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 2510 15
G. McCaffrey - S. Sahay - A. Grande

  • Availability for employment (transportation to work)
  • Suitable occupation

A driver suffered a shoulder injury, for which he was granted an 8% NEL award. By the time the worker was capable of returning to modified work, the employer had shut the location where the worker had been working. The employer offered work as a print room associate at a different location. The worker appealed a decision of the Appeals Resolution Officer finding that the modified work offered by the employer was appropriate for the worker.
Board Operational Policy Manual, Document No. 19-03-03, on determining suitable occupation, lists a hierarchy for identifying SO opportunities. An SO with the accident employer in the local labour market is first, followed by an SO with the accident employer in the surrounding area to which the worker may reasonably be expected to commute, followed by SO with new employers.
The location where the worker used to work was about a 15 minute drive from his home. Driving was a major component of the job. The modified work was about a one-hour drive from the worker's home but the job itself did not involve any driving. The medical evidence did not indicate any driving restrictions related to the shoulder injury. What is a reasonable commuting distance will vary depending on the circumstances of the individual case. In this case, the Panel found that the commute was reasonable in the circumstances.
The print room job was appropriate taken in the context of the circumstances of the case. The appeal was dismissed.