When Do Bingo Hall Workers Need WSIB Coverage in Ontario?

Do bingo hall workers need WSIB coverage in Ontario?

Not automatically — bingo halls are exempt from mandatory WSIB coverage under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act. However, the moment a worker also performs duties in a part of the business that is covered — like a snack bar or food service area — the full picture changes. A 2026 ruling from the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) makes clear that the exemption does not extend to workers who split their time between exempt and covered activities.

The decision is Decision No. 395/26, 2026 ONWSIAT 840 (CanLII) and it addresses a bingo hall operator whose workers also staffed an on-site snack bar — a food service operation that falls under Schedule 1 of the WSIA, making coverage compulsory.

Can an employer prorate worker earnings between covered and exempt activities?

No — prorating earnings between a Schedule 1 (mandatory coverage) operation and a non-mandatory operation is not authorized under Ontario law. Section 12 of O. Reg. 175/98 states plainly that when workers are engaged in operations carried on partly under Schedule 1 and partly outside it, the entire payroll for those workers is treated as if all operations were under Schedule 1. The Tribunal confirmed this rule has been consistent since at least 2002.

The employer in this case had been submitting what it described as segregated payrolls, reporting only a portion of earnings tied to snack bar work. The Tribunal found this approach incorrect. Because the workers performed duties in both the snack bar and the bingo hall, their full gross earnings had to be included in the employer’s insurable earnings — not a time-weighted fraction.

What are “ancillary workers” under WSIB policy?

Ancillary workers are employees whose roles support the employer’s business operations without being a distinct business activity on their own. Administrative staff, payroll teams, human resources personnel, IT support, and similar functions all fall within this category under WSIB Policy 14-01-01.

In this case, the employer’s corporate staff worked out of a head office separate from the bingo hall and snack bar locations. The employer argued this physical separation meant they should not be included in insurable earnings. The Tribunal disagreed. Location is not the determining factor — what matters is whether the staff support a covered business activity. Because the corporate staff supported both the bingo halls and the snack bars, their earnings were subject to inclusion on a prorated basis.

How far back can WSIB go when adjusting employer premiums?

WSIB policy allows retroactive premium adjustments going back to January 1 of the third prior year when an employer has failed to fully disclose or accurately report insurable earnings. In this case, that meant adjustments covering 2020, 2021, and 2022.

The Tribunal considered whether the COVID-19 pandemic justified reducing or eliminating the retroactive period. It found no basis for that argument. The legal obligation to report accurately was not suspended during the pandemic, and the employer was found to have been aware — or ought to have been aware — of its obligations under the regulation. The pandemic did not create an exception to reporting requirements that apply equally to all Ontario employers.

Does a previous WSIB audit protect an employer from future adjustments?

Not necessarily, and this ruling illustrates why. A 2007 audit of the same employer had not included corporate staff earnings in insurable earnings, based on a finding that their involvement with the snack bar was minimal. The Tribunal acknowledged the employer may have relied on that earlier approach.

However, the Tribunal found that the 2007 approach was inconsistent with WSIB policy. Rather than applying the retroactive adjustment all the way back to 2020 for ancillary staff, the Tribunal limited it to January 1, 2023 — the year of the new audit — recognizing that some reliance on the earlier treatment was reasonable. This partial relief shows that prior audit outcomes can factor into retroactivity decisions, but they do not create a permanent shield against future compliance requirements.

What does this mean for Ontario employers with mixed operations?

For any Ontario employer running a business that combines exempt and Schedule 1 activities, accurate payroll segregation is essential — and it has to be genuine. Segregation means keeping separate records, time sheets, and personnel documentation that clearly show which workers perform exclusively covered work and which perform exclusively exempt work. When workers cross over between the two, their full earnings enter the insurable earnings calculation.

Our Ontario employment law lawyers regularly advise employers and employees on workplace compliance questions, including how WSIB obligations interact with employment relationships. Employers in the Hamilton and Mississauga areas operating in hospitality, entertainment, or food service with mixed staffing arrangements may want to review how their payrolls are currently structured.

Questions and records to discuss with a lawyer

• Do any of your workers perform duties in both a Schedule 1 business activity and an exempt one, even occasionally?
• Are your payroll records genuinely segregated, with supporting documentation like time sheets and personnel files for each activity?
• Has your business undergone a WSIB compliance audit, and do you understand what findings from that audit may affect future reporting obligations?
• If you received a retroactive premium adjustment, have you reviewed whether the period and amount applied are consistent with applicable WSIB policy?
• Are any of your administrative or corporate staff providing support to more than one business activity, and if so, how are their earnings currently being reported?

If you have questions about how WSIB obligations apply to your specific workplace, 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.