This message is displayed because client-side scripting is turned off or not supported in the browser you are currently using.
Please turn on client-side scripting or install a browser that supports client-side scripting.

Ontario Government | Ministry of Labour | Site Map | Accessibility | text resize: A A A

Home | About Us | OWT Library | Forms | Practice Directions | Decision Search | Contact Us | Fran├žais

Established in 1985, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) is the final level of appeal to which workers and employers may bring disputes concerning workplace safety and insurance matters in Ontario. WSIAT has always been separate from and independent of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board.



Appeal Process

For Representatives

Finding a Representative

Documents & Publications

Legal/Medical Resources

Popular Topics

Links to Other Agencies

Highlights of Noteworthy Decisions

  Decision 1704 05
Z. Onen - M. Trudeau - R. Briggs

  • Consequences of injury (altered gait)
  • Issue setting
  • Jurisdiction, Tribunal (over Board process)

The worker suffered an ankle injury in 1981. In 1999, he developed a low back problem. The worker claimed that the low back condition was due to altered gait resulting from the 1981 accident. The worker appealed a decision of the Appeals Resolution Officer denying entitlement for the low back condition.
In a preliminary matter, the worker submitted that the Board had granted health care benefits to the worker for his low back, that the correct issue before the ARO should have been whether the worker had ongoing entitlement to further benefits for his low back and that, accordingly, the issue on this appeal at the Tribunal should be whether the worker had ongoing entitlement to benefits for his low back condition.
The Panel noted that the Tribunal has jurisdiction on appeals from final decisions of the Board. The Tribunal does not have authority to go behind the final decision to address or cure any perceived defects in the Board's decision-making process. The final decision of the Board in this case was that of the ARO denying the worker entitlement for a low back injury as a secondary condition. Thus, the issue on this appeal was whether the worker had entitlement for the low back as a secondary condition resulting from the compensable ankle injury.
There was indication of a limp in the early years after the accident but there was a gap of more than 10 years without indication of pronounced or persistent altered gait. There was a lack of a definitive diagnosis of the low back condition. There was also lack of an accepted medical theory of causation between altered gait and spinal degeneration.
The appeal was dismissed.