Mr. Justice Ritter.
The justices dismissed the appeal, which was filed by the Alberta WCB. This meant the previous decision of Justice R. P. Marceau stands.

It is interesting to note that this case was cited by other cases, across the country. I have listed those cases here for your convenience
Please know I have not read all of these cases.
Owners: Condominium Plan No. 942 1549 v. Edmonton (City), 2006 ABCA 194 (CanLII)
Mraiche Investment Corporation v. McLennan Ross LLP, 2012 ABCA 95 (CanLII)
De Shazo v. Nations Energy Company Ltd., 2005 ABCA 241 (CanLII)
Freeman-Maloy v. Marsden, 2006 CanLII 9693 (ON CA)
Warkentin v. Klein, 2009 ABCA 223 (CanLII)
Richards v. Gammell, 2004 ABCA 289 (CanLII)
Conway v. Zinkhofer, 2006 ABCA 74 (CanLII)
Pioneer Exploration Inc. (Trustee of) v. Euro-Am Pacific Enterprises Ltd., 2003 ABCA 298 (CanLII)
Balm v. Aikins MacAuley & Thorvaldson LLP, 2012 ABCA 96 (CanLII)

Yet again this would still not be the end of the line...

29737 - The WCB & Randy Wolfert v. Thomas Shuchuk (Alta.) (Civil) (By Leave)
You can also access the Supreme Court of Canada information here.
In response to the Alberta Court of Appeal Decision, the Albert WCB & Mr. Wolfert appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.
In order to file an appeal the first step is file leave (which is simply asking the court's permission to appeal).
Iacobucci, Binnie and Arbour JJ, reviewed the Alberta WCB's Request for Leave to the Supreme Court of Canada and denied the request.
This meant that the decision of Justice R. P. Marceau stands (applies).
This simply means that Mr. Shuchuk was allowed to sue the Alberta WCB and its employees.


This is as far as I know the end of the line....
I have searched the law databases and found no further decisions in this name, which likely indicates that the Alberta WCB made a settlement offer and it was accepted. I did hear form another injured worker in Manitoba who contacted Mr. Shuchuk's lawyer and confirmed the Alberta WCB settled with Mr. Shuchuk.

Click Here to Return to Top of Page
Goodwin v. NB WCB
Murray Goodwin v. Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission, 2014 NBQB 119
Deals with Civil lawsuit against WCBs
Mr. Goodwin filed a civil lawsuit in 2008 against the New Brunswick Workers Compensation Board, which is now referred to as Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission. In response, to Mr. Goodwin's claim, the New Brunswick Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission filed a motion with the court to dismiss Mr. Goodwin's claim. The grounds for the motion to dismiss was Rule 23.01(2)(a), on the basis that the determination of [Mr. Goodwin's] complaints fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commission. This dismissal motion was heard before Justice J. McLellan stated the following in his decision:
"11. It seems to me that I must respect the primary jurisdiction of the appeals tribunal. However in this exceptional case we already have a clear situation of delayed justice for many years culminating in the decision reinstating compensation for 10 years back. Thus it seems to me that it is my duty to also affirm the jurisdiction of this court to deal with the allegations that might not be dealt with by the appeals tribunal.
12. Also, it seems to me that in this unusual case that I should consider the issues of Section 7 and 24 of the Charter of Rights as being real and that the Court should keep open to the possibility that there will be some remedy under the Charter that could not be appropriately dealt with by the appeals tribunal.”


It is interesting to note that this case was cited by other cases, across the country. I have listed those cases here for your convenience
Please know I have not read all of these cases.
Douglas Construction Ltd v New Brunswick (Transportation), 2016 NBQB 118 (CanLII)

Murray Goodwin v. Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation, 2015 NBQB 32 (CanLII)
The matter then proceeded to trial, which lasted 22 days and was heard before Mr. Justice Raymond T. French.
Unfortunately, in his 207 page decision, Mr. Justice Raymond T. French found that Mr. Goodwin: "did not establish many of the material factual allegations on which his claims were based. The facts that were established did not support his claims. Mr. Goodwin’s claim is dismissed". One of the main issues was that Mr. Goodwin failed to show that the New Brunswick Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission had "a duty of care".

It is interesting to note that this case was cited by other cases, across the country. I have listed those cases here for your convenience Please know I have not read all of these cases.
Yuill v Alberta (Workers’ Compensation Appeals Commission), 2017 ABQB 523 (CanLII)
Arndt v Banerji, 2018 ABCA 176 (CanLII)


Click Here to Return to Top of Page
Steinnagel v. Workplace Health & Cost Solutions (WHCS) and The Workplace Safety Insurance Board (WSIB)

Steinnagel v. WHCS and The WSIB
This is unusual as it is NOT an injured worker who is suing the WSIB(Ontario WCB), but it is a doctor. This deals with a Doctor being intimidated to change their medical diagnosis!
Dr. Steinnagel worked at a medical assessment center (Commonly referred to as Regional Evaluation Centers) where injured workers were referred to determine if they had a permanent impairment.
It is a typical problem of the WCBs, like insurance companies, where they would payoff medical centers to say injured workers were not seriously hurt when they were, when they were. in my personal experience after having an injury for more than a year and a half the regional assessment center said I would be fully recovered after 6-8 weeks with no formal treatment. any reasonable person would know if you had the injury for more than a year you are not getting any better especially with no formal treatment.
Fortunately for one injured worker, they had this Dr. Steinnagel assessing them who said the truth that they were seriously injured and she refused to change her diagnosis and as a result she lost her job!
In her claim Dr. Steinnagel argues that she was wrongly terminated because she refused to change a patient's diagnosis for the WSIB.

In response to Dr. Steinnagel claim, both the WSIB and her employer WHCS, filed a motion to dismiss her claim.

The Honourable Justice J. Stewart heard the motions
and dismissed both motions and allowed the matter to proceed to trial.

As far as I know, no further action has happen in this claim
but if anyone hears anything please send me a message, thanks!



Click Here to Return to Top of Page

???? v. Workplace Safety & Insurance Board - WSIB
Class Action
A new class action lawsuit has been filed in court, for class action certification.
Unfortunately I do not have all the details or facts as of yet. If you have more specific "legal" information such as a link to the case, please fightwcb@gmail.comsend me the link by e-mailing me at fightwcb@gmail.com
There is a news article about the possible class action lawsuit entitled "Lawsuit takes on WSIB for rejecting 'chronic mental stress' claims".

Click Here to Return to Top of Page

Castrillo v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board - WSIB
Class Action
Unfortunately, the initial case that went before the court that was to certify the action as a "Class Action" is not available. If you have a link or a copy of the initial case, please send me a link by e-mail at fightwcb@gmail.com, so I can add the information here

Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Castrillo v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2015 ONSC Mr. Castrillo had filed a motion in court to certify a class action lawsuit. His lawyer Peter Fink stated in a Toronto Star interview that previously the Board, the WSIB - Ontario's WCB, would calculate the NEL Award on a point system. An NEL award is a financial award granted to injured workers who suffer a permanent impairment because of a workplace accident. Then Mr. Fink stated that the Board, without change of policy or law changed the way the Board calculates the NEL award, based on pre-existing conditions. Mr. Fink stated it was illegal for the Board to do this and as such is a breach of the Tort of Public Misfeasance.

In 2015, the case was heard by his Honour Justice Edward P. Belobaba of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. His Honour’s decision dated June 25, 2015, dismissed the class action lawsuit. The lawyer for the lead plaintiff, Peter Fink, filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

Court of Appeal for Ontario
Castrillo v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2017 ONCA 121
This appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, deals with suing a WCB in a class action. The lawyer for the lead plaintiff, Peter Fink, filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario. The following is the result of the Court of Appeal for Ontario's decision.
In their unanimous decision the Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal and the class action to proceed against the WSIB, Ontario WCB.
Lauwers J.A, for the three membered panel of judges, stated the following regarding the decision of the motion judge:

"He did not interpret the pleading generously, as the cases require, but instead deconstructed it for the purpose of determining whether the privative clause in the WSIA applied to oust the court’s jurisdiction. This was an error in principle."

Lauwers J.A, also stated in their decision that:

"Section 179 does shield certain people from personal liability for acts and omissions undertaken in good faith. But it also clearly recognizes that the Board may be vicariously liable for any such actionable acts or omissions."

This case is about how the WSIB had been intentionally and neglectfully reduced the benefit awards of injured workers, in Ontario. The WSIB did this by claiming the injured workers had or have preexisting conditions. The WSIB did this without providing any legitimate proof of a pre-existing condition or its impact on the injured workers recovery.

Prior to 2012, the WSIB would not, as they do now punish the injured worker by reducing or suspending benefits. The WSIB would instead treat the injured worker as though they had no pre-existing conditions, just as Canada’s currently do and have done for over a hundred years and in all common law jurisdictions also do.
However, the WSIB would give financial relief to the accident employer, if it could be proven, well sort of proven, that the injured worker’s delayed recovery, was in part caused by a pre-existing condition. The financial relief is called as Secondary Injury Enhancement Fund – SIEF.

Therefore, employers LOVE to allegedly claim an injured workers current delayed recovery is not from their work injury, or the return to work program, but from an alleged fictitious pre-existing condition. The SIEF rewards intentional deception on the part of employers and is very dangerous!

This has been proven by the unlawful, unconstitutional, and aggressive action of the WSIB towards injured workers since 2012. The WSIB, in simple terms, blame injured workers for their delayed recovery! As a result, of the injured worker’s delayed recovery, the WSIB would reduce or completely deny benefits to injured workers.
This goes against centuries of common law doctrine and constitutional law!

This is why I have always been opposed to the SIEF program something, for two simple reasons:

1. Under “Tort Law,” this is the law used when you are suing someone for damages, there is something referred to as the “Thin Skull or Egg Shell Approach”. This simply means that you take a person, with all their possible defects - as they are! The person, the victim, cannot and should not be punished for prior conditions, especially when they are only alleged.
This has been in the Common law for several centuries! It has been cited numerous times, by the highest courts in many common law countries. The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, The Supreme Court of Canada, the Unite States Supreme Court, High Court of Australia, Supreme Court of New Zealand, as well as many more.

2. Nor should the Employer be rewarded for this through financial relief (SIEF). This is something else I am opposed to for it openly encourages employers to be deceitful to injured workers and violate their privacy, by demanding injured workers provide complete medical history to employers!

To learn more about this case, click here to read a commentary by Law Times.

Case Settled Castrillo v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2018 ONSC 4421
In 2018, a motion was field in writing with the Superior Court requesting the Class Action to be discontinued by the Class Plaintiffs. This was because an agreement was reached between the Class Plaintiffs and the WSIB.

It is interesting to note that this class action was not suing over benefits not being awarded to injured workers. Instead the class action was seeking damages be awarded for the result of the legal costs injured workers had to pay to appeal the decisions of the WSIB for injured workers to get their NEL awards reinstated.

Click Here to Return to Top of Page