Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Judicial review of a denial by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) to extend the appeal deadline for a denied workplace injury claim.

• Assessment of whether a 10-year delay in taking legal action could be justified by the applicant’s illiteracy and lack of legal support.

• Evaluation of the WSIAT’s application of a "holistic approach" in determining whether to allow a late appeal.

• Consideration of the effect of the applicant’s reliance on the Jamaican Liaison Service and his unfamiliarity with Ontario’s compensation system.

• Examination of whether WSIAT unreasonably overlooked key evidence or failed to weigh relevant hardship factors.

• Application of the Vavilov reasonableness standard to determine whether the Tribunal’s decision was fair, transparent, and legally defensible.

Background of the applicant and the injury

Glen Grant is a Jamaican citizen who worked in Canada through the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program. In 2005, while employed on a tobacco farm in Ontario, he sustained a knee injury. Though the injury was significant enough to warrant medical attention, he delayed reporting it. He later filed a claim with the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB), which was denied in 2008 on the grounds that his condition stemmed from pre-existing osteoarthritis rather than a workplace incident.

Timeline and procedural history

After the WSIB denial, the Jamaican Liaison Service (JLS)—responsible for assisting migrant workers—attempted to reopen the case but did so too late. Mr. Grant was not informed of the denial until October 2010. From then until 2020, no further action was taken. In 2020, with the help of the Industrial Accident Victims Group of Ontario (IAVGO), Mr. Grant sought to revive the claim and requested an extension of time to appeal.

Decision of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal

In 2023, the WSIAT dismissed Mr. Grant’s appeal in Decision No. 11/23. The Tribunal applied a holistic approach, considering various factors including the length of the delay, reasons for the delay, and any evidence of intent to appeal. While the Tribunal acknowledged that Mr. Grant was illiterate and unfamiliar with Ontario’s workers’ compensation system, it emphasized that he had taken no meaningful action for over a decade. It found the appeal too stale to be adjudicated fairly.

Reconsideration decision and further challenge

Mr. Grant requested reconsideration, arguing that the Tribunal had failed to account for his vulnerability as a migrant worker and the negligence of the JLS. The Tribunal reaffirmed its original conclusion, noting that the decision appropriately considered the facts and applied the law. It found no significant defect that would justify reopening the case.

Judicial review before the Divisional Court

Mr. Grant then brought the matter before the Ontario Divisional Court, challenging the reasonableness of the WSIAT’s decisions. He argued that the Tribunal failed to apply a contextual and compassionate approach to his circumstances, including his illiteracy, dependence on the JLS, and lack of procedural knowledge. The Court reviewed the decisions under the Vavilov framework, which requires decisions to be transparent, intelligible, and justified.

Court’s findings and conclusion

The Court found that the WSIAT had properly applied the law and made a reasonable decision based on the evidence. It emphasized that the Tribunal had in fact considered Mr. Grant’s background and barriers but reasonably concluded that a 10-year gap without meaningful action weighed against granting a time extension. The Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding no legal basis to overturn the Tribunal’s judgment. The matter was dismissed without costs.