Freedom Flyer 14
the official newsletter of the
Freedom Party of Ontario
Spring 1989
WORKMAN"S COMPENSATION CRITIQUED
On Wednesday, April 19
at the Holiday Inn in
downtown Hamilton,
William Frampton (Metro
Region Vice-President)
and Barry Fitzgerald
(President, Welland-Thorold Constituency Association) made a
joint presentation to the
Committee on Resource
Development. The subject? Bill 162, An Act to
Amend the Workers'
Compensation Act.
In their presentation, they condemned
all proposed revisions in Bill 162,
including the fundamental aspects of
the bill that violate the Constitution,
that allow prejudice and bias to be
integral to every Workers' Compensation decision, and that incorporate
irresponsible aspects of a "no-fault"
philosophy to influence settlements.
Citing the fact that the original
Workmens' Compensation Act of 1914
has already been amended fifty-six
times, Fitzgerald and Frampton argued
that Bill 162 still does not address the
fundamental flaws of the Act that have
been present since it came into effect.
Because the present system is based
on the premise of collective responsibility, they said, "employers who have
exemplary records are held legally
accountable through their forced contributions for accidents they did not
inflict."
Since some employers are held
individually liable for accident claims
while others are forced to contribute to
the Accident Fund, regardless of
whether their workplaces are safe or
hazardous, Fitzgerald and Frampton
argued that this was a violation of
Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms, which demands
equal treatment of all individuals before
and under the law.
Among other points raised were the
following:
that "no-fault is simply another way
of saying no-responsibility. It is both
unjust and inhumane to compel the
innocent to provide compensation for
injuries they did not inflict."
that both the Act and Bill 162
automatically consider employers to be
at fault unless they can establish their
innocence. "English common law,
upon which most Canadian law is
based, has always held that a man is
innocent of any charge until he has
been proven guilty. ...In placing the
onus of proof on the defendant, this
turns the whole legal relationship
between the parties on its head and is
an open invitation to fraudulent
claims."
that the Act violates "the worker's
ownership of his own labour. ...If a
worker chooses to sell his labour
--- which is his own property --- on
terms other than those imposed by the
Act, the province claims the authority
to violate his rights of ownership."
that the Act's 'hearing process' is
fundamentally biased. "The structure
and composition of the Tribunal all but
guarantees that it will not be impartial.
... In every Appeal that is heard, at least
two of the three members have a
definite interest in the outcome. ...How
can justice be served without impartiality?"
that Bill 162 can force reinstatement
and "provides for overriding agreements already in force. ...It would be
quite possible, under this Bill, for the
board to require a worker who injured
himself and his co-workers through
carelessness to be reinstated. Who
would want to work alongside such a
person? Yet the employer would be
compelled to take him back and in
so doing make the workplace more
hazardous!"
"Something that is bad in theory can
never be good in practice," concluded
Frampton and Fitzgerald. "When
judged against the yardstick of speedy
and humane justice, Bill 162 just
doesn't measure up. Therefore we say
to you, ladies and gentlemen, take this
bill back to the legislature and do your
work over again."
Copies of their original submission are
available. Contact
e-mailor visit our feedback and comments area.
e-mail
Page
last updated on April 28, 2002
