Worker v. Employer, 2025 CanLII 144158

20260001

REPRESENTED by:

VIDEOCONFERENCE – OCTOBER 23, 2025, ZOOM VIDEO CONFERENCE

HEARD by:

DATED:

OCTOBER 31, 2025

ISSUES

The worker objects to the Case Manager’s November 8, 2024, decision that denied entitlement for a chronic mental stress disorder and for a traumatic mental stress disorder.

BACKGROUND

This claim was registered on September 18, 2024, and the date of accident was identified as September 17, 2024. The worker who was employed as a Building Operations Technician, claimed they developed a mental stress injury as they were harassed by a coworker and was working in a toxic work environment.

The worker reported this to the employer on September 17, 2024, and they were placed on a paid administrative leave from April 25, 2024, as the harassment allegation was being investigated. The employer had requested the worker return to work as of September 3, 2024; however, the worker reported they were unable to return to work and submitted a claim for this mental stress injury.

As outlined in the November 8, 2024, decision, the Case Manager found the incidents reported and substantiated did not meet the definition of workplace harassment as they did not rise to the level of vexatious conduct. Further, while the coworker’s behaviour can be viewed as inappropriate, the Case Manager did not find this reached the level of abusive or harassing behaviour. The incidents that occurred with the coworker were more accurately reflected as an interpersonal conflict rather than workplace harassment. As such, entitlement under the chronic mental stress policy was denied.

The Case Manager also reviewed entitlement under the traumatic mental stress policy and concluded the criteria to allow entitlement had not been satisfied and therefore the worker did not have entitlement for a traumatic mental stress injury.

The worker’s representative argues the events in the workplace caused the worker’s mental stress injury and the criteria for allowance in operational policy has been satisfied. As such, the worker’s representative submits entitlement should be granted in this case.

The employer’s position is that decision is correct and should be upheld. The Case Manager applied policies correctly and the evidence fails the legal requirement for entitlement. Specifically, there was no objectively traumatic event(s) and there was no significant work related stressor or behaviour that constituted harassment.

As the decision remained unchanged, the matter was referred to the Appeals Services Division for further review and consideration.

AUTHORITY

Operational Policy Manual

Published

15-03-14 – Chronic Mental Stress

February 2, 2024

15-03-02 – Traumatic Mental Stress

February 29, 2024

ANALYSIS

I have carefully considered all the available information, legislation, relevant operational policies, any submissions provided, and the worker’s testimony in reaching this decision. After having conducted a thorough review of the circumstances of this claim, I find the evidence supports granting the worker’s appeal. The following is a summary of my observations and findings.

Entitlement for a Traumatic Mental Stress Injury

Operational policy 15-03-02 provides entitlement guidelines for claims for traumatic mental stress. This policy states in part:

A worker is entitled to benefits for traumatic mental stress arising out of and in the course of the worker’s employment.

A worker is not entitled to benefits for traumatic 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.

A claim for traumatic mental stress (as described below) is distinct from a claim for chronic mental

A worker will generally be entitled to benefits for traumatic mental stress if an appropriately diagnosed mental stress injury is caused by one or more traumatic events arising out of and in the course of the worker’s employment.

In order to consider entitlement for mental stress related to one or more traumatic events, the WSIB decision-maker must identify that one or more traumatic events occurred. A traumatic event may be a result of a criminal act or a horrific accident, and may involve actual or threatened death or serious harm against the worker, a co-worker, a worker’s family member, or others. In most cases a traumatic event will be sudden and unexpected.

In all cases, the event(s) must arise out of and occur in the course of the employment, and be

clearly and precisely identifiable, and
objectively traumatic.

This means that

the decision-maker, after assessing and weighing all relevant and available evidence, including any provided by the worker, co-workers, supervisory staff, or others, is satisfied that the event(s) more likely than not occurred, and
the event(s) is/are generally accepted as being traumatic.

Traumatic events include, but are not limited to:

witnessing a fatality or a horrific accident
witnessing or being the object of an armed robbery
witnessing or being the object of a hostage-taking
being the object of physical violence
being the object of death threats
being the object of threats of physical violence where the worker believes the threats are serious and harmful to self or others (e.g., bomb threats or confronted with a weapon)
being the object of workplace harassment that includes physical violence or threats of physical violence (e.g., the escalation of verbal abuse into traumatic physical abuse), and
being the object of workplace harassment that includes being placed in a life-threatening or potentially life-threatening situation (e.g., tampering with safety equipment; causing the worker to do something dangerous).

On November 8, 2024, the Case Manager reviewed entitlement and found the evidence does not support granting entitlement for a traumatic mental stress injury.

As outlined above in operational policy, for entitlement to be granted as a traumatic mental stress injury the events must be objectively traumatic. The worker reported and provided testimony regarding an assault that occurred in the workplace; however, the worker did not seek medical attention, nor did they put in a claim for this incident. In absence of any supporting documentation to corroborate the worker’s testimony, I am unable to accept this incident as being objectively traumatic. Further, the circumstances of this claim, in my view, did not identify any objectively traumatic events and as such, the worker does not have entitlement for a traumatic mental stress condition.

Chronic Mental Stress Entitlement

Operational policy 15-03-14 provides entitlement guidelines for claims for chronic mental stress. This policy 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.

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 term “work-related stressor” is meant to include multiple work-related stressors, as well as a cumulative series of work-related stressors.

In order to consider entitlement for chronic mental stress the decision-maker must be able to identify the event(s) which are alleged to have caused the chronic mental stress. This means the decision-maker, after assessing and weighing all relevant and available evidence, including any provided by the worker, co-workers, supervisory staff, or others, is satisfied that the event(s) more likely than not occurred.

Substantial work-related stressor

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.

Interpersonal conflicts

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.

Standard of proof and causation

In all cases, the decision-maker must be satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the substantial work-related stressor

arose out of and in the course of the worker’s employment, and
was the predominant cause of an appropriately diagnosed mental stress injury.

Diagnostic requirements

Before any chronic mental stress claim can be adjudicated, there must be a diagnosis in accordance with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) which may include, but is not limited to,

acute stress disorder
posttraumatic stress disorder
adjustment disorder, or
an anxiety or depressive disorder.

As outlined above, the worker was assessed by their physician and diagnosed with a major depressive disorder and a posttraumatic stress disorder which meets the diagnostic criteria outlined in operational policy.

The worker submitted a complaint against multiple individuals at their place of employment. The worker described events which were clearly identifiable. The employer hired a third-party law firm to complete an investigation of the worker’s allegations.

The summary report dated January 31, 2024, provides details of their investigation and it was concluded the conduct and comments of Co-worker 1 constituted discrimination based on race and related grounds and created a poisoned work environment for the worker amounting to harassment.

While I have reviewed the entire contents, I will only recite the evidence I find particularly relevant to the issue of entitlement for a chronic mental stress condition.

The worker identified instances where the employer did not provide accommodations, allow them the opportunity to work overtime, denied request to transfer to another campus, and denying
The worker also identified instances involving Co-worker 1 and this included:

o In 2019, Co-worker 1 told the worker they did not want to work with them and said words like, “When you aren’t aware, I will put something in your drink”. This allegation was not substantiated in the investigation.

o In March 2023, during a training session Co-worker 1 made a comment to the trainer “oh poor you” when the instructor indicated they were going to use the worker’s name to login. This meeting was being recorded and shared to the afternoon training group and the worker overheard their coworkers laughing and was shown the video of this occurring. The investigation noted the worker felt bullied and humiliated by this. This allegation was substantiated in the investigation.

o In 2014 and 2022, Co-worker 1 made discriminatory remarks regarding the worker’s wife saying, “People from Country A eat guinea pigs, ask your wife if she eats guinea pigs.” Co-worker 1 acknowledge they talked about television program where the people of Country A ate guinea pigs for dinner. The investigation found this allegation was substantiated in part. Co-worker 1 admitted to speaking about people from Country A who eat guinea pigs; however, it was not corroborated that Co-worker 1 asked the worker if their wife and family ate guinea pigs.

o In 2014, 2022, and 2023 Co-worker 1 used racial slurs when speaking about their own sisters ex-boyfriend. The worker did not appreciate the racist remark. This allegation was substantiated as Co-worker 1 admitted to using a racial slur to describe this individual.

o In 2014, 2022, and 2023 Co-worker 1 commented to the worker that he flies the Confederate flag at their trailer to make the neighbours laugh. This allegation is substantiated in part as Co-worker 1 admitted to flying the Confederate flag at his trailer. It was not concluded that Co-worker 1 told the worker about the flag in 2022 and 2023 since Co-worker 1 sold the trailer three years prior.

o In 2023, Co-worker 1 used a discriminatory comment to describe a coworker. This allegation was substantiated in the investigation.

o Co-worker 1 regularly called coworkers names to the worker. This was partially substantiated by the investigation as Co-worker 1 admitted to using these nicknames.

o In 2022-2023 Co-worker 1 placed a garden gnome statue that was bent over with its pants down on his desk. This allegation was substantiated, and it was confirmed Co-worker 1 had this gnome on their desk for about three years and that this could be seen by a member of the public.

o The investigation also identified incidents when the employer requested information that was unnecessary, talked about going on long-term disability, attending an assessment clinic etc. It was found that the allegations of discrimination based on perceived disability were not substantiated.

The outcome of the investigation was that Co-worker 1 engaged in discriminatory conduct and violated the Human Rights Code, the Employer’s Discrimination and Harassment Policy and Procedure, and the Employer’s Code for Professionalism and Civility. It was also determined that Co-worker 1’s conduct amounted to workplace harassment under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Further, it was found that Co-worker 1’s behaviour created a hostile or intolerable work environment for the worker, amounting to workplace harassment.

The worker provided testimony regarding their complaint, and I will document their statement regarding the issues I find relevant in rendering this decision.

The worker did not know Co-worker 1 prior to working with them. The worker did not socialize outside of work hours and has no contact with Co-worker 1. The worker explained that they do not answer the phone because they worry about having contact with Co-worker 1.
In 2021, the worker began working at job site A and that they usually work alone but they had trained Co-worker 1. Approximately 6 months after that the worker mentioned the guinea pig comments.
The worker attended a training in the morning. Co-worker 1 attended the training session in the afternoon. After the training occurred the worker heard some of their coworkers playing a video and they had heard their name being mentioned. The worker asked their colleagues what they were laughing at and was shown the video recording of the afternoon session where Co-worker 1 made the comment “oh poor you” when the instructor was signing in using the worker’s name. The worker testified that in the video a supervisor who was also laughing mentioned to Co-worker 1 that that was not very nice, and Co-worker 1 replied that is who I am.
The worker testified Co-worker 1 used racial slurs and made comments about their wife eating guinea pigs to others and to the worker personally.
The worker testified that they were put on paid leave of absence as the employer was worried about their safety. The worker reported his life was threatened and their locker, that was located in a secured area, was broken into. The worker described Co-worker 1 told them if they returned to their job that was working with Co-worker 1, someone would put something in their drink. Specifically, the worker indicated they received a phone call, on their work cell phone, from the person saying this. The worker indicated that their locker was broken into, and this made them paranoid and they worried about their safety. The worker testified they would not bring lunch to work and would only bring items that were in sealed containers. The worker confirmed a police report was not submitted.

In their testimony, the worker indicated they had been on paid leave of absence since April 2023 and then in June or July they were advised the investigation was stopped and would continue after vacation time. The investigation began again in September 2023 and the worker testified the outcome was that

they were working in a toxic environment. The worker indicated the employer did give them a copy of the report; however, there was no further communication with the employer regarding this.

The worker described having panic attacks, nervous nightmares, fatigue of always looking over your shoulder, medical conditions, rashes, and overeating. The worker testified the stress of this caused weight fluctuations, headaches, heartburn, and that they were clenching their teeth so much that they broke a tooth. The worker stated they had no energy and that their wife does everything which is very embarrassing. The worker does not go out of the house and even watches church online because of this.

The worker sought medical attention, and their therapist would like to refer the worker to a psychiatrist for further diagnosis and treatment recommendations. The worker has been prescribed sleeping pills, medication for their rash and ulcers, and antidepressant medication which they are hesitant to take.

The worker indicated they would like to return to work if this was a safe environment. Further, the worker testified they were concurrently employed at this time and has not been able to return to this other employment.

Medical Reporting

On June 26, 2024, Dr. Garic completed an attending physician statement (APS), non-occupational disability form provided by the employer. It was noted the worker had a mild cognitive impairment with difficulties to retain new information. It was noted the worker is able to return to work at the workplace without any restrictions. This medical report is regarding a prior injury that the worker had a concussion.

On July 6, 2024, Dr. Garic completed an APS that indicated the worker had their full abilities to return to work. The report indicated; slight difficulty retaining new information and additionally stated there were no concerns related to the worker’s health in regard to return to work.

On September 17, 2024, a Health Professional’s Form 8 was completed that stated; not able to concentrate, low mood, low energy, and poor sleep due to increase stress at work. The report states the worker was concerned for their safety and not able to return to work in any capacity.

On March 5, 2025, the worker was assessed by Dr. Laidlaw, a psychologist, who wrote a report for the application for long-term disability. The worker was receiving psychological services since October 2024. The worker reported to experience mental and physical symptoms that significantly impacted their daily functioning and quality of life and their ability to maintain employment at the employer as a building maintenance technician. Current symptoms included physical/psychological reaction/distress when reminded of stressful experiences, anhedonia, hypervigilance, paranoia, sleep disturbance, fatigue, avoidance of internal and external reminders of stressful experiences, cognitive impairments, social isolation/withdrawal, anxiety, and diminished interest in significant activities. The worker was provided with a provisional diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder.

On June 13, 2025, Dr. Garic responded to the worker representative’s request for information. It was noted that the worker was off work because of a posttraumatic stress disorder, a major depressive disorder, and anxiety.

Dr. Garic’s chart notes dated October 22, 2024, indicated the worker started seeing a psychologist at Dr. Laidlaw’s office. It was noted the worker was diagnosed with depression and was offered medications, but they declined. The worker confirmed they were taking sleeping pills every evening and using a cream for stress induced hives.

Arguments Presented

The worker’s representative argues the worker is entitled to benefits for a chronic mental stress injury and the criteria to grant entitlement in operational policy has been satisfied. The worker’s representative references the medical reporting confirming a psychological condition and that this occurred as a reaction to the workplace incidents. The worker’s representative further argues that the evidence on record and through the worker’s testimony satisfies the entitlement criteria and as such, entitlement should be granted.

The employer’s representative indicated the worker began a paid administrative leave on April 25, 2023, pending investigation into a number of workplace concerns they raised against a number individuals and spanning several years. A third-party investigator was retained to conduct preliminary review of the extensive allegations to determine next steps. The evidence in the investigation substantiated some allegations against one respondent and did not find evidence to support the worker’s other allegations. The employer’s representative confirmed the respondent has since left the workplace and that the summary of the investigation report was completed and shared with the worker on June 17, 2024. The worker appealed the investigation and that was denied on September 3, 2024.

The employer objects to granting entitlement as there is no proof of injury, impairment and/or medical attention. The worker’s own physician cleared them to full duties on July 24, 2024. Further, the employer’s representative acknowledges some inappropriate behaviour; however, the circumstances in this claim do not meet the criteria to grant entitlement and therefore agree with the decision to deny entitlement.

Decision

I have considered the evidence presented and the relevant operational policies outlined above. The medical evidence supports the diagnostic criteria has been satisfied as the worker was diagnosed with a posttraumatic stress disorder, a major depressive disorder, and anxiety.

I place significant weight on the investigation completed by a third party legal firm. The results are summarized above, and I find particularly relevant that the outcome of the investigation was that Co-worker 1’s behaviour created a hostile or intolerable work environment for the worker, amounting to workplace harassment.

While the evidence does not substantiate all the incidents reported by the worker, in my view, it is clear the worker was exposed to work-related stressors. I will not address the issues the worker reported regarding the employer’s decisions relating to changing work location, hours worked, and or accommodations as this is not defined as a work-related stressor as outlined in operational policy.

However, I do find the incidents with Co-worker 1 are confirmed and while the Case Manager found this was an interpersonal conflict and denied entitlement, I find Co-worker 1’s behaviour amounted to workplace harassment and Co-worker 1’s conduct was such that a reasonable person would perceive as egregious or abusive.

I further find that based on the balance of probabilities, the worker was exposed to a substantial work-related stressor that arose out of and in the course of the worker’s employment and was the predominant cause of the mental stress injury.

The worker was diagnosed with a posttraumatic stress disorder, a major depressive disorder, and anxiety. While I appreciate the diagnoses provided by the medical assessors, I find entitlement should be

allowed for the major depressive disorder with anxiety. I am not persuaded by the medical evidence on record that entitlement should be extended to include a post-traumatic stress disorder.

CONCLUSION

As outlined above, the worker has entitlement for major depressive disorder with anxiety. Entitlement has not been allowed for the diagnosis of a posttraumatic stress disorder.

The worker’s objection is allowed-in-part.

DATED OCTOBER 31, 2025

Jennifer Mangoff

Appeals Resolution Officer Appeals Services Division