Bill 105 (Protecting Ontario’s Workers and Economic Resilience Act, 2026) was introduced in the Ontario Legislature on April 20, 2026. This omnibus legislation amends nine different statutes, with Schedule 9 containing changes to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA).
📊 Age 65 Extension: Workers can request individual assessment to continue benefits past age 65 if “likely to be working”
📊 Wage Replacement Increase: From 85% to 90% of pre-injury net average earnings
📊 72-Month Review Lock-In Eliminated: Current 6-year benefit protection removed for new claims
📊 Construction Open Periods: Shortened from 2 months to 1 month for displacement/termination applications
📊 New LOE Offsets: Benefits adjusted when combined with government/employer payments exceed 100% pre-injury earnings
📊 Mandatory Coverage Expansion: Residential care facilities and group homes added to Schedule 1
Bill 105 represents targeted reforms to specific WSIA provisions rather than comprehensive system overhaul (contrast with Bill 86’s 50-section rewrite). Some provisions address documented gaps (age 65 cutoff, wage replacement rate), while others raise implementation concerns among injured worker advocates.
Legislative status: Bill 105 is currently at Second Reading stage (as of May 2026).
Bill 105 is an omnibus bill amending nine different Ontario statutes:
| Schedule | Statute Amended | Primary Focus |
|---|---|---|
| Schedule 1 | Employment Standards Act | Employment standards enforcement |
| Schedule 2 | Environmental Assessment Act | Environmental processes |
| Schedule 3 | Labour Relations Act | Construction industry open periods |
| Schedule 4 | Ministry of Health and Long-term Care Act | Healthcare administration |
| Schedule 5 | Occupational Health and Safety Act | Workplace safety |
| Schedule 6 | Ombudsman Act | Ombudsman powers |
| Schedule 7 | Retirement Homes Act | Retirement home regulation |
| Schedule 8 | Strengthening Talent Agency Regulation Act | Talent agency oversight |
| Schedule 9 | Workplace Safety and Insurance Act | Workers’ compensation reforms |
Government framing: “Protecting Ontario’s Workers and Economic Resilience” emphasizes dual focus on worker protections and economic sustainability.
Legislative timeline:
WSIA Section 43: Loss of earnings (LOE) benefits terminate at age 65, or 2 years post-injury for workers injured at age 63+, regardless of:
Impact documented: “Rights Don’t Retire” campaign (Thunder Bay & District Injured Workers Support Group, ONIWG) has documented hundreds of workers affected by age 65 cutoff.
New subsection 43(1.1) (workers under age 63 at injury):
“If a worker who has not attained the age of 63 years at the time of the injury makes a request… the Board shall make a determination as to whether, in its opinion, based on all of the circumstances, the worker was likely to be working past the age of 65 years had he or she not been injured…”
New subsection 43(1.2) (workers age 63+ at injury):
Similar determination process for workers 63+ at time of injury
Request window: Between ages 63-65
Decision factors (Board discretion):
| Issue | Current WSIA | Bill 105 Proposal |
|---|---|---|
| Age 65 cutoff | Automatic termination at 65 (or 2 years post-injury for workers 63+) | Individual determination: WSIB assesses if worker “likely to be working past 65” |
| Worker input | No input mechanism | Worker must request assessment between ages 63-65 |
| Burden | Cutoff automatic (no worker burden) | Worker must initiate process (risk: workers unaware of deadline) |
| Adjudication | No discretion | Board discretion based on “all circumstances” (creates new appeals pathway) |
| Extension length | N/A (benefits terminate) | Not specified in statute (Board policy to determine) |
Key concern from advocates: Burden placed on worker to request assessment, risk of missed deadlines if workers unaware of 63-65 window.
WSIA Section 43: Loss of earnings benefits calculated at 85% of pre-injury net average earnings.
Historical context: 85% rate implemented in 1997 WSIA reforms (reduced from 90% under predecessor Workers’ Compensation Act).
New subsection 43(2.0.2):
“Despite subsection (1), if a worker’s injury occurs on or after the specified date, the periodic payment… shall be 90 per cent of the worker’s net average earnings…”
“Specified date”: Date when Bill 105 comes into force (not yet proclaimed).
Prospective application only: Does NOT apply to existing claims (workers injured before Bill 105 force date continue at 85%).
Individual worker benefit:
System-wide cost:
Stakeholder positions:
WSIA Section 44: After 72 months (6 years) of receiving LOE benefits, workers’ benefits are “locked in” - WSIB cannot reduce or terminate benefits based on re-assessments of earning capacity.
Policy rationale: After 6 years, worker has demonstrated permanent inability to return to pre-injury earnings. Lock-in provides security and reduces administrative burden of ongoing reviews.
Impact: Protects permanently disabled workers from repeated medical examinations, labour market assessments, and benefit reduction threats.
Section 44.1 REPLACES 72-month lock-in with ongoing review regime:
Subsection 44.1(1): Board “may” conduct periodic reviews of LOE benefits
Subsection 44.1(2): Reviews conducted “in accordance with the prescribed maximum frequency” OR “with such frequency as the Board determines is appropriate”
Subsection 44.1(3): After review, Board may:
Application: New subsection 44.1 applies to:
Protection: Workers already past 72 months remain locked in (grandfathered).
Injured Workers Online (major advocacy organization) expressed serious concerns:
“Elimination of the 72-month lock-in will create a lifetime of red tape for permanently disabled workers. Instead of achieving stability after 6 years, workers will face ongoing reviews, repeated medical examinations, and constant threat of benefit reduction.”
Predicted impacts:
Goldblatt Partners (labour law firm) analysis:
“Elimination of 72-month lock-in represents a step backwards for injured worker protections. Lock-in policy recognized that after 6 years, worker’s permanent disability status is established. New review regime creates endless cycle of reassessment.”
Counter-argument (government position):
“Ongoing reviews ensure benefits reflect workers’ current earning capacity. Some workers’ conditions improve; ongoing reviews allow upward adjustments as well as downward.”
Rebuttal: Critics note WSIB historically uses reviews to reduce benefits, not increase them (no public data on upward vs. downward adjustments post-review).
WSIA Section 44: LOE benefits paid without offsets for most other income sources (exception: CPP Disability has always been offset).
Rationale: Workers contributed to CPP-D through payroll taxes; employer should not benefit from worker’s CPP-D eligibility.
Subsection 44.1(5): Board must adjust LOE benefits if:
“The worker is entitled to any payment described in subsection (6)… the Board shall adjust the periodic payment… to ensure that the total amount… does not exceed 100 per cent of the worker’s pre-injury net average earnings.”
Subsection 44.1(6) - “Prescribed payments” subject to offset:
Subsection 44.1(7): Regulations will define specific payment types subject to offset.
Scenario 1: Worker receiving ODSP top-up
Scenario 2: Employer-provided disability top-up
Concern: 100% cap means injured workers may earn LESS than pre-injury (because pre-injury earnings were NET, but taxation still applies to combined WSIB + other income).
Schedule 3 of Bill 105 amends Labour Relations Act provisions affecting construction industry unionization rules.
Current law: Construction workers have 2-month “open periods” to:
Bill 105 proposal: Shorten open periods from 2 months to 1 month.
Government consultation commitment: Bill 105 includes two alternative implementation models; government will consult construction stakeholders before proclaiming final model.
Impact assessment:
“Shortened open periods reduce window for construction workers to change union representation or opt out of unionization. One-month window creates tighter deadline pressure, potentially reducing worker participation in displacement/termination processes.”
Why included in workers’ compensation omnibus bill: Construction industry has high injury rates and significant WSIB claims volume; Schedule 3 changes packaged with Schedule 9 WSIB reforms for sector-specific impact.
WSIA Schedule 1 (mandatory coverage): Does not explicitly include all residential care facilities and group homes.
Result: Some residential care workers (supporting individuals with disabilities, mental health conditions) not covered by WSIB.
Schedule 9: Amends WSIA to deem residential care facilities (private employers) and group homes as included in Schedule 1, Class N, Part I (mandatory coverage).
Impact:
Stakeholder response: Broadly supported by worker advocates and care sector unions; residential care employers express concern about premium costs.
Both Bill 105 and Bill 86 (introduced December 2025, did not proceed April 2026) addressed some similar issues:
| Issue | Bill 86 Approach | Bill 105 Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Age 65 cutoff | Automatic extension to age 70 or 5 years post-injury (whichever later), Commission can extend further | Individual determination: worker requests assessment, WSIB decides if “likely to be working past 65” |
| Wage replacement | 90% statutory rate | 90% statutory rate (identical) |
| Mental stress | Reformed “labour relations exclusion” to narrow scope | NO CHANGE (labour relations exclusion remains) |
| Pain & suffering | Created ongoing monthly compensation | NO CHANGE (NEL system remains) |
| Employment protection | Prohibited termination for claim filing | NO CHANGE |
| Medical privacy | Worker chooses IME doctor, records disclosed to worker first | NO CHANGE |
| 72-month lock-in | No changes proposed (lock-in maintained) | ELIMINATED lock-in (ongoing reviews) |
Bill 86 identified six major system gaps (based on 11,430 WSIAT decisions analysis):
Interpretation: Bill 105 targets narrow, less controversial reforms (age extension, wage rate) while avoiding systemic changes that increase employer costs significantly.
Position: Mixed - support age/wage reforms, strongly oppose 72-month lock-in elimination
Concerns:
“72-month elimination will flood WSIAT with appeals, create lifetime insecurity for disabled workers, and increase administrative costs that could exceed any benefit savings.”
Recommendation: Amend Bill 105 to remove Section 44.1 (maintain lock-in).
Position: Oppose Bill 105 as currently drafted
Key demand: Public hearings before Third Reading
Concerns:
“Bill 105 places permanently disabled workers on permanent probation. 72-month lock-in was hard-won protection; elimination represents major loss without adequate worker consultation.”
Position: Support with reservations
Support: Age 65 reform (individual determination prevents blanket extension), LOE offset provisions (100% cap appropriate)
Concerns: 90% wage replacement increases employer premiums (estimated 5-8% increase)
Assessment: Bill 105 represents “incremental reform approach”
Key observations:
Assessment: 72-month elimination is “step backwards” for worker protections
Litigation prediction:
“Expect Charter challenges arguing ongoing reviews violate s. 15 equality rights by creating differential treatment of permanently disabled workers vs. workers who recover.”
Bill 105 delegates significant implementation details to regulations:
Age 65 determination criteria: Statute says “all circumstances” - regulations must specify factors (work history? Financial need? Industry norms?)
72-month review frequency: Statute allows “prescribed maximum frequency” or Board discretion - how often can WSIB review? Annual? Every 2 years? Every 5 years?
LOE offset “prescribed payments”: Which government/employer payments trigger offset? ODSP? Private LTD? Employer sick leave top-ups?
Construction open period model: Two alternatives proposed - which will government select after consultation?
WSIB has not published:
Government statement:
“Bill 105 amendments are fiscally sustainable. Detailed actuarial analysis will be published prior to Third Reading.” (as of May 2026, not yet published)
Current WSIAT backlog: ~8,000 pending appeals (pre-Bill 105)
Predicted additional appeals from Bill 105:
Estimated impact: 2,000-3,000 additional appeals annually (Injured Workers Online projection)
| Factor | Bill 86 (Private Member) | Bill 105 (Government Bill) |
|---|---|---|
| Sponsor | 3 opposition MPPs | Minister of Red Tape Reduction (government) |
| Scope | Comprehensive (50 sections, complete WSIA rewrite) | Targeted (6 amendments in Schedule 9 of 9-schedule omnibus) |
| Outcome | Did not proceed past Second Reading (April 2026) | Currently at Second Reading, likely to pass (government majority) |
| Consultation | No formal pre-introduction consultation | Limited stakeholder engagement (construction sector consultation promised) |
| Fiscal analysis | No government costing | Government commits to actuarial analysis before Third Reading |
Historical pattern: Private member’s bills rarely pass without government support. Bill 86’s failure likely informed Bill 105’s narrower scope (government adopted least controversial reforms).
Stage: Second Reading debates
Procedure:
Public participation options:
Committee submissions: If Bill 105 referred to Standing Committee, public can submit written briefs and request to present oral testimony
Template for MPP communication:
Subject: Bill 105 (POWER Act) - Concerns About 72-Month Lock-In Elimination
Dear [MPP Name],
I am writing regarding Bill 105, Schedule 9, Section 44.1 - elimination of the 72-month review lock-in for injured workers.
I support: Age 65 individual determination (fairer than blanket cutoff) and 90% wage replacement increase (restores pre-1997 rate).
I oppose: Elimination of 72-month lock-in. After 6 years receiving benefits, permanently disabled workers have demonstrated they cannot return to pre-injury earnings. Ongoing reviews will create:
- Lifetime insecurity and stress for disabled workers
- Flood of appeals to WSIAT (current backlog: 8,000)
- Administrative costs exceeding any savings
I urge you to: Support amendment to remove Section 44.1 from Bill 105, or at minimum require regulations specify maximum review frequency (e.g., once every 5 years, not annually).
Will you support this amendment?
Sincerely, [Your Name] [Postal Code - demonstrates you are constituent]
Legislative text: Bill 105 full text - Ontario Legislative Assembly
Stakeholder analysis:
Limitations:
Research questions: empowrapp08162025@gmail.com
Legislative tracking: Bill 105 status updates posted to 3mpwrapp.ca/legislation
Knowledge Base:
Comparison Analysis:
Legal Support:
Advocacy:
Published: May 11, 2026
Legislative status: Bill 105 at Second Reading
Analysis based on Bill 105 text (as introduced April 20, 2026) and stakeholder submissions
Bill 105 is narrower than Bill 86: Targets 6 specific amendments vs. comprehensive 50-section rewrite
Age 65 reform uses individual determination: Workers must request assessment (burden on worker), WSIB decides based on “circumstances”
90% wage replacement welcomed: Restores pre-1997 rate, adds ~$2,500/year for average worker, increases employer premiums
72-month lock-in elimination is controversial: Worker advocates strongly oppose, predict “lifetime of red tape” and appeals flood
Bill 105 does NOT address mental stress, pain compensation, or employment protections: These Bill 86 priorities excluded
Government bill likely to pass: Unlike private member Bill 86, Bill 105 has government backing and will likely become law
We believe in building in public. Here’s a look at what our team has been working on recently, straight from our development history. —
Transparency is a core operating principle at 3mpwrApp. The community we serve has been let down by opaque institutions - we want to be the structural opposite of that. This means sharing our development process openly, explaining what we’re working on and why, and being honest when things take longer than expected. —
Curated 3 items from disability, accessibility, and social policy sources.
The Disability Bulletin covers disability rights news, advocacy updates, and community stories from across Canada. Visit for the latest issue. 📍 Read More
Francisco Barahona, who has lived in Canada for 15 years, is facing nearly $400,000 in medical bills. Source Score: 15.00
Lifelong Haida Gwaii resident Lisa Pineault wants to take a hard look at costs and access for remote residents. Source Score: 8.90
]]>Two workers’ compensation reform bills have been introduced in Ontario’s 44th Parliament within five months:
Did the government adopt Bill 86’s evidence-based reforms while avoiding controversial system-wide changes?
Answer: Partially. Bill 105 adopts 2 of Bill 86’s 7 major reforms (age 65 extension, 90% wage replacement) while ignoring mental stress reform, pain compensation, employment protections, and medical privacy. Bill 105 also introduces controversial 72-month lock-in elimination NOT proposed in Bill 86.
| Factor | Bill 86 (Meredith Act) | Bill 105 (POWER Act) | Current Law |
|---|---|---|---|
| Automatic extension? | ✅ YES - Benefits automatically continue to age 70 OR 5 years post-injury (whichever later) | ❌ NO - Individual determination required | ❌ Automatic termination at 65 |
| Worker action required? | None (automatic) | ✅ YES - Worker must REQUEST assessment between ages 63-65 | N/A |
| Decision standard | Objective (age 70 or 5 years) | Subjective (“likely to be working past 65” - WSIB discretion) | N/A |
| Commission discretion | Can extend BEYOND age 70 if evidence supports | Can approve/deny extension based on “all circumstances” | N/A |
| Appeal risk | Low (objective criteria) | ⚠️ HIGH (subjective “likely to be working” disputes) | N/A |
| Evidence base | Rights Don’t Retire campaign (hundreds affected) | Same evidence base as Bill 86 | Cutoff affects hundreds annually |
Analysis:
Who wins?
| Factor | Bill 86 | Bill 105 | Current Law |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rate | 90% of pre-injury net average earnings | 90% of pre-injury net average earnings | 85% of pre-injury net average earnings |
| Application | All new claims (after force date) | All new claims (after force date) | All claims |
| Retroactive? | No (new claims only) | No (new claims only) | N/A |
| Historical context | Restores pre-1997 WCA rate | Restores pre-1997 WCA rate | Reduced from 90% in 1997 WSIA reforms |
Analysis:
Who wins?
Background: WSIA s. 13(5) excludes mental stress arising from “decisions or actions of the employer relating to hiring, discipline, termination, demotion, workplace change, or other employment-related decisions.” Analysis of 11,430 WSIAT decisions found 723 cases (6.33%) affected by this exclusion.
| Factor | Bill 86 | Bill 105 | Current Law |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reform proposed? | ✅ YES - Section 1(3) narrows exclusion | ❌ NO - No changes to s. 13(5) | Broad exclusion denies most workplace mental stress claims |
| New standard | Work must be “significant contributing factor” (not “dominant cause”) | N/A | “Arising from” employment decisions = excluded |
| Burden shift | Creates presumption for additive exposures | N/A | Worker must prove stress NOT from employment decision |
| Evidence base | 723 WSIAT cases (6.33% of dataset) flagged mental stress denials | N/A | Pickering v. WCB (2025 BCSC 376) narrowed exclusion scope |
Analysis:
Court development: BC Supreme Court in Pickering (2025) already limited similar exclusion to “good faith” employment decisions only - Ontario has not followed this precedent
Who wins?
Background: Current WSIA provides only Non-Economic Loss (NEL) awards (one-time lump sum payments, typically $28,000-$84,000 for 10-30% impairment). Analysis found ZERO cases receiving ongoing pain compensation.
| Factor | Bill 86 | Bill 105 | Current Law |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ongoing compensation? | ✅ YES - Section 13 creates monthly pain payments | ❌ NO - No changes to NEL system | Only one-time NEL awards |
| Duration | “Until pain, suffering or loss ceases” (potentially lifetime) | N/A | NEL award exhausted after 2-3 years |
| Calculation method | “Proportionate to degree of loss or suffering” | N/A | Fixed impairment rating (e.g., 30% = $84,000) |
| Quality of life factors | ✅ Includes “social or contextual factors” | N/A | Limited to measurable physical impairment |
| Evidence base | Zero ongoing pain compensation found in 11,430 cases | N/A | Gap documented in tribunal decisions |
Example comparison:
Scenario: 25-year-old worker loses leg in workplace accident
| System | Compensation |
|---|---|
| Current WSIA (NEL) | 30% impairment = $84,000 lump sum, paid over 2-3 years → Compensation ends |
| Bill 86 | Monthly pain & suffering payments continue for 40+ years (until age 65+) = ~$500,000 lifetime |
| Bill 105 | Same as current ($84,000 lump sum) |
Analysis:
Who wins?
Background: Analysis of 11,430 WSIAT decisions documented at least 71 cases (0.62%, conservative estimate) where workers were terminated shortly after filing WSIB claims.
| Factor | Bill 86 | Bill 105 | Current Law |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statutory protection? | ✅ YES - Section 16 prohibits termination for claim filing | ❌ NO - No employment protections added | No statutory protection (civil lawsuit only) |
| Enforcement | Criminal Code s. 425.1 (union intimidation) extended to WSIB claims | N/A | Civil wrongful dismissal suit (costly, slow) |
| Burden of proof | Employer must prove termination unrelated to claim | N/A | Worker must prove causal connection |
| Language | “Employment shall not be considered interrupted…” | N/A | Employment terminated = loss of benefits + income |
| Evidence base | 71 documented cases (0.62%, likely severe undercount) | N/A | Pattern documented in WSIAT decisions |
Real-world impact:
Current system problem:
Bill 86’s solution:
Bill 105’s position:
Who wins?
Background: 83 WSIAT cases (2020-2026) flagged medical information sharing concerns. Rehn Enterprises v United Steelworkers (2018 CanLII 116968) found accountability gap when employers direct workers to authorize IME doctors to obtain records directly from treating physicians.
| Factor | Bill 86 | Bill 105 | Current Law |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who chooses IME doctor? | ✅ Worker (Section 29(1), Condition 1) | ❌ Employer/WSIB | Employer/WSIB |
| Who pays IME? | ✅ Commission (Section 29(1), Condition 2) | Employer/WSIB | Employer/WSIB |
| Records disclosure sequence | ✅ Worker receives opinion FIRST (Section 29(2)) | Records go directly to IME → employer | Records go directly to IME → employer |
| Complete records required? | ✅ YES (Section 29(1), Condition 3) | No requirement | No requirement (cherry-picking possible) |
| Accountability | Worker controls process, closes Rehn gap | Employer never has custody (Rehn accountability gap persists) | Employer never has custody (Rehn accountability gap persists) |
The Rehn problem explained:
Court statement:
“It is an extraordinary circumstance to require a person to share personal medical information with a party with whom they have no direct relationship… The employer would never have custody of the individual’s personal medical information, and thereby… would not… be considered to be in ‘control’ of the information.”
Translation: Employer directs worker to authorize direct sharing between treating physician and IME doctor. Employer never touches records, so cannot be held accountable under collective agreement or privacy law.
Bill 86’s fix:
Bill 105’s position:
Who wins?
Background: Current WSIA Section 44 provides that after 72 months (6 years) receiving LOE benefits, worker’s benefits are “locked in” - WSIB cannot reduce/terminate based on re-assessments.
| Factor | Bill 86 | Bill 105 | Current Law |
|---|---|---|---|
| 72-month lock-in | ✅ MAINTAINED (no changes proposed) | ❌ ELIMINATED (Section 44.1) | ✅ Protected after 6 years |
| Ongoing reviews? | No (lock-in provides finality) | ✅ YES - “Periodic reviews” at Board discretion or prescribed frequency | No (lock-in provides finality) |
| Worker security | Permanent disability = permanent stability after 6 years | ⚠️ “Lifetime of red tape” - ongoing medical exams, reassessments, benefit reduction threats | Permanent disability = permanent stability after 6 years |
| WSIB authority | Limited after 72 months | Unlimited - can review, reduce, terminate at any time | Limited after 72 months |
| Stakeholder response | No controversy (maintained status quo) | STRONG OPPOSITION from Injured Workers Online, UFCW 175, Goldblatt Partners | Broadly supported by worker advocates |
Why Bill 105’s elimination is controversial:
Injured Workers Online statement:
“Elimination of the 72-month lock-in will create a lifetime of red tape for permanently disabled workers. Instead of achieving stability after 6 years, workers will face ongoing reviews, repeated medical examinations, and constant threat of benefit reduction.”
Predicted impacts:
Government rationale:
“Ongoing reviews ensure benefits reflect workers’ current earning capacity. Some workers’ conditions improve; ongoing reviews allow upward adjustments as well as downward.”
Rebuttal: Critics note 72-month threshold already demonstrates permanence - after 6 years, worker’s inability to return to pre-injury earnings is established.
Who wins?
THIS IS THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO BILLS
| Issue | Bill 86 Proposal | Bill 105 Proposal | Current Law | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age 65 cutoff | Automatic extension to 70 or 5 years, Commission can extend further | Individual determination: worker requests, WSIB decides if “likely to be working” | Automatic termination at 65 | Bill 86 (more protective) |
| Wage replacement | 90% of pre-injury net earnings | 90% of pre-injury net earnings | 85% of pre-injury net earnings | TIE (identical) |
| Mental stress exclusion | Narrows exclusion: work must be “significant factor” (not dominant cause) | NO CHANGE | Broad exclusion for employment decisions | Bill 86 only |
| Pain & suffering | Ongoing monthly compensation until pain ceases | NO CHANGE | One-time NEL awards only | Bill 86 only |
| Employment protection | Prohibits termination for claim filing (Criminal Code enforcement) | NO CHANGE | No statutory protection | Bill 86 only |
| Medical privacy (IME) | Worker chooses doctor, receives opinion first, Commission pays | NO CHANGE | Employer/WSIB chooses, controls process | Bill 86 only |
| 72-month lock-in | MAINTAINED (no changes) | ELIMINATED (ongoing reviews permitted) | Protected after 6 years | Bill 86 protects workers |
| LOE benefit offsets | No changes proposed | NEW: 100% cap (LOE + other payments cannot exceed pre-injury earnings) | Limited offsets (CPP-D only) | Current law/Bill 86 better for workers |
| Construction open periods | No labour relations changes | NEW: Shortened from 2 months to 1 month | 2 months | Current law better for workers |
✅ Addresses:
❌ Does NOT address:
TOTAL: 7 major reforms addressing 6 documented system gaps from 11,430-case analysis
✅ Addresses:
❌ Does NOT address:
⚠️ ADDS NEW CONTROVERSIAL PROVISIONS:
TOTAL: 3 improvements + 3 concerning new restrictions = mixed impact
Sponsors: 3 opposition MPPs (minority voice in Legislature)
Legislative reality:
Why it failed:
Legacy: Bill 86’s evidence-based analysis (11,430 WSIAT decisions) provided empirical foundation for reform discussions, influencing Bill 105’s age/wage provisions
Sponsor: Minister of Red Tape Reduction (government bill with Cabinet backing)
Legislative advantages:
Why narrower scope?
Likelihood of passage: HIGH (government majority, targeted scope, cost-neutral positioning)
| Stakeholder | Bill 86 Position | Bill 105 Position |
|---|---|---|
| Injured Workers Online | Supported (comprehensive reforms) | Mixed - Support age/wage, strongly oppose 72-month elimination |
| UFCW 175 | Supported | Oppose - Demand public hearings, concerned about “permanent probation” for disabled workers |
| Thunder Bay Injured Workers (ONIWG) | Supported (especially age 65 reform) | Support age 65 reform, no public statement on 72-month issue yet |
| Ontario Chamber of Commerce | Opposed - “40-60% premium increases unaffordable” | Mixed - Support individual age determinations, concerned about 90% wage cost |
| Goldblatt Partners (Labour Law) | Supported | Critical - 72-month elimination is “step backwards” |
| Norton Rose Fulbright | No position | Neutral analysis - flagged litigation risks in age determination standard |
Key observation: Worker advocates SPLIT on Bill 105 (support some provisions, oppose others), whereas Bill 86 had unified worker advocate support.
| Provision | Bill 86 Cost | Bill 105 Cost | Net Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| 90% wage replacement | +5-8% premiums | +5-8% premiums | TIE |
| Age 65 extension | +10-15% premiums (automatic extension broader than individual determination) | +3-5% premiums (individual determination limits extensions) | Bill 105 cheaper for employers |
| Pain & suffering | +20-30% premiums (ongoing payments = major cost) | $0 (no change) | Bill 105 cheaper for employers |
| Employment protection | +2-5% premiums (enforcement costs) | $0 (no change) | Bill 105 cheaper for employers |
| 72-month lock-in elimination | $0 (maintained lock-in) | -8-12% premiums SAVINGS (benefit reductions after reviews) | Bill 105 cheaper for employers |
| LOE offsets (100% cap) | $0 (no change) | -3-5% premiums SAVINGS (reduced benefit overlap) | Bill 105 cheaper for employers |
| TOTAL ESTIMATED IMPACT | +40-60% premiums (Ontario Chamber estimate) | -3% to +5% premiums (net neutral to slight increase) | Bill 105 dramatically cheaper |
Interpretation: Bill 105 designed to be cost-neutral or slight cost increase for employers (90% wage offset by 72-month elimination + LOE caps), whereas Bill 86 would significantly increase costs.
| Issue | Bill 86 Benefit | Bill 105 Benefit | Net Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age 65 security | ✅ Automatic extension (no burden on worker) | ⚠️ Must request + prove “likely to be working” (bureaucracy + appeal risk) | Bill 86 better |
| Wage replacement | ✅ +$2,500/year average | ✅ +$2,500/year average | TIE |
| Mental stress claims | ✅ 723 cases/year potentially covered | ❌ No change (exclusion remains) | Bill 86 only |
| Pain compensation | ✅ Lifetime monthly payments (~$500k lifetime for 25-year-old) | ❌ No change (NEL system remains) | Bill 86 only |
| Employment security | ✅ Criminal Code protection (strong deterrent) | ❌ No change (no protection) | Bill 86 only |
| Medical privacy | ✅ Worker controls IME process | ❌ No change | Bill 86 only |
| 72-month stability | ✅ Maintained (permanent disability = permanent benefits after 6 years) | ❌ ELIMINATED (“lifetime of red tape”) | Bill 86 better |
| LOE benefit caps | ✅ No caps (current system maintained) | ❌ 100% cap (reduces income if receiving other benefits) | Bill 86 better |
Interpretation: Bill 86 provides comprehensive worker protections, Bill 105 provides 2 improvements (age, wage) but 2 major losses (72-month, LOE caps).
| Gap | Documented Prevalence | Bill 86 Addresses? | Bill 105 Addresses? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Post-claim terminations | 71 cases (0.62%, conservative) | ✅ YES (Section 16 employment protection) | ❌ NO |
| Mental stress denials | 723 cases (6.33%) | ✅ YES (Section 1(3) narrows exclusion) | ❌ NO |
| Pain & suffering gap | ZERO ongoing compensation | ✅ YES (Section 13 ongoing payments) | ❌ NO |
| Medical privacy violations | 83 cases | ✅ YES (Section 29 worker-controlled IME) | ❌ NO |
| Age 65 cutoff | Hundreds affected (Rights Don’t Retire campaign) | ✅ YES (automatic extension to 70) | ⚠️ PARTIAL (individual determination) |
| Evidence disclosure gaps | Pattern documented (J.T. v WCAT precedent) | ✅ YES (Section 20 mandatory disclosure) | ❌ NO |
Coverage score:
December 8, 2025: Bill 86 introduced by 3 opposition MPPs
December 2025 - April 2026: Bill 86 in Second Reading debates
April 2026: Bill 86 does not proceed past Second Reading
April 20, 2026: Bill 105 introduced shortly after Bill 86 failure (Minister of Red Tape Reduction)
April 21-22, 2026: Second Reading debates begin
May 2026 (current): Bill 105 at Second Reading stage, likely to advance to committee
Pattern: Government cherry-picked politically feasible reforms from Bill 86, packaged with cost-saving measures (72-month elimination, LOE caps) to achieve fiscal neutrality.
Injury: Herniated discs, chronic pain, cannot return to physical labor
Pre-injury earnings: $55,000/year
| Issue | Current Law | Bill 86 | Bill 105 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wage replacement | 85% = $46,750/year | 90% = $49,500/year (+$2,750) | 90% = $49,500/year (+$2,750) |
| Age 65 cutoff (currently age 28) | Benefits terminate at 65 (37 years from now) | Benefits continue to 70 (42 years from now) = +5 years = +$247,500 | Individual determination: must request at 63, prove “likely to be working” |
| Pain compensation | NEL 15% = ~$42,000 one-time | Ongoing monthly pain payments for life (~$300,000 lifetime) | NEL 15% = ~$42,000 one-time (no change) |
| 72-month lock-in | Protected after 6 years (2032) | Protected after 6 years (2032) | ❌ NO PROTECTION - Ongoing reviews every X years, constant benefit reduction risk |
| Employment if terminated | No protection (must sue for wrongful dismissal) | Criminal Code protection (strong deterrent) | No protection (must sue for wrongful dismissal) |
Total lifetime benefit difference:
Winner: Bill 86 (+$1.1 million lifetime vs. current, +$1 million vs. Bill 105)
Injury: Severe PTSD, anxiety, depression after 2 years of documented workplace harassment
Pre-injury earnings: $70,000/year
Plan: Intended to work until age 68
| Issue | Current Law | Bill 86 | Bill 105 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mental stress claim | ❌ DENIED under labour relations exclusion (harassment = “employment decision”) | ✅ APPROVED - Narrowed exclusion, work is “significant factor” | ❌ DENIED - Exclusion unchanged |
| Wage replacement IF approved | 85% = $59,500/year | 90% = $63,000/year | 90% = $63,000/year |
| Age 65 cutoff | Turns 65 next year → benefits for 2 years max = $119,000 total | Benefits to 70 (6 years) = $378,000 total | Must request determination, prove “likely to work to 68” → IF approved, 4 years = $252,000 |
| Pain & suffering (PTSD) | NEL 8% = ~$22,400 one-time | Ongoing mental health impact compensation (~$100,000 over 6 years) | NEL 8% = ~$22,400 one-time |
Total benefit:
Winner: Bill 86 (only bill that would approve claim)
Injury: Severe carpal tunnel + shoulder impingement, cannot perform patient care
Pre-injury earnings: $62,000/year
Already at 72-month mark (6 years receiving benefits)
| Issue | Current Law | Bill 86 | Bill 105 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wage replacement | 85% = $52,700/year | 90% = $55,800/year (+$3,100) | 90% = $55,800/year (+$3,100) |
| 72-month lock-in protection | ✅ PROTECTED - Benefits cannot be reduced/terminated | ✅ PROTECTED - Maintained | ❌ NOT PROTECTED - If injury occurred after Bill 105 force date, subject to ongoing reviews |
| Review frequency | None (locked in) | None (locked in) | Unknown (regulations pending) - Could be annual, biennial, every 5 years |
| Risk of reduction | 0% (protected) | 0% (protected) | High - WSIB can reduce/terminate based on “current earning capacity” reassessments |
| Appeal burden | None (no reviews) | None (no reviews) | Must appeal EVERY review decision (potential WSIAT case every X years) |
Lifetime impact:
Winner: Bill 86 (highest lifetime benefit + stability vs. Bill 105’s uncertainty)
Political context:
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
Political context:
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
Current status: Second Reading debates (as of May 2026)
Next steps:
When committee referral announced:
Key messages for submission:
✅ Support:
❌ Oppose:
📋 Propose amendments:
Template email:
Subject: Bill 105 (POWER Act) - Support Age/Wage Reforms, Oppose 72-Month Elimination
Dear [MPP Name],
I am writing regarding Bill 105, Schedule 9 (WSIB amendments).
I SUPPORT: ✅ Age 65 individual determination (fairer than automatic cutoff) ✅ 90% wage replacement (restores pre-1997 rate, helps injured workers support families) ✅ Residential care coverage expansion (these workers deserve protection)
I OPPOSE: ❌ Section 44.1 - Elimination of 72-month review lock-in
- After 6 years receiving benefits, permanently disabled workers have proven they cannot return to pre-injury earnings
- Ongoing reviews create “lifetime of red tape” - constant medical exams, reassessments, stress
- WSIAT already has 8,000-case backlog - ongoing reviews will add 2,000-3,000 appeals/year
- Administrative costs may exceed any savings from benefit reductions
❌ LOE benefit offsets (100% cap) - Reduces worker income if receiving ODSP or other supports
❌ Mental stress exclusion unchanged - Bill 86 documented 723 cases (6.33%) denied under labour relations exclusion; Bill 105 ignores this gap
I URGE YOU TO:
- Propose amendment to REMOVE Section 44.1 from Bill 105 (maintain 72-month lock-in)
- Support public hearings to hear from injured workers affected by these changes
- Request government publish actuarial analysis BEFORE Third Reading vote
Will you support these amendments? What is your position on 72-month elimination?
Sincerely, [Your Name] [Address with Postal Code - confirms you are constituent] [Phone]
Organizations actively campaigning on Bill 105:
Injured Workers Online
UFCW 175
Thunder Bay Injured Workers & ONIWG
Office of the Worker Adviser
Philosophy: Evidence-based systemic reform addressing all documented gaps
Approach:
Legacy:
For workers: Would have provided comprehensive protections (age extension, wage increase, mental stress reform, pain compensation, employment security, medical privacy)
Philosophy: Political pragmatism - adopt feasible reforms, offset costs with restrictions
Approach:
For workers: Mixed impact
By the numbers:
| Metric | Bill 86 | Bill 105 |
|---|---|---|
| System gaps addressed | 6/6 (100%) | 1.5/6 (25%) |
| New worker protections | 7 | 2 |
| Worker protections eliminated | 0 | 2 (72-month lock-in, LOE caps) |
| Average lifetime benefit increase | +$500,000 - $1,000,000 | +$50,000 (offset by review reductions) |
| Worker advocate support | United support | Split (support some, oppose others) |
| Employer cost | +40-60% premiums | +0-5% premiums |
| Likelihood of passage | Failed | High (proceeding) |
Answer: Bill 86 clearly better for workers, but Bill 105 better than current law.
Strategic question for advocates: Accept Bill 105’s incremental gains (age, wage) while opposing 72-month elimination? Or oppose entire bill to pressure government for more comprehensive reform?
Bill 105 adopts 2 of Bill 86’s 7 reforms (age extension, 90% wage) while ignoring mental stress, pain compensation, employment protection, medical privacy
72-month lock-in elimination is MAJOR CONTROVERSY - Bill 86 maintained it, Bill 105 eliminates it (worker advocates call it “lifetime of red tape”)
Mental stress gap remains unaddressed - Bill 105 ignores 723 documented cases (6.33% of dataset), leaving labour relations exclusion unchanged
Cost-neutral design - Bill 105 offsets 90% wage cost with 72-month elimination + LOE benefit caps (transfers costs to workers via insecurity/reduced income)
Different political pathways - Bill 86 (opposition private member) failed despite evidence base; Bill 105 (government omnibus) likely to pass despite worker concerns
Public engagement opportunity - Bill 105 still active (Second Reading), committee referral coming, workers and advocates can submit briefs and propose amendments
Incremental vs. comprehensive reform debate - Bill 105 represents political pragmatism (partial reform), Bill 86 represented ideal comprehensive approach (failed)
Blog posts:
Knowledge base:
Legal support:
Advocacy:
Published: May 11, 2026
Bill 86 status: Did not proceed (April 2026)
Bill 105 status: Second Reading (proceeding)
Analysis based on: Bill 86 text, Bill 105 text, 11,430 WSIAT decisions (2020-2026), stakeholder submissions
Contact: empowrapp08162025@gmail.com
]]>Curated 1 items from disability, accessibility, and social policy sources.
Visit for the latest disability rights news, advocacy updates, and community stories from across Canada. 📍 Read More
Category: Legal Intelligence Database of successful legal arguments extracted from Canadian disability cases - organized by issue type and outcome —
Winning Arguments Library: Successful Legal Strategies from Case Law is designed to database of successful legal arguments extracted from canadian disability cases - organized by issue type and outcome. This feature is part of 3mpwrApp’s commitment to providing comprehensive tools for people with disabilities, injured workers, and their supporters across Canada. —
Example scenario (illustrative only): An injured worker is preparing an appeal while managing medical appointments and family responsibilities. They use Winning Arguments Library: Successful Legal Strategies from Case Law to reduce one major barrier so their limited energy can go toward decisions that affect outcomes. Practical ways this feature can be used:
Flywheel Stage(s): Varies by use case across Data Collection, Analysis / Pattern Recognition, Knowledge Base, Templates / Guides, Visualizations, and Real-World Impact. Input -> Process -> Output -> Downstream effect:
Ready to try Winning Arguments Library: Successful Legal Strategies from Case Law? Here’s how to get started:
For complete information about Winning Arguments Library: Successful Legal Strategies from Case Law and all other features:
3mpwrApp is a community-driven platform built for injured workers and persons with disabilities across Canada. We provide practical tools, community support, and advocacy resources - all designed with accessibility, privacy, and cultural respect at the core. All features are:
Curated 13 items from disability, accessibility, and social policy sources.
Visit for the latest disability rights news, advocacy updates, and community stories from across Canada. 📍 Read More
A sharp new book rethinks Canada’s immigration system. A Tyee interview with Alberta contributor and labour activist Marco Luciano. Source Score: 15.00
Rabble.ca — progressive Canadian news Source Score: 13.10
Rabble.ca — progressive Canadian news Source Score: 10.50
Government of Manitoba press release Source Score: 9.90
Now things have changed. Notes from ‘The Devil Wears Prada 2’ and the 2026 Met Gala. Source Score: 6.00
Government of Manitoba press release Source Score: 7.50
Rabble.ca — progressive Canadian news Source Score: 5.50
The pricey pay-for-access event featured religious and right-wing stars behind closed doors. Source Score: 3.60
An MLA committee recommended easing rules on gifts and reporting. Source Score: 3.60
Government of Manitoba press release Source Score: 3.90
Government of Manitoba press release Source Score: 4.50
Government of Manitoba press release Source Score: 4.50
]]>Disability does not exist in a social vacuum. A white, urban, high-income person with a disability and an Indigenous person with a disability in a remote community are both disabled - and they face entirely different systems, with entirely different levels of access to support. 3mpwrApp was designed with the second person at least as much as the first. Indigenous language support, offline-first architecture, province-specific content, plain-language legal guides - each is a direct response to a specific barrier faced by a specific community within the broader disability community. When we say intersectional design, we mean: we do not optimize for the easiest user. We start with the person carrying the most - medically, legally, financially, culturally - and build outward from there. The result serves everyone better than the alternative would. —
3mpwrApp is built on these principles - and built for and with the people who need them most.
Curated 4 items from disability, accessibility, and social policy sources.
Visit for the latest disability rights news, advocacy updates, and community stories from across Canada. 📍 Read More
Government of Manitoba press release Source Score: 15.40
Researchers say MAGA influencers and Russian state media are trying to sway opinions. Source Score: 9.50
Government of Manitoba press release Source Score: 7.50
]]>| May 8, 2026 | by 3mpwrApp Research |
5,034 ONCA decisions analyzed from 2020-2026 show the court’s primary role as a precedent and procedural engine, not a tribunal outcomes tracker. Zero direct workplace injury appeals (WSIAT → Divisional Court → ONCA) found in the entire dataset confirms ONCA should be used for appellate standards, not success rates.
ONCA = Ontario Court of Appeal
The Ontario Court of Appeal is not a tribunal success-rate dataset. It’s a precedent and procedure dataset.
✅ Standards of review - Legal tests for reviewing tribunal decisions
✅ Extensions of time - Timeline and procedural requirements
✅ Leave motions - Whether appeals can proceed
✅ Costs disputes - Who pays legal costs
✅ Remittals and new hearing orders - When cases go back to lower courts/tribunals
❌ Tribunal success rates (use WSIAT, HRTO, ONSBT data instead)
❌ First-level appeal outcomes (that’s tribunal layer)
❌ Direct comparison to tribunal win/loss statistics
| Outcome Type | Cases | % of Total | What It Means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unknown/Procedural | 2,926 | 58.1% | Outcome not classified or procedural only |
| Appeal Dismissed | 1,023 | 20.3% | Lower court/tribunal decision upheld |
| Costs Decision | 590 | 11.7% | Decisions about who pays legal fees |
| Appeal Allowed | 156 | 3.1% | Lower court/tribunal decision overturned |
| Motion/Interlocutory | 124 | 2.5% | Pre-hearing procedural decisions |
| New Trial/Hearing Ordered | 85 | 1.7% | Case sent back for new hearing |
| Remitted to Lower Court | 49 | 1.0% | Sent back to lower court/tribunal |
| Leave to Appeal Granted | 32 | 0.6% | Permission to appeal granted |
| Leave to Appeal Refused | 26 | 0.5% | Permission to appeal denied |
| Settled/Discontinued | 23 | 0.5% | Case settled or withdrawn |
Total: 5,034 decisions
| Year | Decisions | Direct Worker Appeals | Top Outcome Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | 840 | 0 | Unknown (61.4%) |
| 2021 | 924 | 0 | Unknown (61.4%) |
| 2022 | 890 | 0 | Unknown (59.7%) |
| 2023 | 849 | 0 | Unknown (55.1%) |
| 2024 | 314 | 0 | Unknown (47.8%) |
| 2025 | 896 | 0 | Unknown (69.1%) |
| 2026 | 321 | 0 | Appeal Dismissed (50.2%) |
Note: One 2020 case (Sokoloff v. Tru-Path, 2020 ONCA 730) appeared in keyword searches but was a defamation case involving an occupational therapy company, not a WSIAT appeal.
Pattern: High-volume appellate docket with a dip in 2024 and rebound in 2025. The 2026 data shows a shift toward more classified outcomes (50.2% dismissals vs. 23.4% unknown).
Among classified appeal outcomes (excluding Unknown, Costs, Motions, Leave decisions):
| Year | Appeals Allowed | Appeals Dismissed | Success Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | 23 | 142 | 13.9% |
| 2021 | 22 | 155 | 12.4% |
| 2022 | 20 | 182 | 9.9% |
| 2023 | 29 | 201 | 12.6% |
| 2024 | 15 | 89 | 14.4% |
| 2025 | 13 | 93 | 12.3% |
| 2026 | 34 | 161 | 17.4% |
| Total | 156 | 1,023 | 13.2% |
| Year | Cases | % of Year |
|---|---|---|
| 2020 | 142 | 16.9% |
| 2021 | 155 | 16.8% |
| 2022 | 182 | 20.4% |
| 2023 | 201 | 23.7% |
| 2024 | 89 | 28.3% |
| 2025 | 93 | 10.4% |
| 2026 | 161 | 50.2% |
Trend: Dismissal rate increasing over time, with 2026 showing sharp rise (likely due to more complete classification in recent data).
| Year | Cases | % of Year |
|---|---|---|
| 2020 | 104 | 12.4% |
| 2021 | 107 | 11.6% |
| 2022 | 100 | 11.2% |
| 2023 | 96 | 11.3% |
| 2024 | 34 | 10.8% |
| 2025 | 122 | 13.6% |
| 2026 | 27 | 8.4% |
Pattern: Costs decisions consistently 10-14% of annual volume, showing steady volume of fee disputes.
While zero direct workplace injury appeals (WSIAT → Divisional Court → ONCA) exist in the dataset, ONCA does have disability and discrimination cases relevant to injured workers, and persons with disabilities through alternative legal pathways:
Issue: Duty to accommodate student with disabilities in university admissions
Facts: Applicant denied admission based on grades achieved without accommodations for disabilities
Outcome: Remitted to HRTO (Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario)
Why it matters: Establishes that institutions must accommodate disabilities in admissions/hiring processes, not just rely on unaccommodated performance
CanLII: https://canlii.ca/t/jc99k
Issue: Gender and racial discrimination in workplace (HRTO concurrent jurisdiction with labour arbitrator)
Facts: Employment disputes under collective agreements with discrimination claims
Outcome: Confirmed HRTO’s concurrent authority for workplace discrimination
Why it matters: Workers can pursue Human Rights Tribunal remedies even when collective agreements exist
CanLII: https://canlii.ca/t/jbvmg
Issue: Long-term disability (LTD) benefits termination—bad faith and negligence
Facts: Plaintiff alleged insurer and employees acted in bad faith terminating LTD benefits
Outcome: Costs decision (legal fees dispute)
Why it matters: Sets precedent for personal liability of insurer employees in LTD benefit terminations
CanLII: https://canlii.ca/t/j81vp
Issue: Settlement approval for person with catastrophic injuries—legal fees
Facts: $1.2 million settlement, legal fees reduced from 15% to 5% ($60,000)
Outcome: Costs decision upheld fee reduction
Why it matters: Court protects persons under disability from excessive legal fees (Rule 7.08)
CanLII: https://canlii.ca/t/jb003
Issue: Long-term disability benefits limitation periods
Facts: Insurer ceased “own occupation” benefits (2013), denied “any occupation” benefits (2014), insured delayed providing medical evidence for 3 years
Outcome: Summary judgment denied—insufficient record required trial
Why it matters: Establishes when limitation period begins for LTD claims (discoverability principles under Limitations Act)
CanLII: https://canlii.ca/t/j4g0n
Issue: Aboriginal offenders and conditional sentencing (Charter s.15 equality rights)
Facts: Challenged Criminal Code provisions precluding conditional sentences for certain offences
Outcome: Provisions found to violate Charter s.15 (systemic discrimination)
Why it matters: Addresses overincarceration and systemic disadvantage of vulnerable populations
CanLII: https://canlii.ca/t/j8tgz
| Pathway | Starting Point | Example Issues |
|---|---|---|
| Human Rights Tribunal | HRTO → Divisional Court → ONCA | Duty to accommodate, disability discrimination, accessibility violations |
| Disability Insurance | Civil court action → Court of Appeal → ONCA | Long-term disability benefit terminations, bad faith claims, limitation periods |
| Capacity to Litigate | Civil procedure (Rules 7.04, 7.08, 37.16) | Persons under disability, settlement approvals, litigation guardianship |
| Charter Challenges | Trial court → Court of Appeal → ONCA | Section 15 equality rights, section 7 fundamental justice |
| CPP Disability | Social Security Tribunal → Federal Court → ONCA (rare) | Canada Pension Plan disability benefits |
✅ Use ONCA when you need:
❌ Don’t use ONCA for:
| Source | Cases | Success Rate Context |
|---|---|---|
| ONCA | 5,034 | 13.2% appeal success (upper appellate layer) |
| WSIAT | 98,992 | 73.5% grant rate in classified decisions (tribunal layer) |
| HRTO | 62,093 | 12.7% success rate (tribunal layer) |
| ONSBT | 11,752 | 47.2% grant rate (tribunal layer) |
Key difference: ONCA is the layer ABOVE tribunals. If you lose at WSIAT, you might appeal to Divisional Court, then to ONCA. The 13.2% success rate reflects how difficult it is to overturn a lower court or tribunal decision at the appellate level.
Most workplace injury/illness/disability cases start at WSIAT, HRTO, or ONSBT:
ONCA precedents become useful when:
Search by:
Scenario: You missed the deadline to appeal your WSIAT decision.
ONCA relevance:
Scenario: Your WSIAT decision is being reviewed by Divisional Court.
ONCA relevance:
Scenario: You won your appeal but opponent won’t pay costs.
ONCA relevance:
Dataset: 5,034 Ontario Court of Appeal decisions (2020-2026)
Source: CanLII ONCA Database
Scrape Date: May 8, 2026
Worker Injury Cases: 1 (0.02% of dataset)
Outcome Classification:
Limitations:
5,034 ONCA decisions analyzed. Zero direct workplace injury appeals found. Use ONCA for precedents, not success rates.
Research Team: 3mpwrApp Data Investigation Team
Published: May 8, 2026
Dataset: 5,034 ONCA decisions (2020-2026)
License: CC BY 4.0 (Attribution required for reuse)
Last Updated: May 08, 2026