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 205 14
5/16/2014
M. Keil

  • In the course of employment (lunch)
  • In the course of employment (reasonably incidental activity test)
  • In the course of employment (recreational activity)

A worker of the employer was injured when he slipped while playing volleyball on the employer's premises during his lunch break. The employer appealed a decision of the Appeals Resolution Officer granting the worker entitlement for the accident. The Vice-Chair agreed with Decision No. 701/12 that the governing principle is whether the worker was engaged in activity that was reasonably incidental to employment, not whether the employer exercised control over the location of the accident or whether the employer had the ability to prevent the accident. The Vice-Chair stated that control is an aspect to be weighed but is not the only or determinative factor. In this case, the volleyball court was on the employer's premises and the equipment was provided by the employer, so that there was an element of control. Further, the employer allowed workers to use the volleyball court while on break, so that this could be considered a condoned activity. The Vice-Chair concluded that the worker was engaged in activity that was reasonably incidental to his employment. The worker had entitlement for the accident. The appeal was dismissed.