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 851 14
S. Darvish - B. Davis - J. Crocker

  • Re-employment (non-compliance) (payments)
  • Re-employment (obligation to re-employ)

The worker suffered a neck and back injury in February 2009, for which he was granted a 38% NEL award. The worker appealed a decision of the Appeals Resolution Officer finding that the employer did not breach its re-employment obligations.
The worker was not able to perform the essential duties of his pre-injury employment. However, by mid-February 2010, he was medically able to perform suitable work. As such, under s. 41(5) of the WSIA, the employer was required to offer the worker the first opportunity to accept suitable employment that may become available. However, the employer failed to provide the worker suitable modified duties, without explanation and without evidence of undue hardship. The Panel concluded that the employer breached its re-employment obligations.
The worker was entitled to benefits for one year under s. 41(13)(b) as if he was entitled to full LOE benefits. The worker was sponsored in a four-week job search training program. On the evidence, the worker did not require additional LMR services.
The appeal was allowed in part.