Worker's claims stemmed from workplace injury in 2014
An Ontario court has dismissed a worker’s claim for non-payment of wages and wrongful dismissal because the matter was related to a workplace injury and too much time had passed.
The now-62-year-old worker immigrated to Canada from India in 1990 and pursued a career as a cabinet maker in Ontario. In April 2014, he began employment with Times Kitchen and Bath, a cabinet-making company in Etobicoke, Ont.
A few weeks into his employment with Times, on June 2, the worker was involved in an accident at work. He injured his lower back, neck, and upper back. He told his co-workers he was leaving to see his family doctor and asked them to inform the company’s president.
The worker saw his doctor and a chiropractor, who both informed the Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) because it was a workplace accident.
Two days after the accident, the worker gave a doctor’s note to Times’ president, who told him to rest and contact him in a few days. The worker attempted to return to work on June 9, but the president denied him work due to his injury.
Employment standards, workers’ compensation claims
The worker didn’t work for Times again and the company dismissed him on June 26. The worker then filed a complaint with the Ontario Ministry of Labour alleging that he wasn’t fully paid for his work and was entitled to overtime pay, along with a worker’s compensation claim to the WSIB. He also filed a human rights application against Times.
The worker received loss-of-earning benefits from the WSIB from his injury date of June 2 to November 19. An employment standards officer determined that the worker had worked overtime and had not been paid and the Human Rights Tribunal found that the fact there was no modified work available before the worker was terminated was not discriminatory.
In 2016, the worker launched a court action against the WSIB alleging a breach of his rights under the province’s Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA). The Ontario Superior Court of Justice (ONSC) dismissed the action and the worker commenced another court action in 2019, which was also dismissed. The court in the latter decision stated that the worker “cannot circumvent the statutory scheme for granting benefits for workplace injuries by alleging bad faith and coupling his allegation with a claim for damages.”
In October 2019, the worker commenced another action before the ONSC against Times and its president for non-payment of wages owed to him in 2014 as well as wrongful dismissal, forgery, and defamation. Times and its president applied for summary judgment against the worker and an order dismissing his action.
Exclusive jurisdiction
The court noted that the worker’s claims for loss of earnings due to a workplace injury fell under “the exclusive jurisdiction of WSIB” in accordance with the WSIA. In addition, the WSIB and its appeals tribunal (WSIAT) had exclusive jurisdiction to decide all final decisions and appeals of decisions regarding entitlement to benefits under the workers’ compensation scheme for workplace injury insurance, the court said.
As the worker’s claims for loss of earnings were adjudicated by the WSIB and WSIAT and the worker received loss-of-earnings benefits for more than five months in 2014, the worker’s claim for loss-of-earnings damages were statute-barred, said the court, noting that had already ruled in 2016 and 2019 that the worker couldn’t circumvent the statutory scheme for workers’ compensation benefits.
The court also found that the worker’s claim for non-payment of wages dated back to 2014. The Ontario Limitations Act requires a claim to be commenced within two years of the day on which it was discovered. In this case, the worker knew about his claims in 2014 when he was injured, filed the worker’s compensation claim, and made an application to the Ministry of Labour.
In addition, the worker had knowledge of his claim in 2016 when he filed his first action with the ONSC and had decisions from an employment standards officer.
All of this knowledge was more than two years before the worker commenced his latest court action, meaning that it should also be dismissed due to timeliness, said the court. See Chodha v. Times Kitchen, 2024 ONSC 2384.
