Public Decisions
To help refine your searches, follow these rules to get more accurate results.
- Limit the Dates - Set a date range to limit the number of results to be within that range.
- If a term must be in all results, prepend +. (e.g. +required)
- If a term must not be in any results, prepend -. (e.g. -banned)
- If matches can start with a term or partial word, append *. (e.g. partial*)
- Search for an exact word match of words or phases, enclose them in ". (e.g. "exact phrase")
- Limit the Decision Type - Restricts the search to only the Decisions of that type.
-
Decision # 09/14
Issue: Whether or not the claim is acceptable.
-
Decision # 08/14
Issue: Whether or not the worker should be considered an employee of the firm.
-
Decision # 07/14
Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss benefits for the period April 17 to May 28, 2013.
-
Decision # 06/14
Issue: Whether or not the claim is acceptable.
-
Decision # 05/14
Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to more than 2 pairs of footwear per calendar year; andWhether or not the worker is entitled to more than 1 trip per calendar year to obtain footwear.
-
Decision # 04/14
Issue: Whether or not the claim is acceptable; andWhether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss benefits.
-
Decision # 04/14
Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss benefits after January 28, 2013.
-
Decision # 03/14
Issue: Whether or not further responsibility for the worker's right knee complaints should be accepted as being related to the September 20, 2012 compensable injury.
-
Decision # 02/14
Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss benefits beyond September 26, 2012.
-
Decision # 01/14
Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to travel expenses associated with his return to work plan.
-
Decision # 180/13
Issue: Whether or not the assessable earnings calculation should be based on 65% of the labour percentage rate;Whether or not the firm is responsible for reporting unregistered subcontractor earnings for assessment purposes;Whether or not payments made for matters including but not limited to bonuses, vacation time, sick time, travel time, mileage or gasoline allowance, etc., are considered assessable;Whether or not reported earnings for family members are assessable; Whether or not the employer is responsible for interest and penalties levied under the Act;Whether or not the audit should be extended for up to 5 years;Whether or not the employer is in a compulsory industry; andWhether or not the employer is correctly classified.
-
Decision # 179/13
Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss benefits from May 29, 2012 to March 24, 2013.
-
Decision # 178/13
Issue: Whether or not the claim is acceptable.
-
Decision # 177/13
Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to benefits beyond July 23, 2012.
-
Decision # 176/13
Issue: Whether or not responsibility should be accepted for the worker's right shoulder difficulties in relation to the March 25, 2011 compensable accident.
-
Decision # 175/13
Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to benefits.
-
Decision # 174/13
Issue: Whether or not the claim is acceptable.
-
Decision # 173/13
Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to benefits beyond July 25, 2012.
-
Decision # 172/13
Issue: Whether or not full responsibility should be accepted for the worker's right hand/wrist difficulties in relation to the December 8, 2011 compensable accident.
-
Decision # 171/13
Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to benefits beyond January 8, 2013.
-
Decision # 170/13
Issue: Whether or not the claim is acceptable.
-
Decision # 169/13
Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss and medical aid benefits after April 25, 2012 in relation to the January 17, 2012 compensable injury.
-
Decision # 168/13
Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to reimbursement of accommodation costs related to personal travel.
-
Decision # 167/13
Issue: Whether or not the worker is entitled to wage loss benefits beyond November 22, 2012.
-
Decision # 166/13
Issue: Whether or not the claim is acceptable.