Can a WSIAT Panel Change Its Ruling Without Hearing from the Parties?

Can a WSIAT Panel Change Its Position After a Hearing Without Telling the Parties?

Not without giving them a chance to respond, according to this panel. In Decision No. 312/24IR2, 2026 ONWSIAT 928 (CanLII), https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onwsiat/doc/2026/2026onwsiat928/2026onwsiat928.html, a WSIAT panel granted an employer’s second reconsideration request about its interim ruling after acknowledging that it had reversed its oral ruling on the scope of the issue agenda without inviting the parties to weigh in first. The panel found that this was an error in process.

What Is a WSIAT Reconsideration and Why Is the Threshold So High?

A WSIAT reconsideration is not an appeal. Because the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 declares Tribunal decisions to be final, there is no automatic right to have a decision revisited. The Tribunal has developed a demanding threshold: a reconsideration request must show either a fundamental error of law likely to have changed the result, a fundamental error of process, or substantial new evidence that was unavailable at the original hearing and that would likely have changed the outcome.

The high bar exists for good reasons. Finality matters — parties need certainty, and the Tribunal has to make sure parties waiting for their first hearing are not penalized. Reconsidering decisions too readily would drain the Tribunal’s limited resources and undermine the integrity of the original hearing process. The Divisional Court has reviewed and upheld this approach, recognizing that the original adjudicator is best placed to evaluate natural justice concerns.

What Happened in This Case?

The dispute involved a worker’s entitlement to Loss of Earnings (LOE) benefits. According to the employer, at the hearing on November 4, 2025, the panel advised the parties that it would not take jurisdiction over the worker’s LOE entitlement from February 11, 2022. After the hearing adjourned, the panel changed its position in its interim decision (Decision No. 312/24I) — relying largely on a leading Tribunal decision, Decision No. 1891/18IR — and took jurisdiction over that LOE issue.

The employer argued this was procedurally unfair: the panel had changed its position after the parties left the room, without giving anyone a chance to address whether the Tribunal decision the panel relied on actually applied to this case. The worker’s representative disagreed, arguing the panel made no error in reconsidering its jurisdictional stance. After receiving written responses from both sides, the panel found that its threshold test for reconsideration was met because of an error in process.

What Did the Panel Find Was Wrong?

The panel acknowledged that while it had alluded to aspects of the leading Tribunal decision during the hearing, it had not given the parties a genuine opportunity to address how that decision applied to the specific facts before it. The panel then reversed its oral ruling on the issue agenda without seeking any further input. The panel found that this sequence of events — relying on a significant authority to shift position, without notice or submissions — was an error in process.

The error the panel identified was procedural: it had not sought the parties’ submissions on whether that authority applied before reversing its oral ruling. The panel did not decide whether its jurisdictional conclusion was right or wrong.

What Happens Next After a Procedural Error Is Found?

When a procedural error is found at this stage, the remedy is to restore the missing opportunity. The panel directed both parties to file additional written submissions — at the same time, within three weeks — addressing the question of whether the panel has jurisdiction to hear and decide the LOE issue from February 11, 2022 onward. Parties were told they did not need to repeat what they had already said; only new submissions were invited.

The panel made clear it remains seized of the matter, meaning the same panel will continue to handle the case. No decision on the underlying jurisdiction question — or on the merits of the LOE claim — was made at this stage. Our Ontario employment lawyers can help you understand how WSIAT proceedings work and what procedural rights apply at each stage.

Does This Decision Apply to Employers and Workers Differently?

This case arose from an employer’s reconsideration request. The decision describes WSIAT processes as guided by a duty of fairness, and the remedy it ordered, further submissions, was given to both the employer and the worker.

If you are involved in a WSIAT appeal and believe the panel has shifted its position on a key issue without giving you a chance to respond, this decision illustrates that a reconsideration request may be available — though the threshold remains demanding.

Questions and Records to Discuss With a Lawyer

• Did the panel make any oral rulings during the hearing about which issues would or would not be addressed, and did the written decision depart from those rulings?
• Were you given a genuine opportunity to make submissions before the panel relied on a specific Tribunal authority to change its position?
• Is the decision you want to challenge a final decision or an interim ruling, and does that distinction affect your reconsideration options?
• What evidence or submissions do you have that were not addressed in the original hearing that might meet the threshold for reconsideration?
• Are there time limits or procedural steps under WSIAT Practice Direction #27 that apply to your situation?

If you have questions about a WSIAT decision or a workplace injury benefit dispute, the team at UL Lawyers is available to discuss your circumstances. Reach out through /connect to start the conversation.

---

This article is automated commentary on a public court decision and is for general information only — not legal advice. Decisions rely on facts unique to each case. If you are affected by a similar issue, contact a lawyer for advice specific to your situation.