Case information

Administrative law — Boards and tribunals — Workers Safety and Insurance Board — Workers’ Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal — Whether the lower courts have a negative indifference towards self represented parties, Canadians injured at work, or those with physical and psychological disabilities — Whether administrative boards delay justice to the point where justice is denied — Whether administrative boards may retaliate against an individual for no just reason — Whether the legal system adequately accommodates individuals who cannot attend courts due to disability — Whether parties can be barred from recording and broadcasting court proceedings to accommodate interested members of the public who cannot attend the hearing due to disability by courts or legislation — Whether administrative matters should be bound by timelines like those imposed on criminal matters — Whether Canada’s elite are afforded more access to justice and preferential treatment than ordinary Canadians.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Mr. Taylor was injured in a workplace accident in February 1997, and has been in receipt of workplace safety and insurance benefits for many years. This application relates to: Mr. Taylor’s request for an order of mandamus requiring that the Workers Safety and Insurance Board (“WSIB”) hear and decide the matter within a specified time and that, if Mr. Taylor appeals, that the appeal be heard within a further specified time; the WSIB’s denial of Mr. Taylor’s recent request for compensation for certain over the counter medication; Mr. Taylor’s objection to the WSIB’s decision to terminate his compensation for certain prescribed medication based on his failure to submit a medical report within the prescribed time; and Mr. Taylor’s request for benefits for four days in August 1998. The application was accompanied by a motion for leave to bring the application before the Superior Court of Justice rather than the Divisional Court.

The application judge dismissed the application for leave to bring the matter before the Superior Court of Justice. However, she went on to find that, had she granted leave, she would have denied the application as being premature, and therefore also denied the application. The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Taylor’s request to live stream the appeal, then dismissed the appeal.