Freedom of Information Requests
There are many laws across Canada that provide an individual the right to access information. There are certain restrictions, such as:
That said, often times freedom of information requests are meant with major roadblocks in a hope that the requestor will just give up. This is why one must learn the appeal process and fight through to obtain the information.
Index of Freedom of Information Requests
FOI to Ontario's WSIB's Description of Term Functional OverlayFOI to Ontario's WSIB Requesting Number of Injured Workers Re-injured in RTW
FOI to Ontario's WSIB Requesting Cost to Advertise $1.5B Rebate
FOI to Ontario's Minister of Labour Communication regarding $1.5B rebate directive to advertise
FOI to Ontario's WSIB's Request for Computer Audit of Changes made to My Claim File
FOI to Ontario's WSIB's Request for Information on Concerning Statements in Doctor's Progress Report
FOI to Ontario's WSIB's Request for Number of Workers Declared Unemployable From 1990
FOI to Ontario's WSIB's Description of Term Functional Overlay
As part of the doctor’s reporting he completed a WSIB form and provided a WSIB medical diagnostic code to this term Functional Overlay. From this I wanted to know what this term meant to the WSIB. I sent a freedom of information request to the WSIB I wanted to know their meaning of this term.
I will be adding the documents shortly.
FOI to Ontario's WSIB Requesting Number of Injured Workers Re-injured in RTW
- suffered new injuries as a direct result of being forced back to work,
- suffered an aggravation or worsening of their injuries,
- whether they had died as a result, and/or
- caused injury to another as a result of being forced back to work.
As you will see in the decision letter the WSIB did NOT answer my question. I asked for
"the number of injured workers who suffer a re-injury, new injury, or have died as a result of the return to work program from 2010 to present?"
I never used the word training. The WSIB added this word. I wanted to know how many workers injured, who returned to work with their employer and had suffered a new injury or aggravation of the existing work injury. It is obvious the WSIB added the word ‘Training” as they knew the number of re-injuries was low, but in the case of re-injuries for return to work was high and this was the best way they could the high numbers. Thus making it harder to prove that the WSIB's FORCED return to work program is a dismal failure!
In my own case, I suffered 3 documented aggravations/new injuries as a direct result of the WSIB’s FORCED return to work program.
WSIB's Decision Letter
Click image to download
PDF copy of letter
WSIB's Data for Injuries while in RTW
Click image to download
PDF copy of of information
FOI to Ontario's WSIB Requesting Cost to Advertise $1.5B Rebate
In 2018 shortly after taking power, the Ford Conservative Government announced it would order the Ministry of Labour not to enforce the Occupational Health and Safety Act. At the time many did not really understand what the Ford government was up to.
However, this was revealed when in the beginning of 2022, the Ford Conservative Government announced it would be ordering the WSIB to return all surplus monies back to employers. This amounted to $1.5 Billion. That the only conditions were that:
This was the realization that Ford was setting up all large corporations who have extremely dangerous workplaces to get a huge payback on the backs of injured workers.
What was shocking to all injured workers was that the WSIB then proceeded to advertise this $1.5 Billion rebate on all major media outlets. They advertised on all radio stations, all television stations, in news papers, and of course in all case also advertised online, as well as offline. Furthermore, the WSIB did this just before Ontario’s provincial election.
The only significant question comes to mind with WSIB’s decision to advertise this rebate:
Why would the WSIB advertise the rebate, when they have the contact information of all businesses?
Clearly the WSIB was fiscally irresponsible in its decision to do this and is in contravention of section 1 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act. being fiscally responsible.
Moreover, was the WSIB attempting to influence the Provincial election? Also, did the WSIB make the decision to advertise the $1.5B rebate on their own, or were they ordered by the Premiere Doug Ford and/or the Minister of Labour Monte McNaughty?
To investigate the truth of these claims a freedom of information request was sent to the WSIB. This simply asked:
How much money did the WSIB spend on the $1.5B rebate advertising campaign?
The WSIB’s response was shockingly disturbing for a country that pride’s itself on anti-corruption. The WSIB provided some 12 invoices which listed the name of the advertisers and other information. However the WSIB redacted the amounts spent! They WSIB claimed it was to protect the privacy of the advertisers.
Clearly the WSIB was irresponsible with its decision to redact this informaiotn and is in contravention of section 1 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act. being lacking in accountability.
Needless to say I did file an appeal with he Privacy Commissioner.
What I received back from the WSIB’s FOI department was simply that the WSIB does not use that term anymore.
Say what???
The WSIB staff member did send me a second e-mail saying she would provide what I actually asked for. I said yes that woudl be fine. Howver, no response!
Copy of WSIB FOI Response
Click image to download a
pdf copy of WSIB's Response
>
Copy of WSIB E-mail FOI Response
Click image to download a
pdf copy of WSIB's E-mail Response
Needless to say, I filed an appeal with the Privacy Commissioner. There is no reason for the WSIB not to provide it to me.
Copy of Appeal
Click image to download a
pdf copy of Appeal
This made me realize to move on to the next Freedom of Information Request, which was to Premiere Doug Ford’s office….
FOI to Ontario's Minister of Labour, regarding communication about the regarding $1.5B rebate directive to advertise
I received a call from a very kind person at Premiere Doug Ford’s office. She explained to me I do not want to file the request with hat office. This is because my best place to do it would be the Minister of Labour’s office. This is because the Premiere can not communicate directly with the WSIB. All communication must go through the Minister of Labour’s office. She agreed to forward my request to the Minister of Labour’s office, which was that I was request all information regarding the $1,5 B rebate and the decision to advertise it to and from Premiere Doug Ford’s office and to and from the WSIB.
I received a response from the Minister of Labour’s Office It was a letter explaining that when there is a cost associated with the request, they can require half of the invoice up front. They are requiring $180 up front and provided an estimated cost of $360.
many would argue the cost is ridiculous and I would agree. However, I think it is worth $360 even if I can’t really afford it to get to the truth!
Afterall, Truth and Justice MUST Prevail!
Copy of Request to Ford's Office Re: FOI Resquest
Click image to download a
pdf copy of the Request
Copy of E-mail from Ford's Office Re: FOI Resquest
Click image to download a
pdf copy of the E-mail
Copy of Response with Fee Estimate from Minsitry of Labour
Click image to download a
pdf copy of the Fee Estimate
I will provide an update here once I have obtained the information from the Minister of Labour's Office
FOI to Ontario's WSIB's Request for Computer Audit of Changes made to My Claim File
- What was changed in my claim file,
- who made the changes in my claim file, and
- when did they make the changes in my claim file.
For some time, I have been fighting with the WSIB, in my own claim, that the WSIB had initially accepted my area injury being to my
low-back, mid-back, upper-back, neck, and back of head.
That the WSIB then just changed what they accepted as the initial area of injury being just my low-back and mid-back.
For more than two decades the WSIB has firmly asserted they never changed what they accepted as my initial area of injury that they always only ever accepted that I injured my low back and my mid back. However, in reviewing my claim file, the WSIB changed the area of injury in their forms.
I then recently realized that the WSIB, like any other big corporation, maintains very detailed computer audit reports. This is where their computer system will document all changes to a computer file. The computer audit report will document, at the very least, when a change is made, who made the change and what they changed. The reason for companies to have such detailed audit reports is to protect against computer fraud from occurring. If an unauthorized change occurs, a company can see who made the change, what they changed, and when they changed it.
For this reason I sent the following freedom of information request to the WSIB’s FOI Office and of course paid my $5 fee.
To whom it may concern,
I know that the WSIB has very detailed and high level of security within heir computer systems. I also know that the WSIB, like any major corporation, has what is commonly known as a computer audit system. This is where the WSIB computer system documents every change made to a file, and documents the user, date, time, and what was changed.
I would like a copy of all WSIB computer audit reports for my claim file 20518799 from February 6, 1997 to present. Specifically, I am looking for the following information:
- On or shortly after the February 6, 1997 work accident, what was the accepted area of injury documented within the WSIB computer system?
- What was the date of the very first accepted area of injury documented within the WSIB computer system?
- There is no question the accepted area of injury was changed by the WSIB within their computer system. As such, what was the date of the first change to the accepted area of injury, what was the accepted area of injury changed to, and who changed the accepted area of injury?
- What was the date of any other changes made to the accepted area of injury, what was the accepted area of injury changed to, and who changed the accepted area of injury?
- When was the letter from Dr. Sauls, dated July 13, 1998, added to the claim file, and who added this letter to the claim file?
- Numerous medical documents were previously located in the correspondence section of the claim file are now located in the medical section. Who made the change and when did they make the change?
The reason for my request is that I have observed numerous inconsistencies with documents contained within my WSIB file. With this request, I am trying to better understand why these inconsistencies occurred and how they may have impacted WSIB and WSIAT decisions.
I have noticed the WSIB changed the area of my injury within my claim, without cause or reason. I also have observed that several medical documents have been added or moved the medical section, that were not previously contained within either the medical section or within the entire the claim file but were in existence prior to WSIB and WSIAT decisions were made.
The WSIB had initially accepted an initial injury occurred to my entire back (low-back, mid-back, upper-back), neck, and head. However, in a letter dated November 30, 2000, the WSIB stated that the WSIB had only ever accepted an initial injury to my low-back and mid-back.
Yet, according to the employer’s report of injury form, on February 10, 1997, my employer reported that I had suffered an injury to my low, mid, and upper back, neck, and the back of my head. This my employer reported was the result of a work accident, which occurred on February 6, 1997, where a load of boxes fell hitting my entire back, neck, and head.
Then on or about February 16, 1997, I had contacted the WSIB and spoke with my adjudicator, Mr. Baird. I had explained that I received a worker’s progress report, when I should have received a worker’s report of injury form. I also raised concern with Mr. Baird that the injury stated in the injury box of the worker’s progress report only stated my injury as neck and back of head. Mr. Baird confirmed with me that the WSIB had accepted my full injury as low-back, mid-back, upper-back, neck, and back of head. Mr. Baird explained to me that while the form only shows my injury as neck and back of head, that in the WSIB computer system it shows my accepted injury as low-back, mid-back, upper-back, neck, and back of head. I wrote in the work back and did not think anymore of it.
However, it was not until the letter of November 30, 2000, that the WSIB would advise me my accepted injury was only my low back and mid back. I then went through the entire claim file and reviewed every form showing what the WSIB had accepted as the area of injury. In reviewing the forms that were available it confirms an accepted change of injury, but there is no reason or explanation for this change.
| Date | WSIB Form | Area of Injury |
|---|---|---|
| Feb. 16/97 | Worker's Progress Report | Neck Back of Head |
| Mar. 3/97 | Worker's Progress Report | Neck Back of Head |
| Apr. 2/97 | Worker's Progress Report | Neck Back of Head |
| Aug. 29/97 | Worker's Progress Report | Neck Back of Head |
| Sep. 15/97 | Worker's Continuity Report | Neck Back of Head |
| Sep. 16/97 | Employer's Continuity Report | Neck Back of Head |
| Oct. 10/97 | Physician's Report Re-Opened Claim | Neck Back of Head |
| Oct. 20/98 | Worker's Progress Report | Upepr Back Back |
Also, in a recent claim file access dated April 19, 2022, I found the following concerns:
- A letter from Dr. Sauls dated July 13, 1998, was not in any previous claim file request disclosures I have made, nor was this letter in the claim file that was sent to the WSIAT. However, this letter has now been found in the medical section of the claim file.
- A letter from Dr. Silva dated June 9, 2001 was in the medical section but was previously found in the correspondence section.
I will provide an update here, once I have obtained the information from the WSIB
FOI to Ontario's WSIB's Request for Information on Concerning Statements in Doctor's Progress Report
I recently noticed that on the WSIB’s doctor’s progress form the WSIB provides to doctors, for them to provide updated medical information to the WSIB, on injured workers, that the WSIB substantially changed the form from years ago. However, what concerned me was how the WSIB is telling doctors that:
I am very concerned with these statements as they are clearly manipulating doctors to force injured workers back to work. Often times causing the injuries to get worse and/or causing the injured worker to suffer new injuries or worst yet be killed!
The WSIB makes these statements without reference to ANY scientific research. Thus, implying that the statements are based on scientific research. It is my belief the forms should only ask for information and NOT make bold unproven statements, especially was paid for by the WSIB!
current Form 26 |
old Form 26 which I took from my claim file in 1998 |
 |
 |
|
to download a PDF copy. |
to download a PDF copy. |
If you believe that pain is not a disability or should not be recognized as a disability, or if you are one suffering with pain and you arebeing told pain is not a reason not to work or be accommodated, then you need to read the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision of:
Within their decision, the Supreme Court of Canada made very clear that people suffering from pain is a recognized disability and to discriminate against such individuals is a blatant violation of section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I would add that if you feel you have been discriminated in this way by the WSIB/WCB, your employer and/or a health care professional that in addition to any appeal within he workers compensation system, you consider bringing a Human Rights complaint against them.
The Following is my original Freedom of Information Request sent to the WSIB on October 2, 2022.
The WSIB’s Health Professional’s Progress Report (Form 26) compared to previous versions of the form has added three statements of concern:
- When work injury/illness occurs, focus on return to usual activity including return to safe and appropriate work is best practice.
- Most workers who experience soft tissue injury are able to remain at work.
- Pain should not be the only medical restriction.
I would like to know who made the changes to the form, by adding these statements?
What legal authority allowed them to make these changes to the form?
In making such statements of medical fact, I would like to know the source they are referencing this information from.
Was this information the opinion of one or two paid doctors, or was it based on peer reviewed scientific research study?
In forcing a medical professional to state that an individual cannot be removed from work solely based on pain, is it the WSIB’s Board of Directors position that pain is not a disability?
Was this form approved by the WSIB’s Board of Directors and if so, are their minutes of the meeting confirming the approval of this form?
I received an e-mail from the WSIB’s FOI officer. Within their e-mail they are requesting clarity as to my request. I provided them with updated information. You can see the e-mail exchange in the PDF document below. Also, within the e-mail provides my specific first request.
Click the Image
to download a PDF copy.
FOI to Ontario's WSIB's Request for Number of Workers Declared Unemployable From 1990
Over the past decade or so I had observed, as an injured worker and representative of injured workers, that Ontario’s workers compensation board, the WSIB was refusing to declare any workers employable.
My fears were confirmed this was when I read the following in a legal reference book on Ontario’s workers compensation system, entitled textbook “Butterworths Workers’ Compensation in Ontario Service”,
Since 2010, the Board has become increasingly reluctant to make a finding that a worker is unemployable. Board decision-makers frequently ignore the evidence on file in reaching this conclusion. A review of this evidence will often lead Tribunal decision-makers to conclude that the worker is unemployable.
[Para 16A.2.1 Butterworths Chapter 16A]
In fact, in 2011, the Board began reversing its own determinations of unemployability even in cases where prior to a final review decision it had confirmed in writing that full LOE benefits would be paid to a worker until age 65. These unilateral changes in approach by the Board based on its then new internal service delivery model have been successfully appealed to the Tribunal. Indeed, there is a “consensus of case law on the matter” that where there is no evidence of the worker’s condition having improved since the original Board determination, the original Board decision will be maintained. However, this argument must be made at the original Tribunal hearing, and not in a reconsideration request.”
[Para 16A.2.2 Butterworths Chapter 16A]
This caused me to further investigate my concerns. I recently sent a freedom of information request to the WSIB asking just exactly how many injured workers have been declared unemployable since 1990. This was when Ontario’s legislation stopped recognizing Meredith’s Principles and developed a dual benefits system of benefit for injury and benefit for loss of earnings.
Interim Decision
This is a PDF copy of the WSIB's
Data on workers declared unemployable by the WSIB
A worker declared unempliyable by the WSIB indicates they are unable to work from their pressent age until age 65.
It is Important to note that it is impossible in a province as big as Ontario, being the economic engine of Canada, to have so few workers not injured to the point they can no longer work ever again!
It leads any reasonable person to conclude that Ontario’s WSIB is FORCING the injured workers back, to work, which the WSIB knows or ought to know is neither safe nor suitable for the injured worker!