The rates that workers' compensation boards have paid across Canada have shifted over time. Over the last three decades, for example, there have been different rates paid.
In the mid-1980s, a significant analysis was done by some economists from Harvard University on behalf of the Ontario government. They determined that there is a very fine balance between incenting a person to return to work or disincenting them from returning to work arising from the amount of wage replacement benefit they receive.
What was done in Ontario, and it was subsequently adopted pretty much across Canada, was an analysis that indicated what the person's general take-home pay would be—net earnings after CPP and EI and all those things had been deducted—while they were working. Then there was a calculation made about other costs of being employed, such as transportation and clothing and so on, and those were deducted.
The idea was and still is that we should compensate people for lost wages up to an amount that is roughly equivalent to what they would be able to put in the bank or take home while they are employed, but not replace it fully, because if you replace it fully, the theory is that it's a disincentive for people to return to work. It then becomes a generous retirement scheme, as opposed to a reasonable amount of wage replacement.