Executive Summary

Two workers’ compensation reform bills have been introduced in Ontario’s 44th Parliament within five months:

Bill 86 (Meredith Act)

  • Introduced: December 8, 2025 by 3 opposition MPPs
  • Status: Did not proceed past Second Reading (April 2026)
  • Scope: Comprehensive WSIA rewrite (50+ sections)
  • Approach: Evidence-based systemic reform addressing 6 documented gaps

Bill 105 (POWER Act, Schedule 9)

  • Introduced: April 20, 2026 by Minister
  • Status: Currently at Second Reading (proceeding)
  • Scope: Targeted amendments (6 specific WSIA changes in 9-schedule omnibus)
  • Approach: Narrow reforms addressing 2 of 6 documented gaps

Key Question

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.

Side-by-Side Comparison: Core Provisions

Reform Area #1: Age 65 Benefit Cutoff

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:

  • Bill 86 approach: Automatic extension removes burden from worker, provides certainty
  • Bill 105 approach: Individual determination creates new adjudication complexity, places burden on worker to request and prove “likely to be working”
  • Risk: Workers unaware of 63-65 request window will miss deadline and lose extension opportunity

Who wins?

  • ✅ Bill 86: More worker-protective (automatic, objective)
  • ⚠️ Bill 105: Creates bureaucracy and appeal pathway, but better than nothing

Reform Area #2: Wage Replacement Rate

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:

  • IDENTICAL PROVISION - Both bills restore 90% rate
  • Consensus reform: Both government and opposition recognize 85% rate inadequate
  • Cost impact: Increases employer premiums ~5-8% (Ontario Chamber of Commerce estimate)
  • Worker benefit: Average worker gains $2,500/year (+5.9% increase)

Who wins?

  • ✅ TIE: Both bills propose identical reform

Reform Area #3: Mental Stress “Labour Relations Exclusion”

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:

  • Bill 86: Comprehensive reform to address documented 723-case pattern
  • Bill 105: SILENT - Does not touch mental stress exclusion
  • Gap remains: If Bill 105 passes without amendment, labour relations exclusion continues denying legitimate mental stress claims

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?

  • ✅ Bill 86: Addresses critical gap
  • ❌ Bill 105: Ignores issue entirely

Reform Area #4: Pain & Suffering Compensation

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:

  • Bill 86: Transformative reform creating lifetime security for permanently injured workers
  • Bill 105: No changes - NEL system remains unchanged
  • Actuarial impact: Bill 86’s ongoing pain compensation would significantly increase system costs (major reason for employer opposition)

Who wins?

  • ✅ Bill 86: Creates comprehensive pain compensation
  • ❌ Bill 105: No reform

Reform Area #5: Employment Protection (Post-Claim Terminations)

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:

  1. Worker injured on job → Files WSIB claim
  2. Employer terminates worker 2-4 weeks later (pretext: “performance issues”)
  3. Worker loses: job + income + benefits + access to workplace accommodation
  4. Worker’s only remedy: Sue for wrongful dismissal (takes 1-2 years, costs $10,000-$50,000 in legal fees)

Bill 86’s solution:

  • Criminal Code enforcement (serious consequences for employers)
  • Immediate Labour Ministry investigation
  • Strong deterrent effect

Bill 105’s position:

  • No changes proposed

Who wins?

  • ✅ Bill 86: Creates strong employment security
  • ❌ Bill 105: Leaves gap unaddressed

Reform Area #6: Medical Privacy & IME Reform

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:

  1. Worker chooses IME doctor (prevents employer-biased selection)
  2. Opinion goes to worker FIRST (worker reviews before employer sees)
  3. Commission pays (removes employer financial leverage)
  4. Complete records required (prevents selective disclosure)

Bill 105’s position:

  • No changes to IME process

Who wins?

  • ✅ Bill 86: Comprehensive IME reform protecting privacy
  • ❌ Bill 105: No changes

Reform Area #7: 72-Month Review Lock-In (NEW CONTROVERSY)

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:

  1. 8,000+ new appeals annually: Every review decision → potential WSIAT appeal
  2. Administrative cost paradox: Review costs may exceed savings from benefit reductions
  3. Worker psychological harm: Permanently disabled workers living with constant uncertainty
  4. Definition creep: What’s “permanent” if benefits constantly under review?

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?

  • ✅ Bill 86: Maintains critical worker protection
  • ❌ Bill 105: Eliminates protection, creates new appeals crisis

THIS IS THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO BILLS

Comprehensive Comparison Table

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

What Each Bill Addresses & Ignores

Bill 86 (Comprehensive Approach)

✅ Addresses:

  1. Age 65 cutoff (automatic extension)
  2. Wage replacement (90% rate)
  3. Mental stress exclusion (narrows scope)
  4. Pain & suffering (ongoing compensation)
  5. Employment terminations (Criminal Code protection)
  6. Medical privacy (worker-controlled IME process)
  7. Evidence disclosure (mandatory comprehensive disclosure)

❌ Does NOT address:

  • 72-month lock-in (maintains it - considered good policy)
  • Construction labour relations (out of scope)

TOTAL: 7 major reforms addressing 6 documented system gaps from 11,430-case analysis

Bill 105 (Targeted Approach)

✅ Addresses:

  1. Age 65 cutoff (individual determination process)
  2. Wage replacement (90% rate)
  3. Mandatory coverage (residential care facilities)

❌ Does NOT address:

  • Mental stress exclusion (no changes)
  • Pain & suffering compensation (no changes)
  • Employment protections (no changes)
  • Medical privacy/IME reform (no changes)
  • Evidence disclosure (no changes)

⚠️ ADDS NEW CONTROVERSIAL PROVISIONS:

  1. 72-month lock-in elimination (major worker protection loss)
  2. LOE benefit offsets (100% cap reduces worker income)
  3. Construction open period reduction (anti-worker labour relations change)

TOTAL: 3 improvements + 3 concerning new restrictions = mixed impact

Legislative Context: Why the Different Outcomes?

Bill 86: Private Member’s Bill Dynamics

Sponsors: 3 opposition MPPs (minority voice in Legislature)

Legislative reality:

  • Private member’s bills rarely pass without government support
  • No government fiscal analysis or actuarial costing
  • No committee referral or public hearings
  • Did not proceed past Second Reading

Why it failed:

  1. Cost concerns: Employer lobby (Ontario Chamber of Commerce) estimated 40-60% premium increases
  2. Comprehensive scope: 50+ section rewrite deemed “too ambitious” by government
  3. Lack of consultation: Introduced without pre-consultation with WSIB or employers
  4. Political timing: Introduced December 2025, did not proceed April 2026, government had different priorities

Legacy: Bill 86’s evidence-based analysis (11,430 WSIAT decisions) provided empirical foundation for reform discussions, influencing Bill 105’s age/wage provisions

Bill 105: Government Bill Advantages

Sponsor: Minister of Red Tape Reduction (government bill with Cabinet backing)

Legislative advantages:

  • Government majority ensures passage (likely)
  • Fiscal analysis forthcoming (government promised actuarial costing before Third Reading)
  • Committee referral expected (public input opportunity)
  • Omnibus structure (WSIB changes packaged with 8 other statute amendments)

Why narrower scope?

  1. Political calculation: Adopt least controversial Bill 86 reforms (age, wage), avoid costly/controversial changes (pain compensation, employment protection)
  2. Employer appeasement: 72-month elimination and LOE offsets reduce costs, offsetting 90% wage increase
  3. “Red tape reduction” framing: Individual age determinations positioned as “flexibility” vs. Bill 86’s automatic extension
  4. Omnibus tactic: WSIB changes buried in 9-schedule bill, reduces focused opposition

Likelihood of passage: HIGH (government majority, targeted scope, cost-neutral positioning)

Stakeholder Positions: Side-by-Side

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.

Cost-Benefit Analysis: Employer vs. Worker Perspectives

Employer Cost Impact

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.

Worker Benefit Impact

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).

Chart: Reform Coverage Comparison

System Gaps Documented in 11,430 WSIAT Decisions (2020-2026)

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:

  • Bill 86: 6/6 gaps addressed (100% coverage)
  • Bill 105: 1.5/6 gaps addressed (25% coverage) + adds 3 new restrictions

Timeline: From Bill 86’s Failure to Bill 105’s Introduction

December 8, 2025: Bill 86 introduced by 3 opposition MPPs

December 2025 - April 2026: Bill 86 in Second Reading debates

  • Government signals opposition (cost concerns)
  • Ontario Chamber of Commerce campaigns against (40-60% premium increase estimates)
  • Government likely begins internal policy development on targeted alternative

April 2026: Bill 86 does not proceed past Second Reading

  • No government support
  • No committee referral or public hearings

April 20, 2026: Bill 105 introduced shortly after Bill 86 failure (Minister of Red Tape Reduction)

  • Omnibus bill (9 schedules)
  • Schedule 9 contains WSIB amendments
  • Evidence: Adopts Bill 86’s age 65 + 90% wage provisions (least controversial reforms)
  • Narrower scope than Bill 86, but includes controversial 72-month elimination

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.

What Would Each Bill Mean for Injured Workers?

Scenario 1: 28-Year-Old Construction Worker, Severe Back Injury

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:

  • Current law: ~$2 million (37 years LOE + $42k NEL)
  • Bill 86: ~$3.1 million (42 years LOE + $300k pain compensation)
  • Bill 105: ~$2.05 million (37 years LOE @ 90% + $42k NEL, MINUS ongoing review reductions)

Winner: Bill 86 (+$1.1 million lifetime vs. current, +$1 million vs. Bill 105)

Scenario 2: 64-Year-Old Office Worker, Workplace PTSD from Harassment

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:

  • Current law: $0 (claim denied under exclusion)
  • Bill 86: ~$478,000 (6 years LOE + pain compensation)
  • Bill 105: $0 (claim denied under exclusion)

Winner: Bill 86 (only bill that would approve claim)

Scenario 3: 45-Year-Old Healthcare Worker, Repetitive Strain Injury

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:

  • Current law: Stable $52,700/year until age 65 (20 years) = $1,054,000
  • Bill 86: Stable $55,800/year until 70 (25 years) = $1,395,000
  • Bill 105: $55,800/year MINUS review reductions (unpredictable) - Estimate 20-30% reduction over time = ~$900,000

Winner: Bill 86 (highest lifetime benefit + stability vs. Bill 105’s uncertainty)

Political Analysis: Why Different Approaches?

Bill 86: Opposition Strategy

Political context:

  • 3 opposition MPPs (NDP) introduced as private member’s bill
  • Goal: Put government on record opposing worker protections
  • Strategy: Comprehensive reform forces government to explain opposition to EACH provision
  • Outcome: Bill failed, BUT created public record of documented system gaps (11,430-case analysis)

Strengths:

  • Evidence-based (empirical data from tribunal decisions)
  • Comprehensive (addresses all documented gaps)
  • Internally consistent (reforms reinforce each other)

Weaknesses:

  • High cost estimate (40-60% premium increase) gave government cover to oppose
  • No pre-consultation with employers/WSIB = lack of buy-in
  • Private member status = low passage probability

Bill 105: Government Strategy

Political context:

  • Minister of Red Tape Reduction (Conservative government)
  • Goal: Appear responsive to worker concerns while minimizing employer cost
  • Strategy: Cherry-pick least expensive Bill 86 reforms, add cost-saving measures
  • Outcome: TBD (currently at Second Reading, likely to pass)

Strengths:

  • Government backing ensures passage
  • Fiscal neutrality (cost increases offset by 72-month elimination + LOE caps)
  • “Red tape reduction” framing appeals to employer base
  • Omnibus structure reduces focused opposition (WSIB changes buried in 9-schedule bill)

Weaknesses:

  • Lacks comprehensive vision (fixes 2 of 6 documented gaps)
  • 72-month elimination generates strong worker advocate opposition
  • Individual age determination creates new bureaucracy (contradicts “red tape reduction” rhetoric)
  • No mental stress reform ignores largest documented gap (723 cases)

Public Engagement Opportunities

Bill 105 Is Still Active - You Can Influence Outcome

Current status: Second Reading debates (as of May 2026)

Next steps:

  1. Committee referral (likely Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs)
  2. Public consultation period
  3. Clause-by-clause review
  4. Third Reading vote

How to Engage

1. Submit to Committee

When committee referral announced:

  • Submit written brief (deadline typically 5-7 days)
  • Request to present oral testimony (10-minute presentations)

Key messages for submission:

✅ Support:

  • Age 65 individual determination (better than current blanket cutoff)
  • 90% wage replacement (restores pre-1997 rate)
  • Mandatory coverage expansion (residential care workers deserve protection)

❌ Oppose:

  • 72-month lock-in elimination (creates “lifetime of red tape”)
  • LOE benefit offsets (100% cap reduces worker income below pre-injury)
  • Mental stress exclusion unchanged (ignores 723 documented cases)

📋 Propose amendments:

  • Remove Section 44.1 (maintain 72-month lock-in)
  • OR: Amend Section 44.1 to limit review frequency (maximum once every 5 years)
  • Add Bill 86’s Section 1(3) (mental stress reform) to Bill 105
  • Add Bill 86’s Section 16 (employment protection) to Bill 105

2. Contact Your MPP

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:

  1. Propose amendment to REMOVE Section 44.1 from Bill 105 (maintain 72-month lock-in)
  2. Support public hearings to hear from injured workers affected by these changes
  3. 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]

3. Join Advocacy Campaigns

Organizations actively campaigning on Bill 105:

Injured Workers Online

UFCW 175

  • Mobilizing members to demand public hearings
  • ufcw175.com

Thunder Bay Injured Workers & ONIWG

Office of the Worker Adviser

Conclusion: Two Visions for Workers’ Compensation

Bill 86 (Meredith Act): Comprehensive Reform Vision

Philosophy: Evidence-based systemic reform addressing all documented gaps

Approach:

  • 50+ section WSIA rewrite
  • 7 major reforms covering 6 documented issues
  • Cost: 40-60% employer premium increase
  • Outcome: Failed (no government support)

Legacy:

  • Created empirical foundation (11,430-case analysis)
  • Demonstrated legislative awareness of system gaps
  • Influenced Bill 105’s age/wage provisions

For workers: Would have provided comprehensive protections (age extension, wage increase, mental stress reform, pain compensation, employment security, medical privacy)

Bill 105 (POWER Act): Targeted Amendment Approach

Philosophy: Political pragmatism - adopt feasible reforms, offset costs with restrictions

Approach:

  • 6 targeted WSIB amendments in 9-schedule omnibus
  • 2 major reforms (age, wage) + 3 new restrictions (72-month, LOE caps, construction)
  • Cost: Neutral to slight increase (offsets savings via restrictions)
  • Outcome: TBD (likely to pass - government majority)

For workers: Mixed impact

  • ✅ Gains: 90% wage (+$2,500/year average), age 65 individual determination (better than current)
  • ❌ Losses: 72-month lock-in eliminated (permanent disability insecurity), LOE caps (income reduction), mental stress exclusion unchanged, pain compensation gap unchanged, no employment protection, no medical privacy reform

Which Bill Better Serves Injured Workers?

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?

Key Takeaways

  1. Bill 105 adopts 2 of Bill 86’s 7 reforms (age extension, 90% wage) while ignoring mental stress, pain compensation, employment protection, medical privacy

  2. 72-month lock-in elimination is MAJOR CONTROVERSY - Bill 86 maintained it, Bill 105 eliminates it (worker advocates call it “lifetime of red tape”)

  3. Mental stress gap remains unaddressed - Bill 105 ignores 723 documented cases (6.33% of dataset), leaving labour relations exclusion unchanged

  4. Cost-neutral design - Bill 105 offsets 90% wage cost with 72-month elimination + LOE benefit caps (transfers costs to workers via insecurity/reduced income)

  5. Different political pathways - Bill 86 (opposition private member) failed despite evidence base; Bill 105 (government omnibus) likely to pass despite worker concerns

  6. Public engagement opportunity - Bill 105 still active (Second Reading), committee referral coming, workers and advocates can submit briefs and propose amendments

  7. 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