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 437 18
8/31/2018
R. McCutcheon

  • Hearing (exclusion of witness)

The worker suffered injuries in a fall from a ladder in July 2006. The worker appealed a decision of the Appeals Resolution Officer further and ongoing entitlement.
In a preliminary matter, the Vice-Chair dealt with whether an employer witness should be present during the testimony of the worker. The employer had indicated that its vice-president was a principal of the employer and that its installation manager would be called as a witness. However, the vice-president did not attend the hearing. The worker's representative asked that the installation manager be excluded during the testimony of the worker. The employer's representative submitted that the installation manager be present during the worker's testimony because he was a participant in the proceedings throughout and had knowledge of the events to which the worker would testify.
The Vice-Chair noted that the Tribunal practice direction on Who May Attend a Hearing permits each party to have one individual to remain in the room throughout the hearing to instruct the representative.
In the circumstances, the Vice-Chair ruled that the installation manager should be excluded during the worker's testimony. He was not identified as a principal of the employer. He was directly involved in some of the events related to the appeal but was not identified as a person with authority to act on the employer's behalf.
On the merits, the worker was entitled to an additional area of entitlement as a secondary condition and to ongoing benefits. The appeal was allowed.