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.

Questions?

Decisions

Appeal Process

For Representatives

Finding a Representative

Documents & Publications

Legal/Medical Resources

Popular Topics

Links to Other Agencies

Highlights of Noteworthy Decisions

  Decision 2071 12
5/22/2015
J. Josefo

  • Employer (sufficient connection to Ontario)
  • Out of province (substantial connection)
  • Right to sue
  • Worker (sufficient connection to Ontario)

The defendants in a civil case applied to determine whether the plaintiff's right of action was taken away regarding a motor vehicle accident in Ontario involving two trucks. The plaintiff was an Ontario resident employed by a Schedule 1 employer. The defendant transport company was based in Manitoba. The driver was a resident of Manitoba. The Vice-Chair found that the defendants had a substantial connection to Ontario. It was clear that the transport company was performing an activity that could be classified in Schedule 1 of the WSIA. There was evidence that the transport company was not merely passing through Ontario as a transient but, rather, was contributing to and participating in the Ontario economy. The defendant driver was a trainee and had no history of travelling in Ontario for work purposes. However, the Vice-Chair was of the view that the status of the employer was determinative of whether there existed a substantial connection to Ontario. This leads to greater certainty and predictability than determining the substantial connection of each individual employee. The Vice-Chair concluded that the defendants had a substantial connection to Ontario. Accordingly, the plaintiff's right of action was taken away.