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 2054 11 R
B. Kalvin

  • Abuse of process
  • Parties (participation)
  • Reconsideration (clarification of decision)
  • Standing

In Decision No. 2054/11, the plaintiff's right of action against a number of defendants was taken away. The Vice-Chair found under s. 29(4) of the WSIA that no damages, contribution or indemnity were recoverable against two of the defendants for negligence of the defendants against whom the right of action was taken away.
Two other defendants chose not to participate in the original right to sue application. Those two defendants now requested a clarification of Decision No. 2054/11 to determine whether they were also entitled to a declaration under s. 29(4).
The Tribunal Practice Direction on Reconsiderations allows for clarification of an omission, ambiguity or misstatement. The defendants did not identify any misstatement or ambiguity in the original decision. The only conceivable omission was that these two defendants were omitted from the scope of the legal protection afforded to certain other defendants. However, given that the two defendants were invited to participate in the original proceedings but expressly declined to do so, omitting them from the scope of the decision was not the sort of omission contemplated by the Practice Direction.
The clarification sought by the two defendants was not, in fact, a request for clarification but, rather, a request to extend the legal scope of the original decision. The Vice-Chair concluded that the decision would not be amended in the manner sought.
The only way in which the two defendants might be able to pursue this matter is to bring their own right to sue application. However, the Vice-Chair was of the view that such an application might constitute an abuse of process.