Ryan v. Workmen's Compensation Board (Ont.), PPG Industries Canada Inc. and Tyaack et al.; Ryan v. Workmen's Compensation Board (Ont.), Westinghouse Canada Inc., Madden and Whitfield, (1984) 6 O.A.C. 33 (DC)

Judge:Labrosse, Montgomery and O'Brien, JJ.
Court:Superior Court of Justice of Ontario
Case Date:October 12, 1984
Jurisdiction:Ontario
Citations:(1984), 6 O.A.C. 33 (DC)
 
FREE EXCERPT

Ryan v. WCB (1984), 6 O.A.C. 33 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Ryan and Ryan on behalf of all persons entitled under the Family Law Reform Act v. Workmen's Compensation Board, PPG Industries Canada Inc., Tyaack, Bryson, Smith, Harbell, Madden, Whitfield, Abel and Michaud

(No. 155/83)

Ryan and Ryan on behalf of all persons entitled under the Family Law Reform Act v. Workmen's Compensation Board, Westinghouse Canada Inc., Madden and Whitfield

(No. 154/83)

Indexed As: Ryan v. Workmen's Compensation Board (Ont.), PPG Industries Canada Inc. and Tyaack et al.; Ryan v. Workmen's Compensation Board (Ont.), Westinghouse Canada Inc., Madden and Whitfield

Ontario Divisional Court

Labrosse, Montgomery and O'Brien, JJ.

November 6, 1984.

Summary:

A worker was severely injured in an explosion of toluol at his employer's plant. The worker brought two civil actions. The first action was for damages for negligence and was brought against the manufacturer and distributor of toluol and several officers and employees of his employer. The second action was brought against his employer and two other employees for breach of the statutory duties in the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The Workmen's Compensation Board held that the right to bring both actions was taken away by Part I of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The worker applied for judicial review to quash the Board's decision.

The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the application.

Civil Rights - Topic 8344

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Principles of fundamental justice - An employee was injured in an industrial accident - The Workmen's Compensation Board held that he was precluded from bringing a negligence action against his Schedule I employer by the Workmen's Compensation Act - An employee of a Schedule II employer had an election to claim damages or statutory benefits - The Ontario Divisional Court held that even if this treatment contravened the right to life, liberty and security of the person in s. 7 of the Charter, the denial was in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice - See paragraphs 9 to 13.

Civil Rights - Topic 8546

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Life, liberty and security of the person - An employee was injured in an industrial accident - The Workmen's Compensation Board held that he was precluded from bringing a negligence action against his Schedule I employer by the Workmen's Compensation Act, s. 8(9) - However, an employee of a Schedule II employer had an election to claim damages or statutory benefits - The Ontario Divisional Court held that this treatment did not contravene the right to life, liberty and security of the person in s. 7 of the Charter, but even if so, the denial was in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice - See paragraphs 9 to 13.

Torts - Topic 275

Negligence - Breach of statute - General principles - An injured worker attempted to bring an action against his employer for a breach of the Occupational Health and Safety Act - The Ontario Divisional Court held that breach of the statute did not give rise to a nominate tort, but was properly and exclusively subject to the remedial provisions of that Act - See paragraphs 36 to 41.

Workers' Compensation - Topic 1069

Boards - Jurisdiction - To reconsider, vary, amend or revoke decisions - The Workmen's Compensation Board applied an alternative interpretation to s. 8(9) of the Workmen's Compensation Act to one previously made by the Board - The Ontario Divisional Court held that the Board had authority under s. 76 of the Act to change its position and that the new interpretation was reasonable and consistent with the scheme and purpose of the Act - See paragraphs 31 to 33.

Workers' Compensation - Topic 7126

Practice - Judicial review - Certiorari - Bars - The Ontario Divisional Court held that it had no jurisdiction to review and overturn decisions of the Workmen's Compensation Board made within its jurisdiction - Thus the Board's determination of who was an employer and a worker was not subject to review, because such decision was within the Board's jurisdiction - See paragraphs 14 to 30.

Cases Noticed:

Re Terzian et al. and Workmen's Compensation Board et al., 42 O.R.(2d) 144, folld. [para. 11].

Jarvis v. Associated Medical Services Incorporated, [1964] S.C.R. 497, refd to. [para. 15].

Berger v. Willowdale A.M.C. et al., 41 O.R.(2d) 89, refd to. [para. 16].

Farrell v. Workmen's Compensation Board (1961), 31 D.L.R.(2d) 177, (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 27].

Re Mac's Milk Ltd. and Workmen's Compensation Board (1977), 15 O.R.(2d) 508, consd. [para. 28].

Mack Trucks Manufacturing Co. v. Forget et al. (1973), 41 D.L.R.(3d) 421, refd to. [para. 34].

Saskatchewan Wheat Pool v. Government of Canada (1983), 45 N.R. 425; 143 D.L.R.(3d) 9 (S.C.C.), appld. [para. 37].

Bhadauria v. Seneca College, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 181; 37 N.R. 455 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 39].

DiCarlo v. DeSimone et al. (1983), 39 O.R.(2d) 445, refd to. [para. 40].

Statutes Noticed:

Workmen's Compensation Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 539, sect. 1(1)(2) [para. 14]; sect. 1(1)(k) [para. 24]; sect. 8(9) [paras. 11, 31, 33]; sect. 8(11) [para. 11]; sect. 15 [paras. 6, 11, 34]; sect. 75(1) [para. 34]; sect. 76 [para. 32].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7 [paras. 10-11]; sect. 26 [paras. 10, 12].

Counsel:

R.J. Sommers, Q.C., and R. Roth, for the applicants;

D.J.M. Brown, Q.C., and G.D. Graham, for Madden et al.;

A.M. Austin, J.L. Lax and J.G. Richards, for W.C.B.;

W.L.N. Somerville, Q.C., D.L. MacDonald, Q.C. and C.B. Bredt, for Tyaack et al.;

P.G. Jarvis, Q.C., for P.P.G. Industries.

This application was heard before Labrosse, Montgomery and O'Brien, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court on October 12, 1984. The decision of the Divisional Court was delivered orally by Labrosse, J., and released on November 6, 1984.

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP