Fired After a Workplace Injury? WSIAT on Re-Employment Rights in Ontario

Can an employer fire you for the accident that caused your workplace injury?

Firing a worker for the very conduct that caused their workplace injury does not automatically protect an employer from a re-employment breach under Ontario law. In Decision No. 506/26, 2026 ONWSIAT 905 (CanLII) (https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onwsiat/doc/2026/2026onwsiat905/2026onwsiat905.html), the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) found that an employer who dismissed an injured millwright one week after a hand laceration—citing safety violations—had breached its re-employment obligation under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA).

The worker was injured when he placed his hand on a moving machine belt while troubleshooting. He needed six stitches. One week later, before any return to modified duties, he was called in for what he believed was a return-to-work meeting and instead handed a termination letter. The employer said the reason was a critical safety violation. The Tribunal looked deeper.

What does Ontario’s re-employment obligation actually require?

The re-employment obligation under section 41 of the WSIA requires an employer to maintain the employment relationship after a workplace injury, not merely to offer a job once the worker is medically cleared. The Tribunal explained that terminating an injured worker severs the very relationship the employer is legally required to preserve. This underlying duty to keep the worker employed is a condition precedent to the more specific obligations—like offering modified or suitable work—that arise as the worker recovers.

For the obligation to apply, three conditions must be met: the injury must have left the worker unable to perform their regular job, the worker must have been employed for at least one year before the accident, and the employer must regularly employ 20 or more people. All three were satisfied here.

Does the automatic presumption of a breach always apply?

The statutory presumption of a re-employment breach under subsection 41(10) applies when an employer re-employs a worker and then terminates the employment within six months. Because this worker was terminated before returning to any duties, the presumption did not kick in. However, the Tribunal was clear: the absence of a presumption only means the evidence must establish a breach on a balance of probabilities—it does not mean the employer is off the hook.

Decision-makers are required to go beyond the employer’s stated reason and examine the real circumstances. If the conduct cited as grounds for dismissal is the same conduct that produced the injury, that overlap is a powerful indicator that the termination was at least partly injury-related. A termination is a breach even if the injury is only one of the reasons for the dismissal.

What evidence did the Tribunal weigh?

Several factors pointed toward a breach. The worker’s uncontradicted testimony was that entering the machine enclosure to troubleshoot was not uncommon: he had done it before, other workers did it too, and no one had ever warned or disciplined him for it. The employer chose not to participate in the appeal, so no oral evidence or additional documents were put forward to counter the worker’s account. There was also no record of prior progressive discipline.

The Tribunal reasoned that in a no-fault compensation system, a worker should not effectively be penalized by losing re-employment protection because their own actions contributed to the accident. It said that, absent very exceptional facts such as a clear record of progressive discipline reasonably connected to the misconduct, a termination for misconduct that caused the injury should rarely, if ever, be viewed as unrelated to the injury.

When does a fired worker qualify for loss-of-earnings benefits?

Under the approach the Tribunal applied, loss-of-earnings (LOE) benefits after termination depend on two questions: Was the termination an intervening event the worker should be held responsible for? And did an ongoing work-related impairment prevent the worker from earning pre-accident wages elsewhere? Both questions must point toward the worker for benefits to flow.

Here, the worker credibly testified he was shocked by the dismissal and had expected a modified-work conversation. Given the circumstances, the Tribunal found he could not reasonably have anticipated being fired, so the termination was not an intervening event he caused. That made him prima facie entitled to LOE benefits—but only for as long as the hand injury actually limited his earning capacity. The Tribunal found that by the end of April 2021 the hand would have healed sufficiently, and that the worker’s considerable transferable skills (as a millwright, with a prior automotive mechanic-electrician certificate and repair experience) would likely have allowed him to find work without a wage loss, allowing some time for a job search. Benefits ran from February 17, 2021 to April 30, 2021 only.

Can psychological distress from a termination qualify as a workplace injury?

Not on its own, according to this decision. The Tribunal held that under WSIB’s psychotraumatic disability policy, there is no entitlement for an emotional or psychological reaction to the termination of employment, even when the termination was a breach of the re-employment obligation. The policy looks for a psychological condition connected to the injury or its consequences, such as an emotional reaction to the accident or injury, a severe physical impairment, the treatment process, or extended work-related disablement.

In this case, the hand laceration was relatively minor and healed without complications. The Tribunal found the worker’s broader upper-extremity complaints were due to pre-existing or otherwise unrelated conditions, and that there was no persuasive evidence that any psychological condition resulted from the hand injury. The claim for psychotraumatic disability was denied, as was the claim for permanent impairment.

Questions and records to discuss with a lawyer

• What documentation exists of your employer’s progressive discipline practices for similar safety incidents involving other workers?
• Did your employer communicate any concerns about your conduct before the workplace accident occurred?
• What was the timeline between your injury and your termination, and were you offered any modified or transitional work in that window?
• Do you have medical records that clearly connect your ongoing symptoms to the workplace accident rather than a pre-existing condition?
• What steps, if any, did you take to look for alternative work after your employment ended?

If you have questions about a workplace injury, a termination that followed an accident, or your rights under Ontario’s workers’ compensation system, our Ontario employment lawyers can help you understand your options. Workers in the Hamilton and Burlington areas facing these situations are also welcome to explore resources on our Hamilton employment law page. If you are also wondering about a wrongful dismissal claim, see our wrongful dismissal page.

Every situation is different, and the facts that matter most are often in the details. If you would like to discuss your own circumstances, reach out to UL Lawyers through our contact page.

---

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.