- Access to worker file, statutory (confidentiality)
- Access to worker file, statutory (issue in dispute) (relevance) (sensitive information)
- Access to worker file, statutory (issue in dispute) (SIEF)
The issue in this proceeding was whether the employer had a right of access to the reports of health care providers in the worker's WSIB claim file pursuant to sections 58 and 59 of the WSIA.
The Vice-Chair allowed the appeal, in part.The Vice-Chair was satisfied that the employer's entitlement to SIEF relief in the worker's claim constituted an issue in dispute. The Vice-Chair determined that the medical documents were relevant to the issue in dispute of entitlement to SIEF relief, with the exception of certain health care documents which were of marginal relevance. The release of the health care documents in the worker's claim file would not cause prejudice that outweighed their relevance.The Vice-Chair found that the information about the worker's family members was embedded in and integral to health care reports that were directly relevant to the issue in dispute, as these reports discussed the worker's medical conditions. The Vice-Chair noted that section 59 of the WSIA imposes conditions on the employer, requiring it to maintain the confidentiality of the information. It is an offence under the WSIA to violate this confidentiality provision. The Vice-Chair accepted the employer representative's submission that they are aware of and bound by the confidentiality provisions imposed by the WSIA and by their professional regulator, the Law Society of Ontario. The Vice-Chair was satisfied that these statutory confidentiality obligations were sufficient to protect the sensitive personal information about the worker and her family members. The worker and her representative submitted that the employer's representative had not been authorized in writing and was not qualified to represent the employer in this matter. The Vice-Chair did not accept this submission. The Vice-Chair found that the representative had written authorization from the employer as required by section 59(2). In Decision No. 39/20R, the Tribunal Chair did not accept that the Tribunal had freestanding jurisdiction over the WSIB's determination of whether a representative is authorized to represent a party. Administrative matters, such as the authorization of a representative, are not included in the list of issues within the Tribunal's jurisdiction in section 123 of the WSIA. In this case, the administrative and technical arguments raised by the worker about the representative's authorization to represent the employer had little to do with the merits of the case or the employer's right of access to relevant case materials. The worker and her representative also submitted that the employer was in a conflict of interest because it was also her health care provider and was already in possession of her health care information. The Vice-Chair found that, regardless of its dual role, the employer was bound by the confidentiality provisions in the WSIA to preserve the confidentiality of her WSIB file under sections 58 and 59 of the WSIA. The employer's prior possession of the worker's health care information and its dual role did not affect its right under section 58(1) to be provided with the information in the worker's WSIB file which was relevant to the issue in dispute of SIEF relief.