A worker who was injured after being struck and pinned to the floor by a load of marble tiles cannot sue his employer, Ontario’s Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) has ruled.
It found the worker’s lawsuit, against his employer, is barred under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 (WSIA). It also ruled that the worker, who lived in Quebec, had a “substantial connection” to Ontario, noting WSIB policy guidelines define that as “11 or more days of work” in the province.
The decision, arising from an application under section 31 of the WSIA, determined that the respondent, M.I., was a worker in the course of his employment when he was injured at the premises of Maple Terrazzo & Tile Incorporated, a registered Schedule 1 employer. As a result, his civil action against the employer and co-applicant, J.C., cannot proceed.
Background
M.I. filed a lawsuit against Maple and J.C. in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice after sustaining injuries on March 24, 2020. He claimed that while assisting J.C. in moving a crate of marble tiles, J.C., who was operating a forklift, caused the load to shift, resulting in the tiles striking and pinning M.I. to the floor.
M.I. received benefits from the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) but later pursued civil action, alleging negligence.
Maple sought a determination from WSIAT that M.I.’s right of action was removed by the WSIA, arguing that he was a worker employed in Ontario at the time of the incident. M.I. contended that he was not a worker, but rather an independent contractor, and that he had no substantial connection to Ontario that would subject him to Ontario’s workers’ compensation regime.
Tribunal’s analysis and findings
Employer status: The Tribunal confirmed that Maple has been a registered Schedule 1 employer with the WSIB since January 11, 2016. There was no dispute that Maple remained a registered employer at the time of the accident, meeting the criteria for coverage under Ontario’s workers’ compensation system.
Worker or independent contractor? The Tribunal applied the “business reality test” and “organizational test” to assess whether M.I. was a worker or an independent operator. Factors considered included:
- Degree of control Maple exercised over M.I.’s work
- Ownership of tools and equipment
- Risk of profit or loss
- Integration into the employer’s business
While M.I. argued that he did not have a formal hiring process, employment agreement, or fixed hours, the Tribunal found that he performed work at Maple’s premises under the direction of other workers, was paid on a fixed basis, and did not bear the risks associated with running an independent business. M.I. also provided WSIB pay stubs to establish his work history and claimed benefits accordingly. The Tribunal concluded that he was a worker under the WSIA.
Course of employment: The Tribunal determined that both M.I. and J.C. were in the course of their employment at the time of the accident. M.I. was engaged in work for Maple, and J.C. was performing his duties as a forklift operator when the injury occurred. As the accident arose out of and in the course of employment, the statutory bar under section 28(1) of the WSIA applied.
Substantial connection to Ontario: M.I. argued that he had no substantial connection to Ontario, citing his residence in Montreal, and the temporary nature of his work. The Tribunal applied WSIB policy guidelines, which consider workers with 11 or more days of work in Ontario as having a substantial connection. Evidence from M.I.’s pay stubs supported that he worked more than 11 days for Maple, at a fixed Ontario location, performing duties that were integral to the business. The Tribunal concluded that his connection to Ontario was sufficient to bring him under the WSIA’s jurisdiction.
Punitive damages claim: M.I. also sought punitive damages, alleging habitual negligence by Maple, including a prior fatal workplace incident. However, the Tribunal found that his claim for punitive damages was intrinsically linked to the barred negligence claim. Citing previous WSIAT decisions, the Tribunal ruled that where a cause of action is removed by the WSIA, associated claims for damages cannot proceed. Since M.I.’s claims stemmed directly from his workplace injury, his entire lawsuit, including punitive damages, was barred.
Conclusion
The Tribunal granted Maple’s application, ruling that M.I.’s right of action against Maple and J.C. is removed under the WSIA. The decision reinforces the principle that workplace injuries for covered workers fall exclusively within Ontario’s workers’ compensation system, precluding civil litigation against employers in such cases.
For more information, see Decision No. 1373/22, 2024 ONWSIAT 1903 (CanLII).
