Case snapshot
At a glance
- Case
- When Is Modified Work 'Suitable' Under Ontario's WSIB?
- Court / Tribunal
- Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal
- Citation
- 2026 ONWSIAT 871 ↗
- Date
- July 29, 2026
- Area of law
- Employment Law
- Key issue
- Whether the employer's offer of modified work using voice-recognition software was suitable for a worker whose medical restrictions included no keyboarding or mousing, and whether the worker was entitled to Loss of Earnings benefits after declining that offer.
- Outcome
- The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, finding the modified work unsuitable, granting full LOE benefits from December 3, 2021 to January 21, 2022, and remitting the question of further LOE entitlement to the WSIB for additional review.
- Why it matters
- This decision shows that an employer's accommodation offer can look reasonable on paper but still fail the suitability test if real-world technical and operational barriers make it impossible to follow medical restrictions.
Legal principle
The rule from this case
Under Ontario's Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, an employer's modified-work offer must be genuinely safe and suitable — meaning it must not expose the worker to re-injury or require them to exceed their accepted medical restrictions in practice, not just in theory. A worker is entitled to Loss of Earnings benefits when no truly suitable work is available. The Tribunal applied a 'totality of the evidence' approach, weighing the worker's live testimony about day-to-day realities alongside the medical reports. Where a doctor's functional ability form expressly prohibits keyboarding and mousing, and the worker's testimony confirms the accommodation software was technically unreliable and operationally impractical, the Tribunal can find the restrictions more limiting than the WSIB originally accepted — and conclude the modified work was not suitable.
Important limits
What this does not mean
This decision does not mean that every worker who dislikes a modified-work offer is automatically entitled to LOE benefits. The Tribunal's finding turned on a specific combination of factors: clear medical documentation prohibiting the very tasks the job required, credible testimony about persistent software failures, and employer records confirming ongoing productivity demands that undermined the accommodation. The ruling also does not establish an open-ended entitlement to benefits. LOE was granted only up to the date of the last medical report on file. Beyond that date, the Tribunal remitted the matter to the WSIB for further review because the medical evidence did not clearly address whether the worker's condition had improved. Workers who stop seeking treatment or fail to document ongoing limitations may find their entitlement cut off at the point the medical record goes silent.
What Makes Modified Work ‘Suitable’ Under Ontario’s WSIB?
Modified work is suitable only when it genuinely fits within a worker’s accepted medical restrictions — not just on paper, but in the day-to-day reality of the job. In Decision No. 290/26, 2026 ONWSIAT 871 (CanLII), the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal found that an employer’s offer of modified work using voice-recognition software was not suitable, even though the offer appeared to accommodate the worker’s hand injuries on its face.
The case is a useful reminder that Ontario’s WSIB system looks at practical realities, not just what an offer says.
What Happened in This Case?
The worker developed bilateral De Quervain’s tenosynovitis — a painful wrist and thumb condition — after years of repetitive keyboarding and typing in an office adjudicator role. His treating orthopedic specialist documented restrictions that included no keyboarding, no mousing, and no clicking of a mouse.
The employer offered modified duties supported by Dragon voice-recognition software, with assurances of self-pacing and no formal productivity targets. The WSIB and its Appeals Resolution Officer found that offer suitable. The worker disagreed and appealed to the Tribunal.
Why Did the Tribunal Find the Modified Work Unsuitable?
The Tribunal found the accommodation was structurally incompatible with the employer’s actual software environment. The worker testified that the Dragon software frequently failed to load, stopped working for weeks or months at a time, and was incompatible with key programs used in the role. When the software failed, the only option was to fall back on manual keyboard and mouse input — directly violating his restrictions.
The Tribunal also accepted that productivity expectations remained real despite the employer’s assurances. The worker was assigned complex files, expected to respond to lengthy questionnaires, and received complaints when calls went unanswered. Micro-breaks are not the same as a genuinely reduced workload. WSIB policy requires that suitable work not expose a worker to re-injury or aggravation, and the Tribunal found this threshold was not met.
How Did the Medical Evidence Factor In?
The Tribunal gave significant weight to the orthopedic specialist’s functional ability form, which expressly prohibited keyboarding, mousing, and mouse-clicking. An earlier clinical note had not included those restrictions, and the WSIB’s original decision had relied heavily on that earlier note.
The Tribunal took a different approach: it weighed all the medical evidence together with the worker’s testimony. The specialist’s later report, prepared after a follow-up visit and additional injections, was more restrictive and described the worker as “quite debilitated.” The Tribunal found that report more accurately reflected the worker’s condition at the time the modified work was offered.
What Loss of Earnings Benefits Were Awarded?
The Tribunal awarded full LOE benefits from December 3, 2021 — the date the unsuitable modified work was offered — through January 21, 2022, which was the date of the last medical report on file. For the period after that date, the Tribunal remitted the matter to the WSIB for further review.
The reason for the cutoff is important: the January 2022 report suggested the worker could begin a gradual return to work and might achieve full functional recovery within two to three months. Because no medical evidence was filed after that date, the Tribunal could not determine whether the worker’s condition had continued to prevent a return to work. The medical record going silent created a gap the Tribunal could not fill on its own.
What Does This Mean for Workers With Repetitive Strain Injuries?
Repetitive strain injuries — including De Quervain’s tenosynovitis and carpal tunnel syndrome — are common in office and production environments. Workers in these situations often face accommodation offers that look reasonable in writing but fall apart in practice. Our Ontario employment lawyers regularly advise workers navigating the intersection of workplace accommodation and WSIB entitlements.
If you are in the Hamilton or Burlington area and dealing with a WSIB modified-work dispute, our Hamilton employment law team can discuss your situation. Workers elsewhere in the province can also reach out for guidance.
This decision reinforces that the suitability of modified work is not decided by what an offer letter says — it is decided by whether the accommodation actually works in the real environment the worker faces every day.
Questions and Records to Discuss With a Lawyer
- What does your functional ability form say, and does it match the actual tasks in the modified-work offer?
- Are there records — emails, IT tickets, manager communications — that document problems with any assistive technology provided?
- Has your treating specialist been updated on the specific duties in the modified-work offer?
- Is there a gap between what your employer describes as the role and what you are actually being asked to do day to day?
- Have you continued to seek medical treatment and documentation of your ongoing limitations?
If you have questions about a WSIB modified-work offer or a loss of earnings dispute, the team at UL Lawyers is available to discuss your circumstances. Reach out through our contact page 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.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions
You can refuse modified work without losing LOE benefits if the work is not genuinely suitable for your medical restrictions. The WSIAT looks at whether the offer actually fits your limitations in practice, not just whether it looks reasonable on paper.
A functional ability form is a document completed by your treating doctor that sets out what tasks you can and cannot safely perform. WSIB adjudicators and the Tribunal rely heavily on FAFs when deciding whether a modified-work offer is within your restrictions, so keeping them current and accurate is important.
If there are no medical reports after a certain date, the Tribunal may limit your LOE benefits to the period covered by the last report on file. Ongoing medical documentation of your condition is important to support continued entitlement.