History of Workers Compensation in Canada
The need for a fair and equitable system of workers' compensation evolved out of the industrial revolution. As economic and industrial activities flourished, the number of work injuries also grew. The increasing use of machinery, new concepts of producing goods, and the pressure of increased demand for products resulted in more injury problems without solutions for employers and employees. For the most part, workers who were injured on the job had no recourse other than to sue their employers at common law, an expensive and time-consuming process. The court system was crowded, causing long delays. Compensation for injuries was usually insufficient and uncertain. The employee sometimes was forced to bear the expense of injury himself or had to throw himself on the mercy of welfare.
http://02cd9d2.netsolhost.com/public/1.0_overview.htm
http://02cd9d2.netsolhost.com/public/1.1.1_history.htm
Between 1884 and 1886, Germany's Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck introduced a mandatory state-run accident compensation system. Workers and employers financed this initial system.
Canadian workers' compensation began in Ontario, and laws developed along timelines similar to those in Great Britain. In 1910, Mr. Justice William Meredith was appointed to a Royal Commission to study workers' compensation. His final report, known as the Meredith Report, was produced in 1913.
There are five Meredith Principles:
• No-fault compensation: Workplace injuries are compensated regardless of fault. The worker and employer waive the right to sue. There is no argument over responsibility or liability for an injury. Fault becomes irrelevant, and providing compensation becomes the focus.
• Collective liability: The total cost of the compensation system is shared by all employers. All employers contribute to a common fund. Financial liability becomes their collective responsibility.
• Security of payment: A fund is established to guarantee that compensation monies will be available. Injured workers are assured of prompt compensation and future benefits.
• Exclusive jurisdiction: All compensation claims are directed solely to the compensation board. The Board is the decision-maker and final authority for all claims. Nor is the Board bound by legal precedent; it has the power and authority to judge each case on its individual merits.
• Independent board: The governing board is both autonomous and non-political. The Board is financially independent of government or any special interest group. The administration of the system is focused on the needs of its employer and labour clients, providing service with efficiency and impartiality.
http://www.awcbc.org/en/index.asp http://www.awcbc.org/en/historyofworkerscompensation.asp
QUOTE MERIDTH REPORT wsbc:
In a note to section 22 it is stated that "it is submitted that it would not be wise to entirely shut out appeals and place in the hands of the Board the sole right to interpret the act .... and the right to define its own jurisdiction." What danger is to be apprehended from conferring these rights I do not understand, nor do I see what questions as to the construction of the act are likely to arise other than those enumerated in section 22.
In my judgment the furthest the Legislature should go in allowing the intervention of the courts should be to provide that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may state a case for the opinion of a Divisional Court of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario, if any question of law of general importance arises and he deems it expedient it should be settled by a decision of a Divisional Court. Although I say this my judgment is against the introduction of any such provision, as it is probable that if any form of appeal to an appellate court is allowed, a defeated litigant will have the right to take his case to the Judicial Committee of His Majesty's Privy Council.
The draft bill of the Association has but one schedule of industries to all of which the act applies, and it makes no provision for abrogating or modifying the rules of the common law as to employers who are not within the scope of the act. How my draft bill differs from this will be apparent from what I have said in dealing with the general plan upon which it has been drafted.
By my draft bill (sec. 60) the Board is given exclusive jurisdiction as to all matters and questions arising under Part I, and subject to its power to rescind, alter or amend any of its decisions or orders, its action or decision is final and is not subject to appeal.
It is difficult to understand from the Association's draft bill what the jurisdiction of the Board is intended to be. Section 21 provides that the Board shall have jurisdiction to enquire into, hear and determine all matters and questions of fact and law necessary to be determined in connection with compensation payments and the administration thereof and the collection and management of the funds thereof.
This language would confer on the Board a rather limited jurisdiction and probably, judging from the provisions of section 22, less than the draftsman intended it should have. The decisions and findings of the Board upon questions of fact are made final and conclusive, but on questions of law an appeal is allowed.
http://www.awcbc.org/common/assets/english%20pdf/meredith_report.pdf
" It cannot be said that the Board is independent insofar as the worker is concerned. It is a Board set up to protect the employers. The Board is funded by the employers, and the Board has a duty and probably a primary duty to protect the employer. In relation to the worker, the Board has an overwhelming wealth of knowledge and experience. It has the financial ability to fund sophisticated investigations involving highly qualified experts and have the material presented to them, guided, orchestrated and propounded by its in-house counsel responsible to the Board and paid for by the Board. The application of any standards under the rules of natural justice would identify such circumstances as being unequal in negotiating ability and unfair. This is not a level playing field, it is not fair, and it offends the basic principles of natural justice."- Justice Maclean - Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta
Wilson v. Medicine Hat (City) [1999] A. J. No. 269 (February 3, 1999)
http://iwocac.ning.com/
This organization has come a long way from its roots, with Millions of Dollars going into rebates not going to just one, but to the many Safety Associations and big employers; even those employers that have deaths reported.
Injured workers and small business employers are being defrauded by WCB, medical professionals being financially reprimanded for not writing out the medical report for the way the WCB has requested; yet the blame goes onto the injured and in some cases the small business employers and medical professionals as the defrauders and liar’s. All this you can find in the above link.
My personal suggested changes needed: Removal of the Meredith Principals of Exclusive jurisdiction and Total Authority of a truly Non-Independent board.
• all medical needs covered by GOV, WCB’s removal of hiring private medical or rehabilitation staff for injured workers diagnoses or treatment But may be employed to ensure safe and appropriate rehabilitation.
• Emergency /closest physicians or workers personal physician: shall be deciders of degree or cause’s of injury and all treatment.
• Gov having direct responsibility for care the injured worker; federally as a whole; provincially as a residence, municipally as a casual basis for assist in injured workers needs.
• Board shall provide all necessary needs and insuring all needs to assist/allow the worker to progress to a new life with any assistance needed due to injury.
• Proceeds and payments by the employers to the employers fund for injured workers to be handled by the provincial auditor or separate authority, not by the WCB’s or their affiliates.
• WCB to only concentrate on retraining necessities, appropriate rehabilitation and any needs/ aids for the injured worker including personal mobility or daily aids, safe transportation for injured workers, meal and expenses for any injury related appointment or meeting.
http://02cd9d2.netsolhost.com/public/1.0_overview.htm
http://02cd9d2.netsolhost.com/public/1.1.1_history.htm
Between 1884 and 1886, Germany's Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck introduced a mandatory state-run accident compensation system. Workers and employers financed this initial system.
Canadian workers' compensation began in Ontario, and laws developed along timelines similar to those in Great Britain. In 1910, Mr. Justice William Meredith was appointed to a Royal Commission to study workers' compensation. His final report, known as the Meredith Report, was produced in 1913.
There are five Meredith Principles:
• No-fault compensation: Workplace injuries are compensated regardless of fault. The worker and employer waive the right to sue. There is no argument over responsibility or liability for an injury. Fault becomes irrelevant, and providing compensation becomes the focus.
• Collective liability: The total cost of the compensation system is shared by all employers. All employers contribute to a common fund. Financial liability becomes their collective responsibility.
• Security of payment: A fund is established to guarantee that compensation monies will be available. Injured workers are assured of prompt compensation and future benefits.
• Exclusive jurisdiction: All compensation claims are directed solely to the compensation board. The Board is the decision-maker and final authority for all claims. Nor is the Board bound by legal precedent; it has the power and authority to judge each case on its individual merits.
• Independent board: The governing board is both autonomous and non-political. The Board is financially independent of government or any special interest group. The administration of the system is focused on the needs of its employer and labour clients, providing service with efficiency and impartiality.
http://www.awcbc.org/en/index.asp http://www.awcbc.org/en/historyofworkerscompensation.asp
QUOTE MERIDTH REPORT wsbc:
In a note to section 22 it is stated that "it is submitted that it would not be wise to entirely shut out appeals and place in the hands of the Board the sole right to interpret the act .... and the right to define its own jurisdiction." What danger is to be apprehended from conferring these rights I do not understand, nor do I see what questions as to the construction of the act are likely to arise other than those enumerated in section 22.
In my judgment the furthest the Legislature should go in allowing the intervention of the courts should be to provide that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may state a case for the opinion of a Divisional Court of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario, if any question of law of general importance arises and he deems it expedient it should be settled by a decision of a Divisional Court. Although I say this my judgment is against the introduction of any such provision, as it is probable that if any form of appeal to an appellate court is allowed, a defeated litigant will have the right to take his case to the Judicial Committee of His Majesty's Privy Council.
The draft bill of the Association has but one schedule of industries to all of which the act applies, and it makes no provision for abrogating or modifying the rules of the common law as to employers who are not within the scope of the act. How my draft bill differs from this will be apparent from what I have said in dealing with the general plan upon which it has been drafted.
By my draft bill (sec. 60) the Board is given exclusive jurisdiction as to all matters and questions arising under Part I, and subject to its power to rescind, alter or amend any of its decisions or orders, its action or decision is final and is not subject to appeal.
It is difficult to understand from the Association's draft bill what the jurisdiction of the Board is intended to be. Section 21 provides that the Board shall have jurisdiction to enquire into, hear and determine all matters and questions of fact and law necessary to be determined in connection with compensation payments and the administration thereof and the collection and management of the funds thereof.
This language would confer on the Board a rather limited jurisdiction and probably, judging from the provisions of section 22, less than the draftsman intended it should have. The decisions and findings of the Board upon questions of fact are made final and conclusive, but on questions of law an appeal is allowed.
http://www.awcbc.org/common/assets/english%20pdf/meredith_report.pdf
" It cannot be said that the Board is independent insofar as the worker is concerned. It is a Board set up to protect the employers. The Board is funded by the employers, and the Board has a duty and probably a primary duty to protect the employer. In relation to the worker, the Board has an overwhelming wealth of knowledge and experience. It has the financial ability to fund sophisticated investigations involving highly qualified experts and have the material presented to them, guided, orchestrated and propounded by its in-house counsel responsible to the Board and paid for by the Board. The application of any standards under the rules of natural justice would identify such circumstances as being unequal in negotiating ability and unfair. This is not a level playing field, it is not fair, and it offends the basic principles of natural justice."- Justice Maclean - Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta
Wilson v. Medicine Hat (City) [1999] A. J. No. 269 (February 3, 1999)
http://iwocac.ning.com/
This organization has come a long way from its roots, with Millions of Dollars going into rebates not going to just one, but to the many Safety Associations and big employers; even those employers that have deaths reported.
Injured workers and small business employers are being defrauded by WCB, medical professionals being financially reprimanded for not writing out the medical report for the way the WCB has requested; yet the blame goes onto the injured and in some cases the small business employers and medical professionals as the defrauders and liar’s. All this you can find in the above link.
My personal suggested changes needed: Removal of the Meredith Principals of Exclusive jurisdiction and Total Authority of a truly Non-Independent board.
• all medical needs covered by GOV, WCB’s removal of hiring private medical or rehabilitation staff for injured workers diagnoses or treatment But may be employed to ensure safe and appropriate rehabilitation.
• Emergency /closest physicians or workers personal physician: shall be deciders of degree or cause’s of injury and all treatment.
• Gov having direct responsibility for care the injured worker; federally as a whole; provincially as a residence, municipally as a casual basis for assist in injured workers needs.
• Board shall provide all necessary needs and insuring all needs to assist/allow the worker to progress to a new life with any assistance needed due to injury.
• Proceeds and payments by the employers to the employers fund for injured workers to be handled by the provincial auditor or separate authority, not by the WCB’s or their affiliates.
• WCB to only concentrate on retraining necessities, appropriate rehabilitation and any needs/ aids for the injured worker including personal mobility or daily aids, safe transportation for injured workers, meal and expenses for any injury related appointment or meeting.
Labels: agency, board, canada, employee, fraud, Government, judicial, manipulation, organization, politician, wcb, workers compensation
posted by k.w.m at
11:46 AM
0 Comments
