NDP bill aims to end WSIB age discrimination, curb “paper doctor” denials and scrap phantom‑job deeming
Ontario’s Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) is facing renewed scrutiny as a private member’s bill seeks to overhaul compensation rules, scrap age‑based cutoffs and reshape how the system is funded. For health and safety leaders, the Meredith Act (Bill 86) could have far‑reaching implications for claims management, return‑to‑work (RTW) planning and reporting practices if it ever becomes law.
Introduced by NDP MPP Lise Vaugeois, the Meredith Act (Fair Compensation for Injured Workers), 2025, is framed as a move to “restore” the original principles of workers’ compensation in Ontario. Injured worker advocates say the bill would restore compensation levels, remove age‑discriminatory practices, eliminate “phantom job” deeming and require much stronger injured‑worker representation on the WSIB board.
“The WSIB, the Workers’ Compensation Board originally in its original form was there to support workers in their time of need,” says Vaugeois. “That’s the sole purpose of it, and it’s been turned into something else.”
The bill has passed first reading and is slated for debate on April 2, 2026, during the evening private members’ session. Vaugeois says she plans to work with unions and injured worker groups to ensure the house is packed with people affected by the legislation when it comes forward.
Ending WSIB age discrimination – but when?
Age‑based cutoffs for loss‑of‑earnings (LOE) benefits have become a flashpoint as more Ontarians work beyond 65. In earlier coverage, advocates told Canadian Occupational Safety that while healthcare and non‑economic loss benefits are available regardless of age, the “critical gap is loss of earnings (LOE) benefits — the income replacement workers need while recovering.”
Vaugeois says the bill goes directly at that gap. “We’re trying to eliminate the age 65 cutoff,” she says, adding the current system often leaves workers approaching retirement with “almost no pension because they’ve also lost CPP along the way.”
Last month in the legislature, Labour Minister David Piccini committed in principle to ending age discrimination in WSIB benefits when pressed by Vaugeois, following earlier government signals that Ontario intends to address WSIB age rules but without a clear timeline.
Asked by Canadian Occupational Safety to clarify the government’s timing, whether other WSIB reforms are planned and if it would support parts of the Meredith Act, Piccini’s office did not provide specifics. Instead, the minister’s office said:
“Our government has been clear that worker safety and fairness are non‑negotiable. Minister Piccini remains focused on protecting Ontario workers and the ministry is engaged in ongoing policy work to examine these issues. Through our series of Working for Workers legislation, our government will continue to modernize workplace protections, stimulate productivity, and strengthen health and safety.”
From 85% to 90%, and reining in ‘paper doctors’
Beyond age rules, the bill would restore wage‑replacement benefits to 90 per cent of earnings, up from the current 85 per cent. It would also increase the portion paid into pensions and make CPP contributions explicit, aiming for “more comprehensive retirement protection,” says Vaugeois.
On the claims side, one of the most controversial practices the bill targets is the use of “paper” medical reviews. Vaugeois describes cases where a local treating physician confirms a work‑related injury, only to have that opinion overturned by a WSIB‑retained doctor who never sees the worker. Under the Meredith Act, “the second medical practitioner… has to actually see the worker,” she said. “It can’t be a secret thing… there has to be accountability.”
The bill would also require WSIB to cover medically appropriate services not funded by OHIP, with policy reviews every three years so that medications and devices keep pace with practice.
Deeming, employer rebates, and collective liability
For employers, some of the most consequential changes involve deeming, experience rating and surplus distribution.
At present, WSIB can “deem” that an injured worker could be earning wages in a theoretical job and deduct that deemed income from benefits. Vaugeois calls these “phantom jobs” and says the bill would tie deeming strictly to income shown on tax returns: “They have to be real. They can’t be phantom jobs.” That shift could affect how employers structure modified duties, document RTW efforts and engage with workers whose post‑injury employment is unstable.
The bill would also move WSIB back to a collective liability model, away from the current experience‑rating system and large surplus rebates. Vaugeois argues that linking rebates to low reported injuries “is an incentive not to report” and that all WSIB funds should be treated as a public trust for injured workers, not a “slush fund” for employer relief.
What’s next for safety leaders
Vaugeois is candid about the bill’s prospects under the current government, saying, “I think it’s unlikely that they will accept this bill,” but stressing that it creates a detailed blueprint for future governments.
For health and safety leaders, several signals are clear: age‑based WSIB rules for older workers are under sustained pressure; deeming, medical review practices and reporting incentives are being challenged; and the government is signalling further “Working for Workers” reforms even if it is not yet committing to the specifics of the Meredith Act.
In practical terms, employers and OHS professionals may want to monitor the April 2 debate, review internal practices around injury reporting and RTW planning for older workers, and be prepared for potential changes that could affect both claims exposure and the broader social licence of the WSIB system.
