APPEALS RESOLUTION OFFICER DECISION
DECISION NUMBER:
20250066
OBJECTING PARTY:
worker
REPRESENTED by:
WORKER REPRESENTATIVE
RESPONDENT PARTY:
Employer (not participating)
HEARING:
VIDEOCONFERENCE – august 28, 2025
HEARD by:
C. Marr, appeals resolution officer
September 8, 2025
ISSUES
The worker is objecting to the Case Manager’s (CM) decision dated November 5, 2024 in which entitlement to benefits for a mental stress injury (MSI) under the policy for chronic mental stress (CMS) was denied.
The worker representative stated at the hearing that they are not pursuing entitlement to benefits under the policy for traumatic mental stress (TMS).
I explained to the representative that I also have to correct the date of injury. They were in agreement with this.
BACKGROUND
This customer service representative for a company that manages parking lots submitted a claim for an MSI in October 2024. The date of injury in this claim was set at June 28, 2024. The worker related their MSI to receiving verbal abuse from customers.
As explained in correspondence dated November 5, 2024, entitlement to benefits for an MSI under the policy for TMS was denied as the worker was not exposed to an objectively traumatic event while in the course of their employment. Entitlement to benefits under the policy for CMS was denied as the CM determined that the worker’s MSI was not the result of a substantial work-related stressor.
The decision was reconsidered and upheld on December 10, 2024.
Worker’s Position
The worker is seeking entitlement to health care and loss of earnings benefits in relation to their MSI.
The worker representative argued in part that the verbal abuse experienced by the worker while in the course of their employment constituted a substantial work-related stressor as described under the policy. The worker had a stress reaction to the way they were treated by customers. This was the predominant cause of their MSI.
AUTHORITY
Operational Policies
Published
11-01-04 Determining Date of Injury 15-03-14 Chronic Mental Stress
April 9, 2021 February 2, 2024
ANALYSIS
I have carefully considered all of the available information, legislation and relevant operational policies in reaching this decision.
Before I can address the substantive issue in this claim, I must correct the date of injury. The date of injury in this claim is presently set at June 28, 2024. It should be October 16, 2024.
WSIB Operational Policy 11-01-04 Determining Date of Injury states that in cases such as this where a condition develops gradually over time, “the date of injury is established using the date of first medical attention which led to the diagnosis, or the date of diagnosis, whichever is earlier.” The worker reported that they first sought medical attention for their mental stress injury (MSI) on October 16, 2024. They began to lose time from work as of this date as well. The worker saw their doctor again on October 28, 2024. The Health Professional’s First Report (Form 8) was completed on November 1, 2024.
As the worker first sought medical attention for their condition on October 16, 2024 and this led to the diagnosis, this is the date of injury for this claim. The worker representative was in agreement with this at the hearing.
Chronic Mental Stress
I find that the worker is entitled to benefits for a mental stress injury (MSI) under the policy for chronic mental stress (MSI). The evidence supports that their MSI arose from a substantial work-related stressor and that this was the predominant cause for their condition.
Policy 15-03-14 Chronic Mental Stress states in part:
A worker is entitled to benefits for chronic mental stress arising out of and in the course of the worker’s employment.
A worker is not entitled to benefits for chronic mental stress caused by decisions or actions of the worker’s employer relating to the worker’s employment, including a decision to change the work to be performed or the working conditions, to discipline the worker or to terminate the employment.
The policy also states:
A worker will generally be entitled to benefits for chronic mental stress if an appropriately diagnosed mental stress injury is caused by a substantial work-related stressor arising out of and in the course of the worker’s employment.
The policy defines a “substantial work-related stressor” as follows:
A work-related stressor will generally be considered substantial if it is excessive in intensity and/or duration in comparison to the normal pressures and tensions experienced by workers in similar circumstances.
The worker testified that they had a remote history of anxiety and depression. They had not been on medication for these issues for many years. They were on medication for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in the pre-accident period. They said that this was well-managed. The worker said that they did not lose time from work or require accommodation in the workplace for mental health issues prior to the MSI for which benefits are being claimed.
The worker has been employed as a customer service representative (CSR) for a parking lot management company since approximately 2019. They work in a parking garage at a hospital. The management company changed in 2023, but the worker remained working at the same jobsite.
Their tasks involved primarily helping customers with parking issues and payment. Members of the public would come to the office in the parking garage to purchase parking passes. Hospital staff had transponders. They would come to the office for assistance or issues with their billing. There was also a call button at the gate that people would press if they needed assistance, or they could call a telephone number.
The worker said that initially they worked from 2:00 or 3:00 in the afternoon until 8:00 in the evening. Their shift would overlap with another CSR and a manager. Then at some point the manager started ending their shift in the afternoon, so the worker would be working just with the other CSR in the evenings.
The worker testified that prior to June 2024, they did not experience any significant issues with their job. They sometimes would get the occasional call from a frustrated customer who was having issues, but these were the exception, and the worker usually had the knowledge and authority to address their concerns.
In approximately June 2024, the employer changed their parking machines and system. The worker said that the number of employees was cut as well. As a result, they would often be working alone for the latter part of their shift. The worker said that they were not well-trained on the new system, so they could not help customers as effectively as before. Many of the problems the customers had could not be dealt with at the worker’s level, so documentation had to be filled out and sent to the main office. In addition, the worker said that there was inadequate information posted in the garage to guide customers through the new processes. This resulted in there being many issues, and many upset customers.
The worker said that hospital staff had to turn in their transponders as these were not used with the new system. They were entitled to get a deposit back for these. This resulted in there being long lines at the parking office. The worker could not fix issues with the badges used to access parking after this, resulting in more complaints. In addition, the previous visitor passes had to be switched to new ones. This caused there to be an increased workload, more technical issues, and more upset customers. As the old passes would not work, and there was a lack of signage with instruction, more people called for assistance at the gate. This also contributed to their being more lines at the parking office.
The worker previously documented examples of abusive treatment from customers. This information is in the claim file. They testified to this as well. They said that customers yelled at them, called them offensive names, and generally took out their frustrations on the worker. They said that this became an almost daily occurrence after June 2024.
There is an office for the parking staff in the garage. The worker said that this was a room with windows and a door. The customers can enter the room. There is a desk with a plexiglass divider, but the worker said that there was a gap in the glass and a person could easily get around it. At times, people would bang their fists on the glass or the door. The worker would sit in their car during their break and see people pounding on the parking office, making the worker fearful to return. While they said that they were never directly threatened by a customer, they felt intimidated by this behaviour. The worker representative argued that such behaviour could only be intended as intimidation.
The worker also testified that the employer expanded their shift to run from noon until 8:00 pm. There would be some overlap in the afternoon with another CSR on the day shift, but due to staff cuts, the worker was typically alone in the evenings. This left them having to deal with complaints on their own but also made them feel less secure when the customers were abusive.
The worker said that they were not provided with specific training on how to de-escalate these situations. They did not receive a constructive response when they complained to management about the abuse they received.
The worker testified that they just closed-up and left work early on some occasions, due to symptoms of anxiety and panic. They previously submitted copies of some text messages to managers in which they said they had to leave work after a confrontation with a customer. The worker went away in October 2024 to visit family. When they returned, they realized how anxious they were about going into work. This was when they decided to seek medical attention. Their doctor prescribed them medication and advised them to remain off work for a period. The worker was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressive features, which meets the diagnostic requirements under the policy. The worker testified that they have not received any psychological treatment for their MSI.
When asked if there were other stressors that could have contributed to their MSI at this time, the worker said that there were not any. They have to care for their children who may have some additional needs, but this was always the case. There was nothing new or unusual with their family responsibilities in 2024, except perhaps for the change in their work schedule, making it harder for them to achieve work-life balance.
After they went and saw their doctor for their MSI, and the worker reported that they would be off work for a period, the employer attempted to discipline them for attendance issues. The worker reportedly had extensive absences in 2024. The worker said that these were all explainable and they worked to address this issue through their union. They said that aside from a couple dates where they missed work as they were upset with something that happened with a customer, they are not off work for mental health issues in the pre-accident period. The employer did not raise concerns with the worker’s attendance until after they had seen the doctor, so this disciplinary action was not a contributing factor to the onset of the worker’s MSI.
The worker representative submitted an email from another CSR who performs the same work as the worker. This person documented having similar issues with abusive customers as the worker. The representative argued that this supports how the work environment changed after June 2024 and how the CSRs were subjected to abuse. It also corroborates the nature of the experiences reported by the worker.
The representative also argued that the nature of the abuse from customers was greater than what would be considered “interpersonal conflict”. Regarding interpersonal conflict in the workplace, the policy states:
Interpersonal conflicts between workers and their supervisors, co-workers or customers are generally considered to be a typical feature of normal employment. Consequently, such interpersonal conflicts are not generally considered to be a substantial work-related stressor, unless the conflict
amounts to workplace harassment, or
results in conduct that a reasonable person would perceive as egregious or abusive.
The representative also argued that the conduct from the customers was abusive and greater than what would typically be encountered by a worker in similar circumstances, such as the worker themselves prior to the changes instituted by the employer in June 2024.
In my opinion, the worker’s testimony and the evidence in the claim file supports that their MSI resulted from a substantial work-related stressor. They were subjected to verbal abuse and name-calling in the workplace, and behaviour that was intended to intimidate. They complained to the employer about these events and how they were affecting their mental health. A co-worker made similar complaints and reported being subject to similar abuse. The evidence supports that the work-related stressors were the predominant cause of the adjustment disorder diagnosed by the family doctor.
The worker is entitled to benefits for an MSI under the policy for CMS. The criteria for establishing entitlement to benefits under the policy are met. The nature and duration of benefits is to be determined by Operations.
CONCLUSION
The date of injury is changed to October 16, 2024.
The worker is entitled to benefits for an MSI under the policy for CMS. The nature and duration of benefits is to be determined by Operations.
The objection is allowed.
DATED September 8, 2025
C. Marr
Appeals Resolution Officer
Appeals Services Division