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 2899 17 I
10/2/2017
Z. Onen

  • Adjournment (referral to Board)
  • Jurisdiction, Tribunal (Board implicitly dealt with issue)
  • Jurisdiction, Tribunal (final decision of Board)

The worker appealed a decision of the Appeals Resolution Officer denying ongoing entitlement for ulnar impaction syndrome.
At the hearing, the worker stated that he was seeking ongoing entitlement on the basis of carpal tunnel syndrome.
The Vice-Chair found that the ARO decision did not include the issue of ongoing benefits for carpal tunnel syndrome, either explicitly or implicitly.
The ARO decision expressly considered only the issue of ongoing entitlement for ulnar impaction syndrome.
The ARO decision referred to the earlier decision of the Eligibility Adjudicator. That decision determined that a diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome was compatible with the gradual onset of symptoms in the worker's wrists. However, the ARO decision did not address carpal tunnel syndrome except as part of the worker's claim history; rather, it focused on the decision of the Eligibility Adjudicator to allow initial entitlement for ulnar impaction syndrome but to deny ongoing entitlement. Further, the issue identified in the objection form to the ARO was related to ulnar impaction syndrome. The Hearing Ready letter at the Tribunal also identified the issue only as ongoing entitlement for ulnar impaction syndrome. The Vice-Chair found that the ARO had also not implicitly considered the issue of ongoing entitlement for carpal tunnel syndrome.
The Tribunal did not have jurisdiction over the issue of ongoing entitlement for carpal tunnel syndrome. The hearing was adjourned to allow the worker to pursue a final decision of the Board on that issue.