This message is displayed because client-side scripting is turned off or not supported in the browser you are currently using.
Please turn on client-side scripting or install a browser that supports client-side scripting.

Ontario Government | Ministry of Labour | Site Map | Accessibility | text resize: A A A

Home | About Us | OWT Library | Forms | Practice Directions | Decision Search | Contact Us | Fran├žais

Established in 1985, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) is the final level of appeal to which workers and employers may bring disputes concerning workplace safety and insurance matters in Ontario. WSIAT has always been separate from and independent of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board.



Appeal Process

For Representatives

Finding a Representative

Documents & Publications

Legal/Medical Resources

Popular Topics

Links to Other Agencies

Highlights of Noteworthy Decisions

  Decision 2307 12
M. Crystal

  • Alcohol
  • Cancer (esophagus)
  • Exposure (asbestos)
  • Smoking
  • Steelworker (millwright)

The worker was a millwright at a steel mill. He was diagnosed with esophageal cancer in 1987, and died in 1988 at age 54. The worker's estate appealed a decision of the Appeals Resolution Officer denying the worker entitlement for the cancer.
The main potential workplace exposure, associated with development of esophageal cancer, was to asbestos. However, the evidence indicated that the worker's exposure was only occasional and incidental to his employment, and was not sufficient for entitlement pursuant to the Board policy on gastro-intestinal cancer in asbestos workers. Further, there was no persuasive evidence that the other workplace exposure, to coke oven emissions, contributed significantly to the development of the worker's cancer.
The worker had a 35 pack year history of smoking, which would increase the worker's risk of esophageal cancer by a factor of between 4.5 and 5.2. In addition, the worker drank alcohol, including about four beers per day, as well as rye. Even based on alcohol consumption of 28 drinks per week, the risk of esophageal cancer would be increased by a factor of 3.9. Also, there was evidence of increased risk by the combined effects of smoking and alcohol that was nearly multiplicative, which would bring the worker's increased risk to a factor of about 17. Thus, the history of smoking and alcohol consumption imposed a significant risk for esophageal cancer.
The worker did not have entitlement for esophageal cancer. The appeal was dismissed.