Yes No Share to Facebook
Employer Misconduct
an Attempt to Dissuade an Employee From Making a WSIB Claim
Last Updated: June 12 2026
Question: Can an employer be punished in Ontario for trying to convince an injured worker not to file a WSIB injury claim?
Answer: Yes, Ontario’s Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 prohibits “claim suppression” and allows administrative penalties, plus prosecution with fines up to $25,000 and up to six months in jail for individuals or up to $500,000 for corporations when an employer tries to discourage, intimidate, or induce a worker to withdraw a claim (see s. 22.1, s. 155.1, and s. 158). For help documenting what happened, protecting your rights, and moving your WSIB matter forward, contact Ajodhia Legal Services, a Paralegal service for clients across Ontario, at (647) 882-8205 for a fast, practical plan.
What Could Happen If An Employer Tries to Get An Injured Worker to Avoid Making An Injury Claim?
The Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 Prescribes the Potential For Significant Penalties Against An Employer That Engages In Conduct Intended to Dissuade a Worker Injured In a Workplace Accident From Submitting a Compensation Claim.
Understanding the Obligation to Refrain From Attempts to Dissuade the Making of Claims By An Injured Worker
For various improper reasons, an employer might try to avoid the reporting of a worker injury to the Workplace Safety & Insurance Board. During the effort to avoid reporting, the an employer may engage in conduct intended to discourage the employee from submitting a worker compensation claim or other reporting of the workplace injury.
The Law
The Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, Chapter 16, Schedule A, specifically addresses the concern of attempts by an employer to dissuade an injured employee from filing a claim whereas such states:
Prohibition, claim suppression
22.1 (1) No employer shall take any action, including but not limited to the prohibited actions set out in subsection (2), in respect of a worker with the intent of,
(a) discouraging or preventing the worker from filing a claim for benefits under section 22; or
(b) influencing or inducing the worker to withdraw or abandon a claim for benefits made under section 22.
Same
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the following actions are prohibited:
1. Dismissing or threatening to dismiss a worker.
2. Disciplining or suspending, or threatening to discipline or suspend a worker.
3. Imposing a penalty upon a worker.
4. Directly or indirectly intimidating or coercing a worker with threats, promises, persuasion or other means.
Administrative penalty
(3) An employer who contravenes subsection (1) shall pay the prescribed amount to the Board. This payment is in addition to any penalty imposed by a court for an offence under section 155.1.
Potential Penalties
The wrongful attempt to dissuade an employee from claiming injury benefits raises the possibility of a significant penalty whereas the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, prescribes the potential of a fine or imprisonment or both. Specifically, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, states:
Offence, claim suppression
155.1 An employer who contravenes section 22.1 is guilty of an offence.
...
Penalty
158 (1) A person who is convicted of an offence is liable to the following penalty:
1. If the person is an individual, he or she is liable to a fine not exceeding $25,000 or to imprisonment not exceeding six months or to both.
2. If the person is not an individual, the person is liable to a fine not exceeding $500,000.
Fines
(2) Any fine paid as a penalty for a conviction under this Act shall be paid to the Board and shall form part of the insurance fund.
As is stated above, the fine for attempting to discourage an employee from reporting a workplace injury and making a compensation claim is significant. Where such a fine arises, the fine is payable to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board.
An interesting issue and decision arose within Eynon v. Simplicity Air Ltd., 2021 ONCA 409, which was a civil litigation brought about following a determination by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board that a workplace incident arose due to horseplay between workers rather than as an actual workplace accident, whereas the Court of Appeal refused to deny a punitive damages award that was granted at Trial and which was supported, partly, by the lack of a penalty being imposed by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board. Specifically, in the Eynon case, it was said:
[12] There was sufficient evidence that a properly instructed jury, acting reasonably, could have awarded punitive damages. The supervisors’ instructions to an injured employee to falsely report that he was injured at home, without more, warranted an award of punitive damages. The jury could properly regard these instructions as misconduct offensive to ordinary standards of decent conduct expected of an employer and could be properly described as highly reprehensible. Such instructions contravene s. 22.1 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 16, Sched. A. (“WSIA”), and constitute an offence under s. 155.1 of WSIA. Had the appellant been prosecuted and a penalty imposed under s. 158(1) of WSIA the need for punitive damages would have been lessened: see Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co., 2002 SCC 18, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 595, at para. 123.
Summary Comment
An injured employee has the right to report an injury, and to seek compensation, among other benefits, from the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board. An employer has a duty to refrain from unduly influencing, or attempting to influence, an employee from reporting an injury and making injury compensation claims.
NOTE: A substantial quantity of online queries, such as “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in,” typically indicates a pressing requirement for competent legal support rather than a particular type of legal professional. In Ontario, licensed paralegals are governed by the same Law Society that supervises lawyers and are permitted to represent clients in specific litigation matters. Key elements of this role include advocacy, legal reasoning, and procedural proficiency. Ajodhia Legal Services provides legal representation within its authorised mandate/scope, focusing on strategic positioning, evidentiary preparation, and compelling advocacy designed to secure efficient and favourable outcomes for clients.
