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 2530 17 R
6/19/2019
M. Crystal

  • Procedure (interpreter)
  • Reconsideration (natural justice)

The worker applied for reconsideration of Decision No. 2530/17. The worker submitted that there was a denial of natural justice due to the lack of an interpreter.
Prior to the hearing, the worker discussed with her representative whether she should receive assistance from an interpreter. The representative concluded that the worker could proceed effectively with the hearing in English. The worker accepted the advice of her representative. When it came to the attention of the original vice-chair during the hearing that the worker had some concerns about her ability to understand certain words, the vice-chair questioned the representative and satisfied himself that the issue had been discussed with the worker, as indicated above.
A review of the tape of the hearing by the Vice-Chair indicated the worker's answers were responsive to the questions asked and that she generally understood the questions. In a few circumstances, further clarification of questions was provided but this was due mainly to awkward or incomplete phrasing of the questions.
The Vice-Chair distinguished this case, in which the worker proceeded without an interpreter on advice from her representative, from cases in which an interpreter was requested but proved to be unsuitable.
The application to reconsider was denied.