Executive Summary

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).

Key WSIB Amendments in Bill 105

📊 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

Why This Matters

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 Overview: The POWER Act Structure

Nine Schedules, Multiple Statutes

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:

  • April 20, 2026: First Reading
  • April 21-22, 2026: Second Reading debates
  • Current status: Second Reading stage (proceeding)

Schedule 9: WSIA Amendments Deep Dive

Amendment #1: Age 65 Benefit Extension

Current Law Problem

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:

  • Worker’s capacity to continue employment
  • Industry retirement norms (construction, trades often work past 65)
  • Worker’s pre-injury retirement plans
  • Financial circumstances requiring continued work

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.

Bill 105’s Reform (New Subsections 43(1.1)-(1.2))

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):

  • “All of the circumstances” (statute does not specify criteria)
  • Likely to be interpreted as: work history, industry norms, financial need, health, pre-injury statements

Comparison: Bill 105 vs. Current Law

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.

Amendment #2: Wage Replacement Rate Increase

Current Law

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).

Bill 105’s Reform (New Subsection 43(2.0.2))

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%).

Impact Analysis

Individual worker benefit:

  • Worker with $50,000 pre-injury net earnings:
    • Current: 85% = $42,500/year LOE benefits
    • Bill 105: 90% = $45,000/year LOE benefits
    • Increase: $2,500/year (+5.9%)

System-wide cost:

  • WSIB adjudicates ~50,000 new LOE claims annually (estimate)
  • Average LOE duration: ~3 years
  • Estimated additional cost: $375 million over 3 years (rough estimate, WSIB has not published actuarial impact)

Stakeholder positions:

  • Worker advocates: Welcome increase, note 90% restores pre-1997 rate
  • Employer groups: Concerned about premium increases (Ontario Chamber of Commerce estimates 5-8% premium impact)

Amendment #3: Elimination of 72-Month Review Lock-In (MAJOR CHANGE)

Current Law: The 72-Month Protection

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.

Bill 105’s Reform: New Section 44.1

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:

  • Continue current benefits
  • Increase benefits
  • Reduce benefits
  • Terminate benefits

Application: New subsection 44.1 applies to:

  1. All new claims (injuries on/after Bill 105 force date)
  2. Existing claims where worker has NOT yet reached 72-month mark

Protection: Workers already past 72 months remain locked in (grandfathered).

Stakeholder Concerns: “Lifetime of Red Tape”

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:

  1. Administrative burden: WSIB will conduct thousands of additional reviews annually
  2. Appeals system overload: More reviews = more disputes = WSIAT backlog worsens
  3. Worker stress: Permanently disabled workers living with constant uncertainty
  4. Cost paradox: Administrative costs may exceed savings from benefit reductions

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).

Amendment #4: New LOE Benefit Offsets

Current Law

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.

Bill 105’s Reform (New Subsections 44.1(5)-(7))

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:

  1. Government benefits (other than CPP-D, which remains offset)
  2. Employer-provided payments (except CPP-D employer portion)
  3. Other payments specified in regulations (to be determined)

Subsection 44.1(7): Regulations will define specific payment types subject to offset.

Potential Impact Scenarios

Scenario 1: Worker receiving ODSP top-up

  • Pre-injury earnings: $40,000/year
  • WSIB LOE (90%): $36,000/year
  • ODSP eligibility: $18,000/year
  • Current system: Worker receives both ($54,000 total - exceeds pre-injury)
  • Bill 105: LOE reduced to $22,000 to cap total at $40,000 (100% cap)

Scenario 2: Employer-provided disability top-up

  • Some employers provide temporary disability top-ups during WSIB claims
  • Bill 105: These payments would trigger LOE offset (total capped at 100%)

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).

Amendment #5: Construction Open Period Changes (Schedule 3)

Context: Labour Relations Act, Not WSIA

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:

  1. File displacement applications (switching unions)
  2. File termination applications (leaving unionized status)

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.

Analysis: Hicks Morley Law Firm

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.

Amendment #6: Mandatory Coverage Expansion

Current Law Gap

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.

Bill 105’s Reform

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:

  • Extends WSIB coverage to ~5,000-10,000 additional workers (estimate)
  • Employers in this sector must register with WSIB and pay premiums
  • Workers gain workplace injury coverage previously unavailable

Stakeholder response: Broadly supported by worker advocates and care sector unions; residential care employers express concern about premium costs.

Policy Context: Bill 105 vs. Bill 86

Overlapping Reforms

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)

What Bill 105 Does NOT Address

Bill 86 identified six major system gaps (based on 11,430 WSIAT decisions analysis):

  1. ✅ Age 65 cutoff - Bill 105 addresses (via individual determination process)
  2. ✅ Wage replacement - Bill 105 addresses (90% rate)
  3. ❌ Mental stress denials (723 cases/6.33%) - Bill 105 does NOT reform labour relations exclusion
  4. ❌ Pain & suffering gap (zero ongoing compensation) - Bill 105 does NOT create pain compensation
  5. ❌ Employment terminations (71 cases/0.62%) - Bill 105 does NOT add employment protections
  6. ❌ Medical privacy violations (83 cases) - Bill 105 does NOT reform IME process

Interpretation: Bill 105 targets narrow, less controversial reforms (age extension, wage rate) while avoiding systemic changes that increase employer costs significantly.

Stakeholder Analysis: Support & Opposition

Worker Advocacy Organizations

Injured Workers Online

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).

UFCW 175 (United Food & Commercial Workers)

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.”

Employer Organizations

Ontario Chamber of Commerce

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)

Norton Rose Fulbright (Employment Law Analysis)

Assessment: Bill 105 represents “incremental reform approach”

Key observations:

  • Individual age determination creates new adjudication complexity (expect appeals on “likely to be working” standard)
  • 90% wage rate aligns Ontario with other Canadian jurisdictions (BC, Alberta at 90%)
  • 72-month lock-in elimination will generate significant litigation about “appropriateness” of review frequency

Goldblatt Partners (Labour Law Analysis)

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.”

Implementation Questions & Unknowns

Regulatory Details Pending

Bill 105 delegates significant implementation details to regulations:

  1. Age 65 determination criteria: Statute says “all circumstances” - regulations must specify factors (work history? Financial need? Industry norms?)

  2. 72-month review frequency: Statute allows “prescribed maximum frequency” or Board discretion - how often can WSIB review? Annual? Every 2 years? Every 5 years?

  3. LOE offset “prescribed payments”: Which government/employer payments trigger offset? ODSP? Private LTD? Employer sick leave top-ups?

  4. Construction open period model: Two alternatives proposed - which will government select after consultation?

Fiscal Impact Unknown

WSIB has not published:

  • Actuarial analysis of 90% wage replacement cost
  • Estimated savings from 72-month lock-in elimination
  • Administrative costs of new age 65 determination process
  • Administrative costs of ongoing reviews under Section 44.1
  • Net premium impact on employers

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)

Appeal System Capacity

Current WSIAT backlog: ~8,000 pending appeals (pre-Bill 105)

Predicted additional appeals from Bill 105:

  • Age 65 determinations (“likely to be working” disputes)
  • 72-month review decisions (benefit reductions/terminations)
  • LOE offset disputes (which payments count? 100% calculation methodology?)

Estimated impact: 2,000-3,000 additional appeals annually (Injured Workers Online projection)

Comparison: Private Member’s Bill vs. Government Bill

Legislative Pathways

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).

What Happens Next: Legislative Process

Current Status (May 2026)

Stage: Second Reading debates

Procedure:

  1. ✅ First Reading - April 20, 2026 (Bill introduced, text published)
  2. 🔄 Second Reading - April 21-22, 2026 debates; vote pending
  3. ⏳ Committee Stage - If Second Reading passes, Bill referred to committee for clause-by-clause review
  4. ⏳ Third Reading - Final debate and vote
  5. ⏳ Royal Assent - Lieutenant Governor approval
  6. ⏳ Proclamation - Government sets “force date” when amendments take effect

Opportunities for Input

Public participation options:

  1. Committee submissions: If Bill 105 referred to Standing Committee, public can submit written briefs and request to present oral testimony

  2. MPP engagement: Contact your MPP to express support/concerns:
    • Age 65 individual determination (support?)
    • 90% wage replacement (support?)
    • 72-month lock-in elimination (oppose?)
  3. Stakeholder coalitions: Join advocacy organizations:
    • Injured Workers Online
    • UFCW 175 campaign against Bill 105
    • Thunder Bay Injured Workers (Rights Don’t Retire)

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]

Data Transparency & Methodology

Information Sources

Legislative text: Bill 105 full text - Ontario Legislative Assembly

Stakeholder analysis:

  • Injured Workers Online: Public statements April 2026
  • UFCW 175: Advocacy campaign materials
  • Hicks Morley: Legal analysis (construction industry focus)
  • Norton Rose Fulbright: Employment law bulletin
  • Goldblatt Partners: Labour law analysis
  • HR Par: HR practitioner summary

Limitations:

  • No official WSIB actuarial impact published (as of May 2026)
  • Regulations not yet drafted (implementation details unknown)
  • No public consultation transcript available (government consultation promises but no published record)

Contact & Corrections

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

Summary: Six Key Takeaways

  1. Bill 105 is narrower than Bill 86: Targets 6 specific amendments vs. comprehensive 50-section rewrite

  2. Age 65 reform uses individual determination: Workers must request assessment (burden on worker), WSIB decides based on “circumstances”

  3. 90% wage replacement welcomed: Restores pre-1997 rate, adds ~$2,500/year for average worker, increases employer premiums

  4. 72-month lock-in elimination is controversial: Worker advocates strongly oppose, predict “lifetime of red tape” and appeals flood

  5. Bill 105 does NOT address mental stress, pain compensation, or employment protections: These Bill 86 priorities excluded

  6. Government bill likely to pass: Unlike private member Bill 86, Bill 105 has government backing and will likely become law