Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal of Ontario

Latest documents

Decision Nº 1210/25 from Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal of Ontario, 13-01-2026
Decision No. 1210/25 13-Jan-2026 K.Seyler - N.Iyer - I.Thompson Delay (reporting injury) Disablement (increased workload) Strains and sprains (shoulder) The worker, employed as a Station Attendant since 2022, reported feeling a pop in his left shoulder on September 14, 2023, while pulling a heavy bag, but continued working until seeking medical care in January 2024. The employer described the injury similarly, noting delayed symptom onset and reporting. The WSIB denied the claim citing lack of proof of accident and delay in medical attention, leading to the current appeal before the Tribunal. The Panel allowed the appeal. The worker described physically demanding, repetitive duties involving lifting luggage, including heavy items above shoulder height, with increasing workload leading to worsening shoulder pain from September to December 2023, and seeking medical help in January 2024. He reported the injury date as September 14, 2023, based on when he first felt the pop. The Panel confirmed it had jurisdiction over the date of accident and injuring process. It found a personal work-related injury and proof of accident established, accepting the worker's explanation for delayed reporting and medical attention consistent with a disablement injury developing over time. Medical reports diagnosed a left shoulder sprain/strain and mild selective tendinopathy linked to repetitive use and workplace duties. The Panel found compatibility between diagnosis and disablement history, supported by job demands analysis and medical literature on shoulder injuries from repetitive strain. The Panel allowed the appeal, granting initial entitlement for the left shoulder injury, and returned the case to WSIB for further adjudication on the date of accident and benefits, subject to usual rights of appeal. 15 Pages References: Act Citation WSIA Other Case Reference [w0826s] MEDICAL DISCUSSION PAPERS CONSIDERED: Shoulder Injury and Disability TRIBUNAL DECISIONS CONSIDERED: Decision No. 1624/04R, 2005 ONWSIAT 2763 refd to; Decision No. 1033/18R, 2018 ONWSIAT 2687 refd to; Decision No. 1891/18IR, 2020 ONWSIAT 1093 refd to; Decision No. 2029/18R, 2019 ONWSIAT 2008 refd to; Decision No. 2126/19I, 2020 ONWSIAT 851 refd to; Decision No. 1767/22I, 2023 ONWSIAT 120 refd to; Decision No. 289/12, 2015 ONWSIAT 2868 refd to; Decision No. 284/21, 2022 ONWSIAT 1049 refd to; Decision No. 275/23, 2023 ONWSIAT 719 refd to; Decision No. 472/24, 2024 ONWSIAT 698 distd; Decision No. 1855/21, 2021 ONWSIAT 2003 distd Style of Cause: Neutral Citation: 2026 ONWSIAT 36
Decision Nº 3/26 from Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal of Ontario, 13-01-2026
Decision No. 3/26 13-Jan-2026 A.Baker Loss of earnings {LOE} (level of benefits) (hours of work) Procedure (alternative dispute resolution) (early intervention) No Summary Available 8 Pages References: Act Citation WSIA Other Case Reference [w0826n] Style of Cause: Neutral Citation: 2026 ONWSIAT 32
Decision Nº 936/25 from Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal of Ontario, 13-01-2026
Decision No. 936/25 13-Jan-2026 K.Jacques - G.Burkett - J.Provato Myofascial pain syndrome Permanent impairment {NEL} Permanent impairment {NEL} (degree of impairment) (psychotraumatic disability) Health care Permanent impairment {NEL} (degree of impairment) (head) Concussion Jurisdiction, Tribunal (sequential issue) This decision concerned a worker's appeal on multiple issues following a workplace assault injury. It addressed entitlement to ongoing benefits, permanent impairment entitlement, and coverage for medical treatments and health care devices. The Panel allowed the appeal. The worker was entitled to benefits beyond January 8, 2019, for a head injury/concussion that evolved into persistent post-concussive symptoms, including headaches and cognitive difficulties. Maximum medical recovery for the head injury was reached by November 20, 2019, with continuing permanent impairment from post-concussive symptoms. The Panel considered the NEL rating as a sequential issue. The worker qualified for a 40% NEL award for the head injury based on moderate interference from constant debilitating headaches. The worker had ongoing entitlement beyond January 8, 2019, for soft tissue injuries that evolved into cervicothoracic and lumbosacral myofascial pain syndrome with generalized body pain. The soft tissue injuries were permanent with ongoing pain and treatment needs; the WSIB will determine the date of maximum recovery and NEL assessment. The worker was entitled to an elbow splint, knee brace, and back support prescribed for compensable injuries as necessary health care. The worker was entitled to further physiotherapy and massage therapy as maintenance treatment for myofascial pain syndrome, with treatment specifics to be determined by the WSIB. The worker was entitled to reimbursement for ibuprofen, Tylenol, and zolpidem costs, and the psychotraumatic disability NEL award was increased from 33% to 40%, combining with the head injury award to total 64%. 15 Pages References: Act Citation WSIA Other Case Reference [w0826s] BOARD DIRECTIVES AND GUIDELINES: Operational Policy Manual, Document No. 17-01-02 TRIBUNAL DECISIONS CONSIDERED: Decision No. 1998/19R, 2020 ONWSIAT 2071 refd to; Decision No. 1692/01, 2001 ONWSIAT 2013 refd to; Decision No. 57/22, 2022 ONWSIAT 840 refd to; Decision No. 424/21, 2021 ONWSIAT 603 refd to Style of Cause: Neutral Citation: 2026 ONWSIAT 33
Decision Nº 1166/25 from Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal of Ontario, 13-01-2026
Decision No. 1166/25I 13-Jan-2026 B.Pollock Access to worker file, P. D. (issue in dispute) (relevance) No Summary Available 8 Pages References: Act Citation WSIA Other Case Reference [w0826n] Style of Cause: Neutral Citation: 2026 ONWSIAT 35
Decision Nº 1300/25 from Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal of Ontario, 12-01-2026
Decision No. 1300/25 12-Jan-2026 V.Patel Suitable employment (suitable for worker's capabilities) Loss of earnings {LOE} (employability) Permanent impairment {NEL} (degree of impairment) (disfigurement) The worker, employed since 2015, suffered 14% total body surface area burns on March 22, 2016, including bilateral upper arms and chest. Medical reports showed no need for grafting, but the worker experienced emotional distress and scarring. Psychological assessments initially found no diagnosis but recommended monitoring during return to work. The worker returned to modified duties in August 2016 but stopped working in October 2016, citing unsuitable work and retraumatization. WSIB ceased LOE benefits from that date, which the worker contested. NEL benefits were initially set at 10% for disfigurement, later combined with a 10% PTSD award, totaling 20%. The worker argued that hypersensitivity and dysesthesia were not included in the NEL rating. The Vice-Chair allowed the appeal, in part. Specialist reports diagnosed persistent hypersensitivity and dysesthesia related to the burns, with symptoms triggered by heat and causing discomfort and functional limitations. The Vice-Chair found these conditions should have been included in the NEL rating per AMA Guides, and referred the issue back to WSIB for reassessment. The Vice-Chair determined the modified work provided was not suitable or safe, as the worker was required to exceed restrictions, causing pain and psychological trauma consistent with the PTSD diagnosis. The worker's quitting was found justified, and full LOE benefits were awarded from October 20, 2016 until return to work in November 2016, with further adjudication on benefits after that date. 25 Pages References: Act Citation WSIA Other Case Reference [w0826s] Style of Cause: Neutral Citation: 2026 ONWSIAT 31
Decision Nº 1559/13 from Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal of Ontario, 12-01-2026
Decision No. 1559/13R 12-Jan-2026 J.Smith - C.Sacco - M.Tzaferis Reconsideration (error of law) Reconsideration (new evidence) The worker injured his low back in 2006 while working in Canada under SAWP, was granted benefits, but was repatriated to Jamaica due to inability to work. Previous decisions granted some benefits but denied ongoing LOE benefits from February 2007, leading to the current reconsideration request. The Panel granted the reconsideration request, finding the threshold met due to significant new evidence and legal errors, and ordered a new oral hearing on the merits of the worker's LOE benefits entitlement issue. The worker submitted substantial new expert evidence post-2013 about SAWP terms and conditions, demonstrating that the worker's LOE loss was due to the injury preventing work under SAWP rules, and that relevant Jamaican labor market data was available, challenging prior assumptions. This evidence likely would have changed the original decision as it shows SAWP workers must return home if unable to perform agricultural work, making Ontario wage comparisons inappropriate for LOE entitlement. The Panel recognized this as substantial new evidence justifying reconsideration. The original decision failed to apply relevant WSIB policies that require suitable employment to be available and reasonably attainable by the worker, and did not properly interpret section 43 of the WSIA in relation to LOE benefits. The original decision lacked adequate reasoning, particularly in considering the WSIA's remedial purposes and applicable policies, and improperly dismissed the applicability of policies impacting LOE benefits. 16 Pages References: Act Citation WSIA Other Case Reference [w0826s] CROSS-REFERENCE: Decision No. 1559/13, 2013 ONWSIAT 2408 TRIBUNAL DECISIONS CONSIDERED: Decision No. 1169/20, 2023 ONWSIAT 1423 apld; Decision No. 1171/20, 2023 ONWSIAT 1421 apld; Decision No. 1172/20, 2023 ONWSIAT 1420 apld; Decision No. 1736/21, 2023 ONWSIAT 1422 apld; Decision No. 334/03, 2003 ONWSIAT 2383 refd to; Decision No. 762/91R3, 1996 CanLII 9557 (ON WSIAT) refd to; Decision No. 961/15R, 2022 ONWSIAT 1271 refd to; Decision No. 762/91R3, 1996 CanLII 9557 (ON WSIAT) refd to Style of Cause: Neutral Citation: 2026 ONWSIAT 30
Decision Nº 1018/24 from Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal of Ontario, 12-01-2026
Decision No. 1018/24 12-Jan-2026 L.Petrykowski Loss of earnings {LOE} (cooperation) Psychotraumatic disability Benefits (reduction or suspension) (cooperation) Loss of earnings {LOE} (eligibility) (impairment) The worker, a public transit vehicle operator, witnessed a violent assault on June 30, 2020, resulting in psychological trauma accepted under the WSIB's Traumatic Mental Stress policy. The worker was granted full LOE benefits starting July 1, 2020. Issues arose about his cooperation with the WSIB and entitlement to benefits from June 2021 onwards. The Vice-Chair allowed the appeal, in part. The WSIB suspended the worker's LOE benefits from June 16, 2021, due to non-cooperation, including failure to respond to communications and attend treatment. The Vice-Chair upheld the reduction and suspension of benefits between June 4 and June 28, 2021, finding the worker was non-cooperative and that proper procedures were followed. The worker was not entitled to LOE benefits from June 28, 2021, due to ongoing non-cooperation. However, the Vice-Chair found that the worker resumed cooperation by July 14, 2021, supported by union correspondence, warranting reinstatement of full LOE benefits from that date through December 12, 2022. The worker's claim for psychotraumatic disability benefits was denied. The Vice-Chair concluded that the worker's psychological condition was already recognized under the TMS policy and did not meet the criteria for additional psychotraumatic disability benefits. Medical reports confirmed the worker suffered from PTSD and related conditions stemming from the June 30, 2020 incident, with symptoms persisting through 2022. The worker was unable to return to work due to this compensable psychological impairment. While the worker experienced financial stress and concerns related to the COVID-19 pandemic, these did not overshadow the significant contribution of the workplace accident to his ongoing impairment and inability to work. 33 Pages References: Act Citation WSIA Other Case Reference [w0826s] CROSS-REFERENCE: Decision No. 1018/24I, 2024 ONWSIAT 1194 Style of Cause: Neutral Citation: 2026 ONWSIAT 29
Decision Nº 1217/25 from Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal of Ontario, 09-01-2026
Decision No. 1217/25 09-Jan-2026 C.Ramsay Time limits (appeal) (prejudice) The worker injured his back in 2017 and the WSIB accepted the claim for a low back strain, limiting physiotherapy benefits until July 27, 2018, with a deadline to object by January 18, 2019. The worker submitted an intent to object in August 2021, well beyond the statutory time-limit. The WSIB initially rejected the late objection in February 2022 but later excused the lateness due to lack of verbal notification and non-receipt of the decision letter. However, after employer input, the WSIB reversed this in April 2024. The Appeals Registrar upheld this denial in August 2024. The issue under appeal was whether the worker should be granted an extension to file the objection beyond the statutory six-month period. The Vice-Chair denied the appeal. The worker argued non-receipt of the July 2018 decision letter and lack of verbal notification, continued physiotherapy paid out-of-pocket, health problems including kidney disease impairing comprehension, and minimal prejudice to the employer. The Vice-Chair found the worker likely received the decision letter at the unchanged address, had prior communication about physiotherapy limits, and was verbally informed of the decision in March 2019. The worker's health issues arose after the statutory period and did not preclude understanding or timely objection. The delay of over two years lacked reasonable explanation and caused prejudice by impairing fair adjudication due to faded memories and potential unavailability of witnesses. While the worker claimed ongoing symptoms and some merit in the appeal, the Vice-Chair emphasized that merit alone does not outweigh the lack of timely objection, significant delay, and resulting prejudice to the employer's ability to respond. The Vice-Chair denied the worker's request for an extension to file the objection, confirming the Appeals Registrar's decision that the objection to the July 18, 2018 WSIB decision cannot proceed due to expiry of the statutory time-limit. 12 Pages References: Act Citation WSIA Other Case Reference [w0826s] Style of Cause: Neutral Citation: 2026 ONWSIAT 26
Decision Nº 1261/25 from Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal of Ontario, 09-01-2026
Decision No. 1261/25 09-Jan-2026 R.Nairn - G.Burkett - Z.Agnidis Post-traumatic stress disorder Police Presumptions (first responder) The worker, a police officer employed since 2000, claimed PTSD due to workplace conflicts and stress related to coaching duties and management disputes, and filed for benefits in 2021. The initial WSIB decision denied entitlement for PTSD, which was upheld by an ARO in 2023. The worker then appealed to the Tribunal. The Panel clarified it lacked jurisdiction over Traumatic Mental Stress claims as the ARO only considered PTSD entitlement under the First Responders policy. The Panel denied the appeal. The First Responders policy requires that a first responder must have been employed after April 6, 2014, diagnosed with PTSD by a psychologist or psychiatrist on or after that date, and meet specific diagnostic criteria according to DSM-5. The policy presumes work-relatedness unless rebutted by evidence showing employer actions were part of employment functions, like transfers or discipline. The worker described workplace harassment, reassignment issues, and conflicts with management and the Police Association. He sought treatment from a general practitioner, social worker, and psychologists but was not formally diagnosed with PTSD; rather, diagnoses included Major Depressive Disorder with Anxious Distress. Symptoms improved after leaving police work. The Panel found the worker was not diagnosed with PTSD by a psychologist or psychiatrist as required by policy. The presence of possible PTSD symptoms was insufficient to grant entitlement. Even if diagnosed with PTSD, the presumption of work-relatedness was rebutted because the worker's symptoms were mainly linked to employer decisions and actions considered part of employment functions, such as transfers, discipline, and pay disputes, rather than egregious or abusive conduct. 21 Pages References: Act Citation WSIA Other Case Reference [w0826s] BOARD DIRECTIVES AND GUIDELINES: Operational Policy Manual, Document No. 15-03-13 Style of Cause: Neutral Citation: 2026 ONWSIAT 28
Decision Nº 1293/25 from Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal of Ontario, 09-01-2026
Decision No. 1293/25 09-Jan-2026 R.Nairn - K.Soden - S.Roth Alzheimer's disease Dementia (frontotemporal) Dementia (lewy body) The worker's estate appealed an ARO decision denying entitlement for Parkinson's disease and related neurological conditions linked to workplace exposure. The worker died in 1989 after exhibiting symptoms starting in the mid-1980s. Neurological experts concluded the worker's condition was more consistent with Lewy Body Disease, Frontotemporal dementia, or Alzheimer's disease with Parkinsonian features, rather than idiopathic Parkinson's disease. The Panel allowed the appeal. The worker was exposed to carbon monoxide (CO) in mining environments, with estimated daily exposures of 50-150 ppm for 30-60 minutes over 8-10 years, exceeding current exposure limits. Other potential chemical exposures were ruled unlikely. An Occupational Medicine Specialist and Occupational Hygienist agreed that CO exposure likely contributed significantly to the development of the worker's neurological condition. The Panel accepted the diagnosis of Lewy Body Disease, Frontotemporal dementia, or Alzheimer's disease with Parkinsonian features as the most accurate representation of the worker's condition, consistent with expert opinions and death records. The Panel found that the worker's occupational CO exposure was a significant contributing factor to the neurological condition. The Panel highlighted the evidence from the Occupational Hygienist documenting substantial CO exposure during mining activities and the medical opinion of Dr. Razavi supporting causation. The Panel also noted relevant scientific literature indicating an association between CO exposure and increased dementia risk. An additional expert medical opinion supported a link between exposure to metals and neurodegenerative diseases, reinforcing the causal connection. The Panel emphasized that a precise diagnosis is not necessary for entitlement and that the evidence sufficiently established initial entitlement to benefits for the neurological conditions claimed. The issue of ongoing benefits and dependency claims remain to be adjudicated by the WSIB. 14 Pages References: Act Citation WCA Other Case Reference [w0826s] TRIBUNAL DECISONS CONSIDERED: Decision No. 1386/03, 2004 ONWSIAT 2516 refd to; Decision No. 497/19, 2019 ONWSIAT 975 refd to; Decision No. 1072/25, 2025 ONWSIAT 1369 refd to; Decision No. 2443/09, 2010 ONWSIAT 1181 refd to; Decision No. 387/21, 2021 ONWSIAT 957 refd to; Decision No. 1402/04, 2004 ONWSIAT 1993 refd to Style of Cause: Neutral Citation: 2026 ONWSIAT 25