National Charter Class Claim


Things happening by injured workers, to Help injured workers!



National Charter Class Claim

This webpage has been setup to provide information regarding the National Charter Class Claim against every one of Canada's Provincial/Territorial workers compensation boards, specifically the WCB/WSIB/WorkSafe, and against every one of Canada's Provincial/Territorial workers compensation appeals tribunals.

The plan was to prepare a claim based on the three demands of the WorkersCompIsARight campaign specifically
DEEMING, PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS, AND IMEs(paid board doctors and paper doctors)

However, three more issues/methods of concern were added.
The first is delays, to address the intentional institutional delays within all of Canada's workers compensation systems.
The second is Age, to address the discriminatory practice of the WCBs and WCATs to reduce, suspend, or deny benefits solely based on a person reaching the age of 65, or being over age 65.
The third is secondary injuries, to address the discriminatory practice of the WCBs and WCATs to ignore the secondary injuries which occur as a result of injured workers having to deal with the workers compensation systems and its respective appeal process.

Additionally, there is an agreement where injured workers will, if they are interested file a Charter class Claim in their own respective province/territory.

If you know of any other Class Actions currently filed against any workers compensation board and/or tribunal in Canada
please let me know by e-mail at fightwcb@gmail.com

Don't Forget to Sign-up to Get Updates
Sign-up for important updates regarding injured workers. Including the next meeting reminders.
You can do this by clicking the sign-up button on the navigation bar or by click here.


There are a considerable number of court documents published on this page. Please respect the individual’s privacy. Please do not harass them. Also, please do not contact them without their prior consent. To obtain their consent send an e-mail to fightwcb@gmail.com
Individual privacy is paramount. Every effort has been made to protect people’s privacy. However, if a document has been inadvertently published with your personal contact information, please send an e-mail to fightwcb@gmail.com and it will be rectified.
Please note we have no control over others, such as the Defendants or court filed documents.



The Group is Proceeding with the Ontario's Charter Claim First!

At pressent, there has been a Charter Claim filed in three jurisdictions in Canada, being British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario. There has also been strong interests to file in many other jurisdicitons in Canada including, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and many others.

For simplicity the gorup has decided to proceed with Onatrio's claim first.

To see the progress of Ontario's Claim

CLICK HERE!


National Charter Class Claim - Legal Fund Raising

National Charter Class Claim - Group Meetings


Ontario's National Charter Class Claim Court Documents

Ontario's Notice of National Charter Class Claim

Ontario's FRESH as AMENDED Notice of National Charter Class Claim

Ontario's WSIB's Notice of Intent to Defend

Ontario's Correspondence

Ontario's Notice of Constitutional Question

Ontario's Notice of Motion

Ontario's Notice of First Case Conference

Plaintiff's Case Conference Brief

Extraterritorial Defendants' Notice of Motion and Case Conference Brief

Suggested Position of Lead Plaintiffs at Case Conference

Ontario's WSIB AND WSIAT Conference Brief, DRAFT Motions, and attack of poor little Paul Taylor

Paul Taylor's Response to the WSIB, WSIAT and the Extraterritorial Defendants Motions

His Honour Justice Broad's Endorsement Regarding Aug. 5/22 Case Conference



British Columbia's National Charter Class Claim Court Documents

British Columbia's Notice of National Charter Class Claim

British Columbia's Correspondence

WorkSafeBC's Notice of of Defence

British Columbia's Notice of Constitutional Question

British Columbia's Notice of Motion



Alberta's National Charter Class Claim Court Documents

Alberta's Notice of National Charter Class Claim

Alberta's Correspondence

Alberta WCB's Notice of Defence

Alberta's Notice of Constitutional Question

Alberta's Notice of Motion




 

National Charter Class Claim - Legal Fund Raising

A GoFundme page has been setup to attempt to raise money
to cover some, or maybe some day,
all of the costs of filing and legally fighting for
the #NationalCharterClassClaim.



The following individuals have provided donations.
This is in addition to those individuals who are listed on the GoFundme page:

Name Prov/Terr Amount
David Curtis Ontario $210

On behalf of ALL workers injured while working in Canada,
we are EXTREMELY GRATEFUL for those of you who have made such a generous donation!
Sadly, the majority of the donations have been from injured workers who have very little monies.
This is because they were unjustly accused by the WCBs of faking their injuries as a direct result of their employer’s workplace.
Then they were unjustly denied their lawful RIGHT to workers compensation. As a result, they were inhumanely forced back to work.
Where many were re-injured and/or suffered new injuries!
Many being forced onto Canada’s taxpayer funded and social income programs or in rare cases forced to use private insurance.

This all so Canada’s WCBs can give Rebates back to bad employers!

To be accountable and transparent to all, a list has been prepared below.
It details the costs that have been or are due to be paid out of the monies raised for this fight.
As well as why the monies were paid out or due to be paid out.
If you have any questions regarding the monies, please send an e-mail directly to:
fightwcb@gmail.com.

Date
Item
  Amount    
Comment
Aug. 21/21 Filing fee for Ontario's Notice of Charter Class Claim
$229
Paid to Paul Taylor for Ontario court filing fee, to file Ontario's Notice of Charter Class Claim
Aug. 25/21 Filing fee for British Columbia's Notice of Charter Class Claim
$200
To be paid to George Kavailis for British Columbia court filing fee, to file British Columbia's Notice of Charter Class Claim
Oct. 21/21 Partial filing fee for Alberta's Notice of Charter Class Claim
$125
To be paid to Rod Barrett for Alberta's partial court filing fee, to file Alberta's Notice of Charter Class Claim
Oct. 21/21 Partial filing fee for Alberta's Notice of Charter Class Claim
$125
To be paid to Jennifer Baker for Alberta's partial court filing fee, to file Alberta's Notice of Charter Class Claim
Aug./Sep. /22 Filing fee for Paul Taylor's Notice of Motion
$320
To be paid to Paul Taylor for Ontario's court filing fee, to file Paul Taylor's Notice of Motion for the Lead Plaintiffs to be appointed representation by the Court.
Aug./Sep. /22 Filing fee for Brue's Notice of Motion
$320
To be paid to Paul Taylor for Ontario's court filing fee, to file Bruce Junker's Notice of Motion for the Lead Plaintiffs to be appointed representation by the Court.
Aug./Sep. /22 Filing fee for Rod Barrett's Notice of Motion
$320
To be paid to Paul Taylor for Ontario's court filing fee, to file Rod Barrett's Notice of Motion for the Lead Plaintiffs to be appointed representation by the Court.
Aug./Sep. /22 Filing fee for George Kavallis' Notice of Motion
$320
To be paid to Paul Taylor for Ontario's court filing fee, to file George Kavallis' Notice of Motion for
1. To be allwoed to file Notice of Motion, on gorunds was unable to attend case conference.
2. Also for the Lead Plaintiffs to be appointed representation by the Court.
Aug./Sep. /22 Filing fee for Ken Grysiuk's Notice of Motion
$320
To be paid to Paul Taylor for Ontario's court filing fee, to file Ken Grysiuk's Notice of Motion for
1. To be allwoed to file Notice of Motion.
2. Also for the Lead Plaintiffs to be appointed representation by the Court.


Return to Top of Page

 

National Charter Class Claim - Group Meetings


It was decided to have Sunday at 3pm est and to hold two meetings a month to discuss and have updates.

The following is the list of meetings until the December 2022.

CLICK HERE TO JOIN THE MEETING

Meeting ID:996 9673 3973
Passcode:147282

Aug 14, 2022 03:00 PM or NOON PST
Aug 28, 2022 03:00 PM or NOON PST
Sep 11, 2022 03:00 PM or NOON PST
Sep 25, 2022 03:00 PM or NOON PST
Oct 9, 2022 03:00 PM or NOON PST
Oct 23, 2022 03:00 PM or NOON PST
Nov 6, 2022 03:00 PM or NOON PST
Nov 20, 2022 03:00 PM or NOON PST
Dec 4, 2022 03:00 PM or NOON PST
Dec 18, 2022 03:00 PM or NOON PST


I will also try and send out an E-mail reminder a day or two before the meeting and/or the day of the meeting.
If you have not already signed up for e-mail reminders, you can do so by clicking here.

If you would like to add a reminder to your calendar program click here.





Reminder to Respect Everyone's Privacy

I would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone to PLEASE respect everyone’s privacy.
By this I mean please DO NOT record the meeting or take pictures of your screen.
Thank you!

I have created a short how to change your name in ZOOM for those who wish to further protect their privacy.
You can see the page by clicking here


Strict ZOOM Meeting Etiquette


Due to the size and scope of the meeting, I must insist on strict meeting rules be followed for us to achieve our goals!

Anyone found to be disrupting the meeting and/or speaking abusively to the host or other participants will be ejected from the meeting.

As there is a delay in ZOOM, a speaker list will be used and only the person who has been asked to speak will be allowed to speak.
PLEASE DO NOT TELL YOUR STORY DURING THIS MEETING!
Your story is very important to me and everyone, but please just stick to answering the specific questions. So, I can get a feel of the issues affecting all injured workers in Canada. This will also allow others to speak.
I DO WANT TO HEAR YOUR STORY, but not here and now.
In time, I will be provided a way for you to tell me your story and I can post it on my website.

  • To respect the privacy of attendees, the meeting will NOT be recorded, but I will be taking notes, where possible, but will not include any personal information in my notes. I will save the Chat if anyone makes comments in the chat but will not make it public.

    PLEASE DO NOT disclose the ZOOM link and/or invite e-mail to anyone!
    It will be considered a breach of everyone’s privacy and you will be ejected from the meeting and barred from any further meetings.
    I must insist on this to protect people’s privacy and ensure the conversations are kept privileged between us.
    If you know anyone who is interested in wanting to take part in the meeting have them come here as you did and register.
    While I place an extremely great importance of the media, they will not be invited to this meeting.
    This is to ensure the privacy of the injured workers and family members of injured workers.

    As always, your input is valued and it is hopefull the meetigns this will be productive and informative for us all!


    Thank you!


    How to ZOOOOOOOOOOM!



    I have created a short how to change your name in ZOOM for those who wish to further protect their privacy.
    You can see the page by clicking here

    Return to Top of Page

  •  

    Ontario's National Charter Class Claim Documents

    The following are all documents related to Ontario's filing of the National Charter Class Claim in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
    There are any court documents, relevant documents, correspondence, etc. that have been placed here.
    Click the image of the document or the bluehyperlink to download a PDF version of the document.
    The docuemnt will open in a new browser window.

    Return to Top of Page


    Ontario's Press Releases/Media Stories

    Here will be placed any relevant and helpful press releases for all to share.
    Also any press coverage, if this EVER happens.
    It is said, if it EVER happens, as it seems the media steers well clear of any legal claims involing injured workers.
    Almost like the media has been covertly warned to stay well away!







    Ontario's Notice of National Charter Class Claim

    This is the intial document, which is used to commence the claim against the various WCBs and WCATs across Canada.

    Click the image to download a PDF copy

    Return to Top of Page


    Ontario's FRESH as AMENDED Notice of National Charter Class Claim

    This is the amended document, which will be used in place of the original document filed, to commence the claim against the various WCBs and WCATs across Canada.

    Ontario's DRAFT Amended Charter Class Claim

    Click the link to download a PDF copy

    Return to Top of Page


    Ontario's WSIB's Notice of Intent to Defend
    It is a document a defendant can file to maintain within the time limits, so they are not held in default, but can take longer to file their defence.

    Click the image to download a PDF copy

    Even with an intent to defend, the WSIB is still WELL outside the timelimtis to file their defence,
    but they will be allowed GREAT latititude from the courts.
    Why? well becuase it is the WSIB!


    Return to Top of Page



    Ontario's Correspondence
    WSIB - Ontario's Workers Compensation Board, Letter Dated September 15, 2021
    This letter is simply acknowledging the lawyers are representing the WSIB and the WSIB's also the WSIAT's intent to DESTROY the claim in court, by preventing it going to ANY hearing. This is a VERY common legal strategy, which is to deny the common people the right of access to ANY justice!
    The Notice is below in the Court forms section.


    TDS Letter Dated September 23, 2021
    This letter is simply acknowledging the lawyers are representing the various defendants. They are also stating that a party can not be served outside of the jurisdiction, without leave, a motion, to the court requesting for this to be allowed.

    WSIB - Ontario's Workers Compensation Board Letter Dated September 15, 2021
    This is the WSIB just adding their two-cents worth in on TDS's letter.

    TDS Letter Dated January 13, 2022
    TDS is representing other Defendants, who have not even been officially added to the claim yet!
    They are just advising us they have retained more clients.

    WSIAT Letter Dated January 13, 2022
    Mr. Lokan is representing the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal - Ontario's WCAT. Mr. Lokan, in his letter, is asking the court to assign a judge to the matter before everything has been filed. Mr. Lokan, in typical fashion, is attempting to control the Court and the narrative. Ironically, Mr. Lokan, on behalf of the WSIAT has not filed a defence to Ontario’s National Charter Class Claim, which was filed with the court on August 16, 2021. It is a requirement within the rules of the court that a defendant/respondent MUST file a defence within 20 days of receiving it. Well… at least for everyone else in the world, there must be an unwritten exception somewhere allowing the WSIAT to do as it pleases!

    You will see within Mr. Lokan's letter, his personal distain towards me. There is no doubt to this. Simply becuase I am fighting for my rights and the rights of all injured workers. Like as if we are to accept our poverty with a smile!
    Like Oliver Twist how dare we EVER say, “Please sir can I have some more!”

    What is even more ironic, or as I like to say FUNNY, is that I am currently battling with Mr. Lokan in Ontario's courts with my own matter as he is saying injured workers, even those with brain injuries, should be given NO GRACE AT ALL for any their delays in filing any appeals or applications!
    Another part of me thinks this maybe a political move to push the WSIAT to get this dealt with before Ontario’s election occurs in the next few months. Oh Dougy are you meddling in the court process?

    My Resposne Letter to Regional Senoir Judge Dated January 15, 2022
    I have included my letter to the Regional Senior Judge. In my letter I raise the point neither the WSIB nor the WSIAT have followed the Rules of the Court, but not surprisingly they will not be punished. This is because there is clearly a doubled standard. Injured workers are held to the absolute rule. Whereas the WSIB and the WSIAT well whatever suits them!

    Letter from Mr. McKinnon Dated May 25, 2022
    This letter recently received from Mr. McKinnon of TDS. Mr. McKinnon has been included. He is the lawyer who represents the majority of the defendants, other than Ontario’s WSIB and WSIAT and Nova Scotia’s Appeals Tribunal. In the letter Mr. McKinnon is indicating his intentions to file a motion to dismiss the claim on the grounds Ontario Superior Court does not have jurisdiction and requests my permission for their motion to be heard before the motion to certify the claim as a Class Claim.

    My concerns with Mr. McKinnon’s letter and position. First, is that while I am the person who filed the motion, I have not been authorized by the court to speak for all the Plaintiffs. Nor has the court assigned counsel for us. As such Mr. McKinnon by right, should contact each one of us to seek our individual approval. Normally, when there is one lead plaintiff, he would be correct. However, we have some 30 lead plaintiffs and I did it to show what democracy is - a voice of the people, not just one! My second concern is that Mr. McKinnon’s assertion that a “Superior Court” does not have jurisdiction. To me, this is incorrect. This is simply because interjurisdictional claims have been brought before other courts within Canada and have all been allowed. Most importantly, there are two Constitutional issues with the claim which is unique form a civil claim.

    First, it punishes workers who have interjurisdictional issues. For example, an individual who lives in say Nova Scotia and was injured while working for an employer in Alberta would have to bring a claim in Alberta against Alberta’s WCB and/or Appeals commissions. This, in effect, violates section six of the Charter as it punishes people who do not live in Alberta, in this case, from those that do. This is because they would have to travel to Alberta to fight their case.
    There is actually a case out of Newfoundland of similar matter. The only difference was that the injured worker was suing the Alberta WCB in the Newfoundland Court. The difference beign that it was a civil matter and not a constitutional one.

    Second, our claim is a Charter Class Claim under s. 24.1 of the Charter and not a civil claim. This means the law and jurisdiction of the court is federal or in effect constitutional. Simply, Canada’s Constitution says that anyone can bring a claim against any government in Canada.

    Return to Top of Page




    Ontario's Notice of Constitutional Question
    This a court document used by ANY Canadians to challenge the constitutionality of a law and/or action or inaction of government. In the case of a law, when filed at a Superior Court, the request can have the law and/or section of law declared unconstitutional. As such, under s. 52 of the Constitution of Canada have the law or section declared of no force and/or effect.

    Some examples of the power of a Notice of Constitutional Question are:
    The case of R v. Morgentaler this was a case that ultimately challenged the section of the Criminal Code of Canada that made it illegal to perform abortions. The Supreme Court invalidated the section of the Criminal Code. Thus, allowing abortion for females. While even today it is an extremely contentious issue. This example is not about the issue, it is about the power of the Constitution of Canada.
    The case of Carter v. Canada is a more recent case where an individual challenged the section of the Criminal Code preventing doctor assisted suicide. The Supreme Court invalidated the section of the Criminal Code. Thus, allowing for doctor assisted suicides. Again, even today this is also another extremely contentious issue. This example is not about the issue, it is about the power of the Constitution of Canada.
    The case of R. v. Jordan is a recent case where an individual challenged the action of government. That action being that the government was taking too long to hold a criminal trial for a matter. Ultimately the Supreme Court dismissed Mr. Jordan’s criminal charges and imposed new time limits. The time limits were 30 months for criminal matters heard before a Superior Court and 18 months for lower criminal and quasi-criminal matters.

    There are countless other examples of charter challenges. This is a major specialization within Canada’s legal system. Most importantly, individuals can file charter challenges or Notice of Constitutional Question with administrative boards, commissions, or tribunals. This is because the Supreme Court of Canada clarified that administrative boards, commissions, or tribunals are courts of competent jurisdiction. However, in these matters they can not strike down, or read into a law. They can only ignore the specific section of law the case before them. To change a law an individual would have to file a Notice of Constitutional Question with a Superior Court.

    It should be noted that we did attempt to file a Notice of Constitutional Question first but was advised by the courts that we would first need to file an originating process. That being an action or claim. Then we could file the Notice of Constitutional Question.




    Ontario's Notice of Constitutional Question
    The Notice of Constitutional Question has been prepared. This is the court document that turns a claim into a Charter or Constitutional claim.

    Click the image to download a PDF copy

    Return to Top of Page



    Ontario's Notice of Motion
    This a Court document used to ask the court for something.
    This Motion will be to do the following:

    1. Appoint a lawyer to represent the Plainitffs and the cost to come from the WSIB's insurance fund. Allow Mr.Taylor to be the spokenperosn for the Self-Represented Lead Plaintiffs, until such time as the Lead Plaintiffs can obtain and approve counsel.

    2. To certify the Charter Claim as a Charter Class Claim

    3. To allow service of the Defendnats outside of Ontario.

    The purpose of a class proceeding is to bring all or most of the defendants and plaintiffs together. This simplifies the process for the courts, the plaintiffs, and the defendants. The plaintiffs gain power through their shear numbers, the cost of representation is share over the collective and in virtually all cases it the legal costs are privately funded by the law firm and/or a private investment company. The courts also benefit form a class as they would only be dealing with one collective group. This is also a benefit to the defendants. The plaintiffs, the court, or the defendants, can ask the court to certify a claim as a class claim.

    Normally, in a civil class proceeding, a party must seek leave, or ask permission, of the court to have the civil claim certified as a class action. However, it will be argued that this is a Charter Class Claim. As such, it should not be required or that if required, the standards should not be the same as a typical civil class claim, it should be more straight forward.

    Normally, in a class proceeding a lawyer is required to represent the class. There will be a request to the court, to allow me to represent the class as a Self-represented Representative of the Class. This will be just until we can get the class certified by the court. In doing so, hopefully we will gain the interest of some law firms who will be willing to take it on a pro bono or on a contingency basis.

    When filing a civil claim, the rules require that a party seek leave, or ask permission of the court to serve a defendant that does not reside within that jurisdiction. So, for example as Ontario’s claim is against many other defendants who do not reside in Ontario normally leave is required. This was brought to my attention by the law firm of TDS, who represents most other defendants in Ontario’s claim. This was my mistake. However, I was under the impression that when brining a Charter Claim, a Canadian can bring a claim against ANY government in Canada on behalf of any other Canadian and that claim can be field in any Superior Court in Canada. A Superior Court meaning, a Supreme Court, a Superior Court of Justice, or a Court of Queens Bench. The courts in Canada have different names but the courts are all the same. That they are Constitutionally empower by s. 96 of the Constitution of Canada.
    Regardless, in the motion, there will be included a request to the court we be allowed to file on defendants outside of Ontario and argue the constitutional right to do so.


    Click the image to download a PDF copy

    Return to Top of Page




    Ontario's Notice of First Case Conference
    This a document issued by the court, confirming that the first case conference will be heard on August 5 at 2:30pm Est. It also identifies issues to be discussed at that case conference. Note that it does NOT list me or anyone else as the representative. This means that anyone listed as a lead plaintiff will have the opportunity to speak for the group.
    It is advisable to have one spokesperson to speak for the group. This will be discussed at our next meeting.


    Click the image to download a PDF copy

    Return to Top of Page




    Plainitff's Case Conference Brief
    As noted above, in the notice of first case management conference, the judge has asked for submissions regarding the plaintiffs' and defendants' positions on the stated 19 points.


    This is optional and people are not required to submit anything. However, you are encourage to submit something. This is why the sample below was created to help you.
  • The need for legal representation for the plaintiffs per rule 15.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure (Ontario). Is a motion required to address this issue? Timetable for this motion. Should any further steps in the proceeding be stayed pending determination of this motion?
  • Have all named defendants been properly served with the Statement of Claim?
  • Are all named defendants represented by counsel?
  • Have all named self-represented plaintiffs consented to being named as representative plaintiffs in the proceeding?
  • Proposed amendment of the Statement of Claim - see draft Fresh as Amended Statement of Charter Class Claim. Is leave of the court required for this amendment?
  • Notice of Constitutional Question has been filed by the plaintiffs. Has it been served? Have any responses been received?
  • Have any of the defendants delivered a Statement of Defence?
  • Do any of the defendants seek to postpone delivery of their Defence until after certification? If so, is this opposed by the plaintiffs?
  • Are there any other class proceedings in Canada with respect to the same matters in issue in this proposed class proceeding. If so, in which jurisdictions? Has the Statement of Claim been posted on the Canadian Bar Association Class Action Database in accordance with the Superior Court of Justice Practice Direction?
  • What steps will need to be taken in advance of certification?
  • Do the plaintiffs intend to file any motions prior to certification? If so, specify.
  • Do any defendants intend to file any motions in advance of certification? If so, specify.
  • If pre-certification motions are contemplated by any parties, has the issue of the sequencing of the other motions been agreed upon or will a sequencing motion be required? If so, timetable for this motion.
  • Is certification opposed? If so, for each defendant, which certification criteria are disputed?
  • Can the number of disputed issues be reduced or any facts agreed to?
  • What is the agreed upon or proposed length of the certification motion?
  • Has a timetable for the exchange of material and other steps leading to the certification motion been agreed upon? If not, what is the proposed timetable?
  • Should there be page limits for certification motion facta?
  • Other issues identified by the self-represented plaintiffs or the defendants.


  • The submissions can be made by the defence counsel and by the plaintiffs. Each plaintiff can file their own submissions discussing their position on each issue. You would NOT provide arguments or evidence, just your position. We will all have an opportunity to tell our story and how we believe our Charter Rights were infringed by the boards, tribunals, and/or commissions across Canada.

    If you do choose to make a submission,
    you can have a position on an issue,
    not have a position on an issue, or
    have no knowledge on an issue.

    Also, you are not required to make submissions, but I offer my draft submissions to provide you with a template in an effort to make it easier for you to follow if you wish to provide submissions.
    If you choose to, you must serve your submissions on defence counsel and on all the plaintiffs and file it with the court.

    Plaintiff's Case Conference Brief

    Click the image to download a PDF copy

    You can change any part of it. Reword it into your words, if you like. Please keep the content seciton to less than 5 pages.
    Also don't forget to change my name in the document to your name and address.
    Also, as I said earlier if there is something you do not know, then you can say "I have no opinion", or "I do not know."


    Return to Top of Page



    Extraterritorial Defendants' Notice of Motion and Case Conference Brief
    The law firm Thompson Dorfman Sweatman LLP (“TDS”) represents the majority of the Defendants to the National Charter Class Claim. They are all but:
    Ontario’s workers compensation board, the WSIB,
    Ontario’s workers compensation appeals Tribunal, the WSIAT, and
    the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal of Nova Scotia.

    TDS has identified their group of clients as the (“Extraterritorial Defendants”)

    TDS has responded to His Honour Justice David A. Broad (“J. Board”) request for submissions regarding the First Case Management Conference for August 5, 2022. For more information on J. Board’s request see above for the case management conference notice.

    Extraterritorial Defendants' Notice of Motion to Dismiss Ontario Claim
    Below is the Notice of Motion, which TDS has filed on behalf of the Extraterritorial Defendants. Simply, the motion is asking to remove the Extraterritorial Defendants from the Ontario claim on the bases that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice lacks territorial jurisdiction.

    To be clear, the August 5th case conference is NOT to hear this motion. The August 5th case conference is merely to decide the order of events. For example, how will the plaintiffs be represented, or not; what motions should be heard first, how long can the factums, or book of arguments be; how much time should be allowed for each motion to be heard by the court; and other such matters to be decided by the court.

    Notice of Motion to Dismiss Ontario Claim

    Click the image to download a PDF copy

    Extraterritorial Defendants' Case Conference Brief
    Below is the Case Conference Brief, which TDS has filed on behalf of the Extraterritorial Defendants. Simply, the case conference brief states the intention and position of the Extraterritorial Defendants.

    Case Conference Brief

    Click the image to download a PDF copy

    Below, Paul Taylor has provided his comments on the WSIB, WSIAT, and the Extraterritorial Defendants Motions.

    Return to Top of Page



    Suggested Position of Lead Plaintiffs at Case Conference
    What some Lead Plaintiffs, in discussion, have suggested is that the Lead Plaintiff’s take the position that the Court should follow the following order in the interests of justice:

  • That the issue of representation of the Lead Plaintiffs be decided first:
    The reason is that it will not only greatly assist the Lead Plaintiffs, and Class of Plaintiffs, ensuring the furtherance of justice, it will assist the Defence Counsel and the Court. This is because the Lead Plaintiffs and Class of Plaintiffs will have one effective voice.

    Also, within the issue of representation, it was suggested that the Lead Plaintiffs ask the court for a lawyer to be appointed to represent the Lead and Class of Plaintiffs and the cost come out of Ontario’s insurance fund. This is because of the following four reasons.

    First, there is the issue of cost. Often the courts do not like appointing a lawyer to an unrepresented party, commonly known as amicus curiae. The court’s reasoning is often the heavy financial burden to taxpayers. As many may known, most employers in each jurisdiction of Canada are required to pay premiums into a fund. This fund is general called the injury fund. However, in Ontario the name was changed to the insurance fund. This was in 1998, when the Ontario government moved away from a right to workers compensation model and moved to a privileged insurance model. The point is that the purpose of the fund is to administer the fund, pay injured workers and including cover costs of representation. This is referenced in section 176, of Ontario’s Act. Therefore, this could be an effective argument to convince the court to allow our request.

    Second, there is the “public interest,” issue of our matter. This simply means that if a court agrees a matter is of great public importance, than the Court will appoint a lawyer to represent the unrepresented party. As we are coming from all parts of Canada it is not a matter that is limited to one geographical region but the entire country. It also impacts their families and taxpayers. This is because when an injured worker is denied their legitimate right to workers compensation, they then are forced to become a burden to their families and taxpayers. This is because as many are unaware workers compensation is privately funded. Whereas social assistance programs such as, income replacement, housing subsidies, health insurance, etc. are for the most part funded by taxpayers.

    Third, being a single educated voice, which contains the proper amount of knowledge. Only a lawyer has the knowledge required to make and represent a claim of this magnitude. This also includes an argument that can be made under s. 14 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That being every individual has a right to an interpreter, whether language and/or knowledge, if they do not speak or understand. This was raised in a report authored by a panel of judges in discussing accommodating person with disabilities in Ontario courts. The report was Making Ontario's Courts Fully Accessible to Persons with Disabilities [Report of Courts Disabilities Committee]

    Fourth, it would be in the interests of and furtherance of justice. In making this argument one first must understand what justice means. Simply, it means to attempt to be or attempt to ensure fairness to all within society. That when one is wronged, i. e. a work injury, the courts step in and ensure they have a right to redress. Also it is important to know that for a justice system to be effective in any way, most of society must have a believe in it. If they do not, than the justice system will fail, or as s. 24.2 of the Charter states "to bring the administration of justice into disrepute". This is why the courts always work to further the interests of justice.

    In the alternative, to the court awarding a lawyer to represent the Lead and Class Plaintiffs, we could argue that the court could immediately certify the class. This would allow us to retain a law firm on a contingency basis. The benefits would be, no cost to the insurance fund, no cost to taxpayers, and most importantly, it would be in the interests of justice to do so! As such, no one would be prejudiced by this.

  • That the issue of certifying the Class and allowing the Constitutional Question to proceed second:
    This is because of the following two reasons.

    First, it will remedy the jurisdictional issue claimed by the Extraterritorial Defendants as the claim will change form a civil claim and become an official Constitutional and Charter Claim.

    Second, the Notice of Constitutional Question not only asks for Charter Damages, but it also challenges the constitutional jurisdiction of the provincial compensation boards and tribunals. This is on two grounds. The first ground is the empowering legislation of the provincial compensation boards and tribunals is an infringement under section 6 of the Charter. This is because while compensation boards have interjurisdictional agreements they do not apply to unapproved claims. For example, if a worker leaves their home province/territory, and work for an employer in a different jurisdiction, suffers an injury, the workers compensation board denies their entitlement to workers compensation. Then the worker must travel to the province/territory where they were injured to appeal. It is in effect punishing a worker based on province/territory of residence contrary to section 6 of the Charter. Second, and most importantly workers compensation should be Federal. This is because workers compensation involved an interjurisdictional issue and is an infringement of s. 91 and 92 of the Constitution. This is because it fails the Federal Test under the Peace Order and Good Government, specifically under the “Gap Doctrine”. A defining case to the interjurisdictional issue of workers compensation, was the Supreme Court of Canada’s case of Oldman River Soc. v. Canada, 1992. In this case the Supreme Court determine that a matter is Federal jurisdiction when it falls under the Peace Order and Good Government clause. Specifically, the Court found a matter is under Federal jurisdiction when it is of “national importance and has extraprovincial implications

  • That the issues raised in the Extraterritorial Defendants’ motion would be made pointless:
    This is because of the following two reasons.

    First, that if the Lead Plaintiff’s Charter Claim is certified as a Charter Class Claim then it will be pointless. This is because not to, would create massive legal costs for the Lead Plaintiffs, the Defendants, and a massive waste of court resources across the country, with 12 separate claims or defend one. This is because the Lead Plaintiffs have filed in two other provinces, being in British Columbia, and Alberta. Most importantly, that there are strong intentions by injured workers in other jurisdictions across Canada to also file. Such as Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and others. As such, it is more cost effective and in the interests of and the furtherance of justice to hear a single national claim.

    Second, that if the Lead Plaintiff’s Notice of Constitutional Question is heard it will make the Extraterritorial Defendants’ Notice of Motion pointless. This is because within their Notice of Constitutional Question, the Lead Plaintiffs are challenging the constitutional authority of the Canada’s workers compensation boards and tribunals/commissions.

    Specifically that under section 92 of Canada’s Constitution provides the Exclusive Powers of Provincial Legislatures. That specifically does not mention workers compensation. Further that section 91 of Canada’s Constitution provides the Powers of the Parliament also does not mention workers compensation.

    Jurisdictional Test

    This leaves this jurisdictional matter to be decided by the courts. This is done following the process as established by the Supreme Court of Canada in their case of Canadian Western Bank v. Alberta.

  • Step One is to determine if Provincial/Territorial Governments have authority over the subject matter
    To do this one must look at the Provincial/Territorial legislation’s intent. In the case of workers compensation. It is in effect to provide income, healthcare, and other coverage for persons with disabilities.
    Then one must review section 92 of the Constitution to determine if the intent of the provincial/territorial legislation is covered. While there is no specific mention of the legislation’s intent one may argue it might be covered under section 92 (13) as Property and Civil Rights in the Province

  • Step Two, is to determine if the subject matter falls under Federal jurisdiction under s. 91 of the Constitution
    There is no clear section stating workers compensation shall be covered under section 91 of the Constitution.

  • Step Three, is to review the different doctrines under the Peace Order and Good Government, Gap Doctrine, Emergency Powers Doctrineand others,
    In reviewing the Gap Doctrine the first aspect of the Gap Doctrine is identified in the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision of Jones v. NB. It simply states that when there is “ Incomplete or partial of legislative authority to one level of government” then the Court will delegate missing authority to federal government. In the case of workers compensation, s. 92 is incomplete. This is because it does not specifically state workers compensation.

    In reviewing the second aspect of the Gap Doctrine, it makes workers compensation much clearer. It was identified by the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision of Friends of the Oldman River Society v. Canada. It simply stated that in “Dealing with matters where a new or unstated power is identified.”

    To any reasonable person workers compensation has clearly been untsated in both section 91 and section 92 of Canada's Constitution>. Some would argue workers compensation is covered under section 92(13) being Property and Civil Rights in the Province and they would be right up and until 1914, in Ontario. Somewhat later in other jurisdictions. This is ebcause after 1914, the issue of compensating workers when for their injuries as a result of their employer's workplace, became a government benefits program, which was solely and exclusively privately funded. This meant that worker sinjured form work were no longer covered under section 92(13) as Civil and Property Rights.

    Finally and most importantly, there is the specific argument of matters involving multiple jurisdictions. This was discussed in Friends of the Oldman River Society v. Canada. Where the Supreme Court of Canada found that matters, which involve interjurisdictional matters must be federal, under the Gap Doctrine.
    While some may argue the workers compensation boards have interjurisdictional agreements, this is not sufficient. This is because it does not cover federal workers who work in many jurisdictions and move around. This leaves them lviing in one jurisdiciton and being forced to travel back to another to fight for their claim for workers compensation. Nor interjurisdicitonal agreements properly cover non-federal workers who have been injured in another jurisdiction to their home province/territory. who then were denied by the other compensation board. They, like federal workers are forced to travel back to the other jurisdiciton. Ultimately, in both cases, it is an infringement of the individual’s right of mobility under section 6 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is because individuals being forced to travel back to the Province/Territory to fight for entitlement, or other appeal issues, is punishing the individual based solely on their place of their residence.


  • Return to Top of Page




    Ontario's WSIB AND WSIAT Conference Brief, DRAFT Motions, and attack of poor little Paul Taylor
    Ok maybe Paul is not soooo little in size, LOL but you get the metaphorical point!
    Within the WSIB’s and WSIAT’s Case Conference Brief, the WSIB and WSIAT provided their Case Brief and two draft Notice of Motions.
    WSIB’s and WSIAT’s Case Conference Brief

    Within the WSIB’s and WSIAT’s Case Conference Brief, the WSIB and the WSIAT speak to the issues raised by His Honour Justice Broad in the Notice of Case Conference noted above.

    WSIB’s DRAFT Notice of Motion
    The WSIB’s Notice of Motion, which was listed as Schedule “A” to the WSIB’s and WSIAT’s Case Conference Brief, is asking the court for:
  • An order of the court to dismiss our action that was filed in Ontario;
    The WSIB’s alleged grounds are that our claim is action is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court’s process; that our claim fails to disclose any reasonable cause of action as the Charter Rights plead are not engaged; and that there are two other actions in other jurisdictions with respect to the same parties and the same subject matter.

  • That in the alternative, if the court decides not to dismiss our action, an order of the court that the Lead Plaintiff’s disclose to the WSIB sufficient particulars identifying which of the Lead Plaintiffs have filed a workers compensation claim in Ontario. Specifically, the Lead Plaintiffs’ claim file numbers and accident dates; and

  • An order that the WSIB be awarded court costs on a substantial indemnity basis.
    This is something that should be taken very seriously by the Lead Plaintiffs. This is because, in a worst case scenario, the Lead Plaintiffs could be ordered to pay all of the WSIB’s legal costs for this matter.



  • WSIAT’s DRAFT Notice of Motion
    The WSIAT’s Notice of Motion, which was listed as Schedule “B” to the WSIB’s and WSIAT’s Case Conference Brief, is asking the court for:
  • An order of the court to dismiss our action that was filed in Ontario;
    The WSIAT’s alleged grounds are that our claim is action is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court’s process; that our claim fails to disclose any reasonable cause of action as the Charter Rights plead are not engaged; and that there are two other actions in other jurisdictions with respect to the same parties and the same subject matter.

  • That in the alternative, if the court decides not to dismiss our action, an order of the court that the Lead Plaintiff’s disclose to the WSIAT sufficient particulars identifying which of the Lead Plaintiffs have filed a workers compensation claim in Ontario. Specifically, the Lead Plaintiffs’ claim file numbers and accident dates; and

  • An order that the WSIAT be awarded court costs on a substantial indemnity basis.
    This is something that should be taken very seriously by the Lead Plaintiffs. This is because, in a worst case scenario, the Lead Plaintiffs could be ordered to pay all of the WSIAT’s legal costs for this matter.



  • Ontario's WSIB AND WSIAT Conference Brief and DRAFT Motions

    Click the image to download a PDF copy

    Below, Paul Taylor has provided his comments on the WSIB, WSIAT, and the Extraterritorial Defendants Motions.

    Return to Top of Page




    Paul Taylor's Response to the WSIB, WSIAT, and the Extraterritorial Defendants Motions
    To start off with, what is really despicable is how the WSIB, WSIAT and the Extraterritorial Defendants personally attack Paul Taylor, like no one else has any problems, or has been harssed by their respective compensation boards/tribunals/commissions.
    Mind you.... There is an old saying "when they personally attack you, instead of making good arguments, this means you are getting to them!"
    The personal attacks and conduct further confirms and raises the question of the WSIAT, the WSIB, and the Extraterritorial Defendants claiming to be about protecting the rights of injured workers in Canada, yet in reality, they have done nothing more than
    Conservative Political SPIN!

    The cartoon image is of David and Goliath.
    It is a metaphor for Paul's ongoing battle with Ontario's workers compensation system to be fair and humane with injured workers.
    This metaphor should NEVER been limited to Paul.
    This is because there have been countless other injured workers across Canada who have experienced similar unjust, and inhumane treatment.

    Simply because they were injured at their employer’s workplace!

    Paul's Comments on the WSIB Motion, or More Accurately the Personal Attack on Paul

    The WSIB's motion to dismiss our claim was fully anticipated. However, what is really despicable is how they personally attack Paul Taylor, like no one else has any problems with their respective compensation boards/tribunals/commissions. The first issue was how they then use Paul Taylor’s business e-mail account so as to attack his business. Something that is without question defamatory and libel.

  • The WSIB's first paragraph says that I had brought several proceedings against the WSIB and the WSIAT of the "same nature"
    I had filed three separate court actions that were all unique from this National Charter Class Claim.

    To start off with, I believe there are close to 30 Lead Plaintiffs and many more individuals wanting to be added. Yet, somehow the WSIB and the WSIAT will make it just about Paul Taylor, which is sooooooooooo wrong!

    The first, was in 2014. This was when I was forced to file a civil lawsuit against the WSIB and WSIAT. This was NOT a claim for workers compensation benefits. It was a claim for damages. This was because of the WSIB and the WSIAT’s intentional abuse of their public office positions.

    I had claimed the WSIB had repeatedly forced me back to work. This was with a complete disregard for my various disabilities. It was also the WSIB claiming I was faking my injuries, which was based on no evidence. I would later learn, injured workers being accused of faking, without any proof, is a very common practice of both the WSIB and the WSIAT. This has slowly started to been seen in court decisions. Such as, the Divisional Court’s decision of Ferreira v. WSIAT. The Divisional Court ruled, in this case, the WSIAT practice of accusing an injured worker of faking, was not only outside the authority of WSIAT decision makers, but it was an unreasonable decision.

    In my case, sadly, the judge failed to read any of my arguments. The judge listened only to the WSIAT's arguments. As a result dismissed my civil claim based on the grounds the WSIAT lacks the legal capacity to be sued! What is most interesting about this decision is that the lawyer for the WSIAT, Mr. Lokan, had said, during his oral submissions, that the issue of the legal capacity of the WSIAT was being withdrawn and was off the table".

    Moreover, in my arguments, I argued that the original position of the WSIAT was a complete and intentional error of law. This was because the WSIAT had cited s. 179(1) of the law, which only provided limitedimmunity to the WSIAT's staff. It provided no immunity to the WSIAT itself. Further, that at s. 179(3) clearly states the WSIAT is NOT absolved of legal liability as a result of s. 179(1). Sadly, the judge ignored my arguments and dismissed my civil claim.

    I believe the judge did this as he was not interested to hear I was Not suing the WSIB staff, or the WSIAT but I was suing the WSIB and the WSIAT, which is allowed. In dealing with appeals, this is commonly referred to as an error of law and is very strong grounds for a decision to be reversed. That is unless you are an injured worker making the appeal.

    This was my case when I went to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal made this issue even more clear "You are an injured worker you can only do judicial review!" I would again find the exact same sentiment at the Supreme Court of Canada.

    What is ironic is that not only is this an error of law, but the position of the courts, with injured workers being that injured workers MUST first win their benefits. Then they can sue for civil damages is a complete error of law. This is because a similar situation was already dealt with by the Supreme Court of Canada. Where the Supreme Court of Canada stated for a court to force an individual to do an administrative appeal, judicial review and then sue for civil damages is a denial of access to justice. This was in the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision of Canada v. Telezone. However, when it comes to injured workers, the courts ignore this!



    Therefore, my first claim was not the same as this claim. This is because my first claim was a civil claim and was not a Charter claim. Moreover, this claim is a class claim, which is exactly what the Court of Appeal for Ontario said was the difference between my individual claim and the case I was referencing, being Castrillo v. WSIB. where the Court of Appeal said the WSIB and the WSIAT could be sued!

    To read about my civil case and the decisions you can click here.


  • This section is still being worked on....



    Paul's Comments on the Extraterritorial Defendants' Motion


    This section is still being worked on....



    This section has not been finished yet, but it will be completed shortly.
    Will be providing proof of the both the WSIB and WSIAT conduct towards Paul Taylor, which more than warrants a civil and Charter Claim!
    Will leave the judgement of the WSIB and WSIAT's conduct up to you and the general public.
    This is so you and the public can decide whether Ontario's WSIB and WSIAT, like all boards and tribunals, view all injured workers as that they are all:

    a complete faker, utterly lazy, and want nothing more than a free ride in life, because we don't want to work!


    Return to Top of Page




    His Honour Justice Broad's Endorsement Regarding Aug. 5/22 Case Conference
    Hi Honour Justice D. A. Broad, who has been assigned as the judge in this matter, has issued his Endorsement dated August 9, 2022, which is regarding the Case Conference that was held on August 5, 2022.

    This section is still being worked on. A summary of the Endorsement will be provided shortly!


    His Honour Justice Broad's Endorsement of Aug. 9/22

    Click the image to download a PDF copy



    Return to Top of Page


    British Columbia's National Charter Class Claim Documents

    Here is where any court documents, relevant documents, correspondence, etc. will be placed here for British Columbia's National Charter Class Claim.
    Click the image of the document or the bluehyperlink to download a PDF version of the document. The docuemnt will then open in a new browser window.




    BC's Notice of National Charter Class Claim

    This is the intial document, which is used to commence the claim against the various WCBs and WCATs across Canada.


    Click image to download a PDF copy

    Return to Top of Page




    British Columbia's Correspondence

    BC's AGO's Letter, Letter Dated October 18, 2021
    This is a Letter from the BC Atorney General's Office alledgeing they were not properly served.
    Ironic, as the court considers a party served when the party indciates they have been served,
    in addition to the normal process of service.

    Return to Top of Page




    WorkSafeBC's Notice of Defence

    This is the document that the defendnats who ahve been served responded with. Thus far it is only WorkSafeBC and BC's WCAT.

    Click image to download a PDF copy




    British Columbia's Notice of Constitutional Question

    This a court document used by ANY Canadians to challenge the constitutionality of a law and/or action or inaction of government. In the case of a law, when filed at a Superior Court, the request can have the law and/or section of law declared unconstitutional. As such, under s. 52 of the Constitution of Canada have the law or section declared of no force and/or effect.

    Return to Top of Page




    British Columbia's Notice of Motion

    This a Court document used to ask the court for something.
    This Motion will be to do the following:

    1. To appoint a lawyer to represent the palinitffs and the cost come otu of the injury fund.

    2. To Allow _______ to act as a spokesperosn for the Self-Represented Lead Plaintiffs, until such time as the Lead Plaintiffs can obtain and approve cousnel.

    3. To certify the Charter Claim as a Charter Class Claim.

    3. To allow service of the claim on Defendnats that reside outside of British Columbia.

    Return to Top of Page

    Alberta's National Charter Class Claim Documents

    Here are any court documents, relevant documents, correspondence, etc. will be placed here for British Columbia's National Charter Class Claim.
    Click the image of the document or the bluehyperlink to download a PDF version of the document. The docuemnt will then open in a new browser window.

    Return to Top of Page



    Alberta's Notice of National Charter Class Claim

    This is the intial document, which is used to commence the claim against the various WCBs and WCATs across Canada.
    I will be placing this court stamped document here, once it has been accepted by the court.
    Click image to download a PDF copy

    Return to Top of Page




    Alberta's WCB/WCAT's Notice of Defence

    This is where the Notices of Defence or response from the Defendants will be placed, once received.

    Return to Top of Page




    Alberta's Notice of Motion

    This a Court document used to ask the court for something.
    This Motion will be to do the following:

    1. To appoint a lawyer to represent the palinitffs and the cost come out of the injury fund.

    2. To Allow _______ to act as a spokesperosn for the Self-Represented Lead Plaintiffs, until such time as the Lead Plaintiffs can obtain and approve cousnel.

    3. To certify the Charter Claim as a Charter Class Claim.

    3. To allow service of the claim on Defendnats that reside outside of British Columbia.

    Return to Top of Page