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 2331 13
1/16/2014
G. Dee - E. Tracey - M. Ferrari

  • Available employment
  • Chronic pain
  • Psychotraumatic disability
  • Availability for employment (transportation to work)

The worker suffered a shoulder injury in 2006. The worker appealed a decision of the Appeals Resolution Officer denying entitlement for psychotraumatic disability or chronic pain disability and denying ongoing LOE benefits. The worker did not have entitlement for psychotraumatic disability. He had pre-existing depression. The accident was not a significant contributing factor. The worker did not have entitlement for chronic pain disability, as he did not experience a marked life disruption as a result of the shoulder injury. When the worker was injured, he was working about 15 minutes from his home at about minimum wage. After the accident, the employer offered work about 80 kilometres away from the worker's home. According to Board policy, available work is work that exists at the accident employer's pre-injury work site or at a comparable work site arranged by the employer. The Panel found that work at that distance for a minimum wage job was not comparable. The worker was entitled to further LOE benefits. The appeal was allowed in part.