In a recent decision,[1] Ontario’s Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (“WSIAT”) found that a worker who fell on the way to a Weight Watchers meeting on the employer’s premises was entitled to benefits under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (“Act”). The WSIAT upheld the worker’s entitlement even though the employer did not organize the event or require the worker to attend.
The decision has significant implications for any employer that allows or is considering allowing an external program provider to schedule an activity or event on the employer’s premises.
What happened?
The worker worked at a large university. During her paid 15-minute break, she walked to another building on the university’s campus to attend a brief Weight Watcher’s “weigh-in.” The university did not organize the Weight Watchers program, although it provided space in one of its buildings for the meeting. While in the building where the meeting took place, the worker fell and suffered a concussion.
The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (“WSIB”) initially denied the worker’s claim for benefits on the grounds the accident did not arise “out of and in the course of” her employment. However, the worker appealed this decision, and a WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer allowed her claim for benefits.
Subsequently, the university appealed the decision of the WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer to the WSIAT. In its submissions, the university emphasized the following points:
- The worker was engaged in a “personal” activity when the injury occurred (i.e., attending a Weight Watchers weigh-in).
- The worker was not at her fixed place of employment when the injury occurred; the university’s “very large” campus should not all be considered part of the worker’s workplace.
- The worker created an added level of hazard by rushing to attend the weigh-in during a limited 15-minute break. The evidence suggested the injury may have occurred because the worker tripped on her own shoelace.
The WSIAT concluded the accident arose “out of and in the course of” the worker’s employment and upheld the worker’s entitlement to benefits under the Act. In reaching this decision, the WSIAT identified two WSIB policies applicable to the circumstances: On/Off Employer’s Premises (15-03-03) (“Premises Rule”) and Accident in the Course of Employment (15-02-02) (“Accident in the Course of Employment”).
Premises Rule
Under the Premises Rule, with limited exceptions, an employer is responsible for any accident on its premises and within its control but not for an accident that occurs off of its premises and outside of its control. The key factor in distinguishing between a personal and work-related activity is the location of the activity rather than the type of activity. Applying the Premises Rule, the WSIB will consider entitlement to a claim if, among other things, a worker is injured:
- When participating in a work-related sports activity if the employer condones the activity by making the employer’s premises available and/or exercising a form of supervision and control, and
- By ordinary hazards of the employer’s premises during a non-work period (break, lunch, etc.).
In this case, the WSIAT concluded that, by allowing a Weight Watchers meeting to occur on its premises, the university condoned the worker’s participation even though it did not organize the event:
The worker was attending an event that was open for her to attend and for which space had been provided by the employer. It may not have been an employer organized event, but it was an event which the employer knew was occurring and the employer at least tolerated the worker’s attendance at the event.
The employer’s action of providing space for the weight watcher’s program to occur and in allowing for the promotion of that event using university resources was an act of condonation similar in nature to the example provided in WSIB policy […] to employers making premises available for sports activities.[2]
The WSIAT also found the worker was injured as part of the “ordinary hazards of the employer’s premises.” The fact that the worker may have tripped while rushing to attend the “weigh-in” was irrelevant to the ultimate question of whether the accident occurred in the course of employment:
The Panel also finds that the worker was injured as a result of the ordinary hazards of the employer’s premises when the worker hit her head on the surface of the employer’s building. The employer’s submission that the worker may have caused her accident by rushing and by possibly tripping over her own shoelace are not well established in the documentary evidence and there was no direct testimony capable of supporting this submission either. The submissions also are an attempt to introduce considerations of fault into a no-fault workers’ compensation system. The speed at which the worker was walking and whether her shoelace was tied or untied does not change the nature of the activity the worker was undertaking at the time of her accident.[3]
Accident in the Course of Employment
Under this policy there are three considerations when determining if a worker suffered an accident in the course of employment:
- Place: An accident that occurs on the premises of the workplace will generally be found to have occurred in the course of employment. This includes if the accident occurred in a place where the worker might reasonably have been expected to be while engaged in work-related activities.
- Time: If a worker has fixed working hours, an accident will generally be found to have occurred in the course of employment if the accident occurred during those fixed hours or a reasonable period before starting or after finishing work.
- Activity: If a worker was engaged in an activity to satisfy a personal need, the worker may have been engaged in an activity that was “incidental” to employment or “in the course of” employment. This depends on factors such as the duration of the activity, nature of the activity and work environment, and the extent to which the activity deviates from the worker’s regular employment activities.
Applying these factors, the WSIAT concluded the worker was engaged in a work-related activity when she attended the Weight Watchers “weigh-in.” The WSIAT reached this conclusion despite acknowledging the relevant activity had a “very significant personal aspect to it:”
Having condoned the program and having allowed the worker to attend at the location of the program, when the injury occurred, the worker is considered to have been in the course of her employment and entitled to benefits under the WSIA for her injuries. The time of the accident was within working hours. The location of the accident was on the employer’s premises. The activity involved did have a very significant personal aspect to it, but the activity was not prohibited and was in fact condoned by the accident employer and therefore reasonably incidental to the worker’s employment.[4]
Lessons for employers
This decision has several important takeaways for employers.
- Location, location, location. Whether an accident occurs on an employer’s premises is a significant consideration in determining if that accident arose in the course of a worker’s employment.
To reduce risk, an employer should consider holding high-risk activities (e.g., fitness bootcamps, sporting events, etc.) off-site when feasible.
- Condoning personal activity may create unexpected exposure. Even if an activity appears personal (such as attending a weight loss program), if it is condoned by the employer, an injury related to that activity may be found to have occurred in the course of employment. An employer may unwittingly condone an activity through the simple act of providing a meeting place on its premises to facilitate the activity.
To reduce risk, an employer may consider implementing a centralized risk review system to ensure all personal activities scheduled on the employer’s premises are risk-assessed to the extent possible.
- Bigger space, bigger risk. An employer with large or sprawling premises may face greater liability risk. More ground to cover means more opportunity for slips, trips, and falls, which can increase the chance an injury is found to have arisen in the course of employment.
To reduce risk, an employer should be aware of the various risks at and between locations on its premises. For example, an employer may:
-
- Designate a site-level facilities or safety coordinator trained to assess external programs, monitor setup, and enforce safety protocols
- Proactively designate which spaces can be used for third-party or employee programs
(g., atrium, outdoor area, meeting room) and which are off-limits (this may also be season or weather dependent) - Consider providing a longer break if it’s known a worker is likely to participate in a program being held far from the worker’s usual place of work, to give the worker ample time to travel to and from the event, or
- Discourage attendance at a faraway activity that is more difficult to get to during a regular break.
To learn more and/or for assistance with any workplace safety matter, including before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board or the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, contact Sherrard Kuzz LLP.
Jemma Lewis is a lawyer with Sherrard Kuzz LLP, one of Canada’s leading employment and labour law firms, representing employers. Jemma can be reached at 416.603.0700 (Main), 416.420.0738 (24 Hour) or by visiting www.sherrardkuzz.com.
The information contained in this presentation/article is provided for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal or other professional advice, nor does accessing this information create a lawyer-client relationship. This presentation/article is current as of August, 2025 and applies only to Ontario, Canada, or such other laws of Canada as expressly indicated. Information about the law is checked for legal accuracy as at the date the presentation/article is prepared but may become outdated as laws or policies change. For clarification or for legal or other professional assistance please contact Sherrard Kuzz LLP.
[1] Decision No. 231/25, 2025 ONWSIAT 335.
[2] Ibid at paras 30 and 31.
[3] Ibid at para 32.
[4] Ibid at para 40.
