Summary

38980

Paul Taylor v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, et al.

(Ontario) (Civil) (By Leave)

Keywords

Constitutional law - Charter of Rights, Right to equality, Right to liberty (s. 7), Right to security of person (s. 7), Enforcement, Division of powers, Administrative law - Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Right to equality — Right to liberty — Right to security of the person — Enforcement — Division of powers — Administrative law — Boards and tribunals — Workplace Safety and Insurance Board — Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal — Whether court can have negative indifference towards self represented litigants in applicant’s situation — Whether legislation can create absolute immunity for government agency by removing jurisdiction from the courts by redefining damages — Whether common law practice of deliberative secrecy immunizes administrative body regardless of staff conduct.

.

Summary

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 on the job while unloading a shipment of goods in 1997. Numerous legal proceedings followed, with divided success. In 2014, Mr. Taylor began an action against the Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Board and the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal seeking compensatory damages in the amount of $1,710,455, broken down into various categories of benefits, and $15 million in punitive damages. The Board and the Tribunal moved for dismissal of the claim for lack of jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for the pleadings to be struck as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

Price J. found, based on s. 123 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 16, Sch. A, that the Superior Court of Justice had no jurisdiction to grant relief against the respondents in a civil action. Any such proceedings had to go by way of judicial review, whether they involve bad faith or not. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.