News Manuals, Programs and Procedures Online Training In-House Training Safety Products Links Contact Us
Injury Prevention Medical Management WSIB - WCB Insurance WSIB/WCB and Benefit Insurance Claims Management Consulting Advocacy Services Labour Management Workplace Safety Training and Education
Blog Admin        

July. 2022
January. 2022
December. 2021
November. 2021
September. 2021
August. 2021
July. 2021
June. 2021
May. 2021
April. 2021
February. 2021
December. 2020
November. 2020
October. 2020
July. 2020
June. 2020
May. 2020
March. 2020
February. 2020
April. 2019
June. 2017
July. 2016
June. 2016
February. 2016
July. 2015
March. 2014
June. 2013
May. 2013
September. 2012
August. 2012
June. 2012
April. 2012
March. 2012
February. 2012
January. 2012
September. 2011
March. 2011
December. 2010
November. 2010
August. 2010
April. 2010
March. 2010
February. 2010
January. 2010
November. 2009
July. 2009
June. 2009
May. 2009
March. 2009
February. 2009
September. 2008
August. 2008
July. 2008
April. 2008
March. 2008
February. 2008
January. 2008
December. 2007
October. 2007
September. 2007
August. 2007
July. 2007
June. 2007
May. 2007
April. 2007
January. 2007

WSIB Review of Experience Rating Program
Monday, March 31, 2008 at 4:03:54 PM



On March 10, 2008, Steve Mahoney the chair of the Workplace Safety & Insurance Board announced that he had directed his staff to conduct a review of the Boards Experience Rating Program (more commonly known as NEER).

Mahoney’s response seems to be in direct reaction to a series of articles published in a major Toronto newspaper alleging that employers were being rewarded in the form of rebates from the WSIB, despite the fact that an employer’s worksite had a fatality

More significant than his announcement of the review, however, was his comment that “if a company is responsible for a workplace fatality they won’t be eligible for a rebate from the WSlB.” The significance of his comment lies in the fact that he sees companies as “responsible” for fatalities. This view goes directly against the fundamental “no-fault” principle upon which the workers’ compensation system was founded more than 94 years ago.

To understand the importance of the “no-fault” concept one must go back to the inception of the system in 1914. In 1914, Justice Meredith tabled the foundation of the system we know today for compensating injured workers. The basis of his recommendations was the fundamental principle that neither an injured worker nor the employer should be considered to be “at fault” for accidents or diseases arising out of, or in the course of, the employment. The objective was to eliminate the issue of liability for workplace injuries and remove the determination of payment from the court system. The “historic compromise”, as it was known, removed the notion of fault from the compensation process. It allowed workers whose injuries were determined to be work related immediate payment without need to resort to court actions. In exchange, employers were granted legal protection from lawsuits. In other words, neither the worker nor the employer was to be considered at “fault” for the accident or resulting injuries.

Mr. Mahoney’s comments go in direct contravention to this long established principle. Employers bought into the system based on its “no fault” principle. The question now on the table is whether that “historic compromise” is being unilaterally changed by the WSIB.