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 889 13
6/4/2013
J. Lang - B. Young - J. Crocker

  • In the course of employment (reasonably incidental activity test)
  • Worker (status) (during rehabilitation)

A truck driver suffered a back injury in 2003, for which he was granted a 16% NEL award. The Board approved a SEB for the worker as a helicopter pilot. In 2007, while working in the hangar of the helicopter training school, the worker suffered an arm injury while replacing a tire on a lawnmower tractor. The worker appealed a decision of the Appeals Resolution Officer denying entitlement for the arm injury. The Board found that the activity of repairing the tire of the lawnmower was not related to the worker's LMR program. However, the Panel noted that the accident occurred on the premises of the helicopter pilot training school and that the activity was assigned to him by the school's mechanic. Further, the Panel found that performing manual labour around the hangar, such as basic maintenance of the helicopters, cleaning the hangar and parking lot and cutting the grass, was an integral part of the training program. The worker could not refuse to perform this work and still complete the program. The routine at the school of alternating between flying and performing ground crew functions was a form of preparation for the job market. The Panel noted that when the worker got a job after graduation, he was paid at one rate for performing ground crew functions and at another rate when flying. The Panel was satisfied that ground crew duties are a standard element of a helicopter pilot's job and an integral part of the training program. The worker had entitlement for the arm injury that he suffered during the program. The appeal was allowed.