National Charter Class Claim - Ontario
Things Happening by Injured Workers, to Help Injured Workers!
#JusticeForInjruedWorkers
National Charter Class Claim
Group Meetings Ontario's National
Charter Class Claim Alberta's National
Charter Class CLaim BC's National Charter
Class Claim
Group Meetings Ontario's National
Charter Class Claim Alberta's National
Charter Class CLaim BC's National Charter
Class Claim
Ontario's National Charter Class Claim Documents
This page contains all the documents related to the National Charter Class Claim that was filed in Ontario's Superior Court of Justice.If you wish to view the document, simply click the image of the document or the blue hyperlink, to download an Adobe PDF version of the document. The docuemnt will then open in a new browser window.
The following are sections below that contain the court filing documents.
Press Releases/Media Stories
Notice of National Charter Class Claim
FRESH as AMENDED Notice of National Charter Class Claim
WSIB's Notice of Intent to Defend
Correspondence
Notice of Constitutional Question
Notice of Motion for Representation
First Case Conference - August 25, 2022
Notice of First Case Conference
Plainitff'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
Second Case Conference -
Notice of Second Case Conference
His Honour Justice Broad's Endorsement for the second case conference
Third Case Conference - May 31 2023
Notice of Third Case Conference
Notice of change of case conference judge
His Honour Justice Valente's Endorsement for the third case conference
AGO's Motion to Quash Summons
Summons to Minister of Labour - Monte McNaughton
Summons to Director of OWA -
AGO's Letter to Court
AGO's Motion Record
AGO's Factum
His Honour Justice Valente Endorsement
This webpage is still be worked on!
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.
Return to Top of Page
Notice of National Charter Class Claim
The claim was filed in Hamilton’s Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The claim asserts on behalf of all workers injured and/or made ill while working in Canada that Canada’s workers compensation boards and tribunals/commissions knowingly and intentionally infringed the Charter Rights of all workers injured and/or made ill while working in Canada. The claim request a Charter remedy under section 24.1, of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the form of financial damages in the amount of $45 Billion.Canada’s workers compensation boards and tribunals/commissions implemented illegal covert policies and practices include, deeming, pre-existing conditions, not listen to our doctors, systemic delays, age, additional harm from the workers compensation system. In do so, Canada’s workers compensation boards and tribunals/commissions infringed the Charter Rights of all workers injured and/or made ill while working in Canada. The Charter Rights being section 2b - a right to belief; section 7 - a right to security of person and life, section 12 - right not to be treated in a cruel and unusual manner, section 14 right to a knowledge/language interpreter, and section 15 - right to equality.
Additionally, the claim alleges that when the Provincial governments created workers compensation, they did so outside their constitutional authority. While workers compensation maybe seen as property rights under the Constitutional authority of the Provinces, it is a Federal jurisdictional matter. This is because of the cross jurisdictional often experienced by federal workers and workers who leave their home province to work in another.
The docuemnt below is the intial document, which was used to commence the claim against the various WCBs and WCATs across Canada in Ontario's court.
Click the image to download a PDF copy
Return to Top of Page
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
WSIB's Notice of Intent to Defend
A notice of intent to defend 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, 2021This 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
First Case Conference
This section has been created to provide the documents from the result of the first case conference. The purpose of a case conference is for both sides, with the judge, to agree on how the matter, claim, trial, and/or motion will proceed. No eivdnece or arguements are made at this point.
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
Plaintiff’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 encouraged to submit something. This is why the sample below was created to help you.
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 section 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
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.
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”
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.
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
There is no clear section stating workers compensation shall be covered under section 91 of the Constitution.
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
Within the WSIB’s and WSIAT’s Case Conference Brief, the WSIB and WSIAT provided their Case Brief and two draft Notice of Motions.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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....
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