Jennifer Cabot
Paralegal
Jennifer joined Zare Paralegal Services in May 2020 as a law clerk while completing the Law Society of Ontario’s Paralegal Licensing Process. In November 2020 Jennifer successfully obtained her P1 Paralegal License. Since completing her Licensing Process, Jennifer has been a permanent member of the Zare Paralegal Team.
Jennifer completed her paralegal education with Mohawk College obtaining her Paralegal Diploma in June 2020. Prior to becoming a paralegal Jennifer completed a Masters of Arts Degree in Social Justice and Equity Studies at Brock University. She also completed her Bachelor of Arts Degree at Brock University, in a combined major of Child and Youth Studies and Sociology. Jennifer regularly applies and uses the skills she obtained throughout her education when advocating on behalf of injured workers.
Since November 2020, Jennifer has represented injured workers at the WSIB Appeal level, and before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT), providing both written and oral advocacy. Jennifer is passionate about advocating for injured workers and approaches our clients with a friendly and empathetic demeanor. While Jennifer has represented injured workers on a wide range of issues, she is especially passionate about advocating for injured workers who are dealing with Mental Stress Injuries, including First Responders who have been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and other related psychological conditions due to exposure to trauma in the course of their employment. Jennifer is also very passionate about providing advocacy on issues related to an injured worker’s employability in the post-accident context, particularly where the injured worker is at a competitive disadvantage in obtaining an alternate job in the open labour market due to their work-related impairment and consequential factors.
Outside of work Jennifer enjoys spending time with her family and friends. Jennifer’s hobbies include reading, baking and cooking.
Noteworthy Cases
Decision No. 1308/20:
The Vice Chair determined the worker was competitively unemployable. In reaching this conclusion the Vice Chair agreed that the analysis of a worker’s ability to obtain work post-accident in the open labour market requires a holistic analysis of the impact of the worker’s accepted work-related impairments, in conjunction with their individual vocational characteristics, and therefore the determination is not solely dependent on a strict review of the medical documentation by itself.
Decision No. 1404/20:
The Panel determined that the worker, who had been employed as a personal support worker at the time of injury, was entitled to their annular tear at L4-L5, as well as an L5-S1 disc herniation, and that the worker had also permanently aggravated their degenerative joint changes in their back. The worker was entitled to a Non Economic Loss (NEL) determination for these conditions.
Decision No. 528/21:
The Panel allowed the worker’s time limit extension for filing of a claim to WSIB. The Panel accepted the worker was young, inexperienced and had little understanding of the WSIB system. Additionally, the accident employer’s actions contributed to the worker’s lack of awareness to file a claim, including not providing the worker assistance despite the worker’s inquiries, failure of reporting the accident to WSIB and overall failure to provide meaningful guidance around the process.
Decision No. 28/22:
The Panel found that the worker had entitlement to Chronic Pain Disability as a result of a compensable head injury. Given the entitlement to Chronic Pain Disability the worker was also entitled to further Loss of Earnings (LOE) benefits from the date of WSIB benefit termination.
Decision No. 398/22:
The Panel found that the worker was entitled to Loss of Earnings (LOE) benefits despite being terminated by the accident employer. The Panel held there were no factors to support the worker intended to quit when they did not engage in the work offered, nor were they refusing suitable work. The Panel agreed that the evidence supported that the factors surrounding the termination did not represent an intervening event that broke the chain of causation between the worker’s injury and his wage loss post-termination.
Decision No. 608/22:
The worker was entitled to loss of earnings benefits. The worker acted reasonably when they relied on the opinion of their doctor to remain off work.
Decision No. 840/22:
The Vice Chair granted the worker, a police constable, entitlement to an ongoing low back impairment inclusive of entitlement to a permanent impairment, with allowance of loss of earnings benefits for a specific period of lost time.
Decision No. 1730/22:
The Vice Chair determined that despite some gaps in medical reporting, for which a reasonable explanation existed, the worker was granted entitlement to a recurrence of their back injury and loss of earnings benefits from the date of the recurrence.
Decision No. 252/23:
The Vice Chair awarded the worker entitlement to loss of earnings benefits following a permanent layoff due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, as the worker’s compensable injury caused a disadvantage in the worker’s ability to obtain alternate employment in the open labour market.
Decision No. 524/23:
The Panel found the worker was awarded initial entitlement for injuries to their neck, left shoulder and upper back including diagnosed strains of the left rhomboid and trapezius muscle. Entitlement was awarded on a gradual onset disablement basis, due to the nature of the worker’s job as a transportation team member.
Decision No. 1115/23:
The Vice Chair granted the worker initial entitlement to Chronic Pain Disability.
Decision No. 1734/23:
The Panel found the worker was entitled to Chronic Pain Disability.
Decision No. 204/24:
The Vice Chair held that even where a worker did not experience significant worsening in their condition, treatment can still be allowed post maximum medical recovery (MMR). Although the Board’s Administrative Practice Document on Maintenance Treatment from December 2020 focuses on musculoskeletal injuries, not psychological injuries, the Vice Chair found no justification for the exclusion of psychological injuries in this version of the document. Maintenance treatment was allowed because it had a positive impact on the worker’s ability to maintain employment and develop skills to allow them to be more independent in managing challenges in their personal and professional life.
More Published Decisions
To read more of Jennifer Cabot’s published decisions, you can find them here.