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 1638 16
7/7/2016
S. Martel

  • Re-employment (obligation to re-employ) (unable to work)
  • Re-employment (termination)
  • Board Directives and Guidelines (re-employment) (unable to work)

A truck driver experienced left shoulder pain in May 1999. He did not lose time from work and continued performing his regular duties. His employment was terminated in June 1999. The worker appealed a decision of the Appeals Resolution Officer finding that the employer did not breach its re-employment obligations. The re-employment obligation in s. 41 of the WSIA only applies when a worker has been unable to work as a result of an injury. According to Board policy, a worker is unable to work if unable to perform the essential duties of the pre-injury job or if the worker requires workplace modifications or assistive devices to perform the essential duties of the pre-injury job. In this case, the worker continued with his pre-injury job duties without accommodation or the need for accommodation. There was no evidence of lost time and no evidence that the worker was unable to perform the essential duties of his pre-injury job. The worker did not meet the threshold for application of s. 41. The worker's employment was terminated due to a comment he made to a customer prompting a customer complaint. The appeal was dismissed.