APPEALS RESOLUTION OFFICER DECISION
DECISION NUMBER: 20260016
OBJECTING PARTY: WORKER
REPRESENTED by: WORKER REPRESENTATIVE
RESPONDENT PARTY: EMPLOYER (NOT PARTICIPATING)
HEARING: VIDEOCONFERENCE – DECEMBER 3, 2025
HEARD by: NEIL CLARK, APPEALS RESOLUTION OFFICER
ISSUES
The worker, through their representative, objects to the following:
- The Case Manager’s November 15, 2024 decision, which denied initial entitlement to benefits
for a chronic mental stress injury.
- The Case Manager’s November 15, 2024 decision, which denied initial entitlement to benefits
for a traumatic mental stress injury.
BACKGROUND
On August 26, 2024, the worker, who was then employed as a Records System Operator, submitted a Worker’s Report of Injury (Form 6), which stated that they had experienced an onset of post-traumatic stress disorder in response to traumatic exposures in the workplace. The employer subsequently confirmed that the worker had been off work since November 7, 2022, but had been in receipt of disability benefits.
In their decision dated November 15, 2024, the Case Manager confirmed that since the worker had been employed in a civilian role since 2006 and was not diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder until April 2023, entitlement to benefits could not be considered under Operational Policy 15-03-13, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in First Responders and Other Designated Workers. The Case Manager further determined that the worker did not have entitlement to benefits for a traumatic mental stress injury, as they were unable to establish that any incidents prior to the worker stopping work were objectively traumatic. They also found that the worker did not have entitlement to benefits for a chronic mental stress injury, as the medical information supported that the worker’s inability to return to work was solely related to non-compensable mental stressors.
On January 13, 2025, the Case Manager reconsidered their previous decision and upheld their findings that the worker did not have entitlement to benefits for a chronic mental stress injury or a traumatic mental stress injury.
The worker, through their representative, objected to the denial of benefits for a mental stress injury, and this issue forms the basis of the appeal before me.
AUTHORITY
Operational Policy Manual Published
15-03-14, Chronic Mental Stress 15-03-02, Traumatic Mental Stress
February 2, 2024
February 29, 2024
ANALYSIS
I have carefully considered all of the available information, legislation, and relevant operational policies in reaching this decision. I find that the worker has entitlement to benefits for a chronic mental stress injury and the diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder but does not have entitlement to benefits for the diagnosis of alcohol use disorder.
Worker’s Position
The worker, through their representative, provided an opening statement, at which time they confirmed that it is their primary position that the worker should have entitlement to benefits for a chronic mental stress injury but, in the alternative, the policy criteria for a traumatic mental stress injury are also met. They noted that during their employment they were exposed to significant traumatic material, and when they moved to the body camera analysis unit, their psychological capacity finally became overwhelmed. The worker stated that although there has been a focus on their role being a civilian position, they were required to review and redact body camera footage and were exposed to the same events as the police officers on the scene. They feel that these exposures were excessive in intensity and duration in comparison to other clerical or administrative roles. In the alternative, the worker states that the cumulative impact of their exposures should be considered under the traumatic mental stress policy.
The worker provided detailed testimony concerning their employment history and what each role entailed. Specific information about events that they perceived as traumatic or stressful were discussed; however, these will be reviewed further in my assessment of entitlement. The worker identified that they began to have significant difficulties after working in the body camera unit and that this began to impact both their professional and personal life. The worker acknowledged the presence of a number of personal issues and non-compensable stressors; however, they state that while these concurrent problems were present, they did not cause their post-traumatic stress disorder or the worsening of their alcohol use.
In closing, the worker through their representative, reiterated that they should have entitlement to benefits for a chronic mental stress injury. They note that the medical evidence supports that they developed post-traumatic stress disorder due to their job. The worker further states that the psychiatrist who provided the diagnosis and completed the comprehensive assessment was aware of the other personal issues but still related the diagnosis to their occupational experiences.
They submit that while watching body camera footage is not the same as being on scene, it would still entail significant indirect exposure. They noted that they would be responsible for watching some of the most difficult footage, which would later be used in court or for other policing reasons, and that it would be unredacted and they would need to watch it numerous times while editing the video. The worker identified that while their other life experiences may have made them more vulnerable to an injury occurring, the predominant cause of their post-traumatic stress disorder was their work.
The worker acknowledges that their personal struggles are evident in the medical information; however, the worsening of their post-traumatic stress disorder contributed to their inability to process or manage these issues. The worker highlights a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal medical discussion paper concerning post-traumatic stress disorder and states that the worker’s personal problems would not have met the criteria to cause post-traumatic stress disorder, but their repeated occupational exposure to traumatic incidents would have.
Employer’s Position
A Respondent Form was sent to the employer on February 25, 2025, but was not returned. No information was submitted for my consideration.
Assessment of Entitlement
Issue #1- Entitlement to benefits for a chronic mental stress injury.
Operational Policy 15-03-14, Chronic Mental Stress, states that 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. 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.
In all cases, the decision-maker must be able to identify the event(s), which are alleged to have caused the chronic mental stress. This means that the event(s) can be confirmed through information or knowledge provided by co-workers, supervisory staff, or others.
Operational Policy 15-03-14, Chronic Mental Stress, further confirms that the decision-maker must also 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.
There is no entitlement for chronic mental stress caused by an employer’s decisions or actions that are part of the employment function, such as terminations, demotions, transfers, or discipline. However, workers may be entitled to benefits for chronic mental stress due to an employer’s decisions or actions that are not part of the employment function, such as
workplace harassment, or
conduct that a reasonable person would perceive as egregious or abusive.
A claim for chronic mental stress made by a worker employed in an occupation, or a category of jobs within an occupation, reasonably characterized by a high degree of routine stress should not be denied simply because all workers employed in that occupation, or category of jobs within that occupation, are normally exposed to a high level of stress. In some cases, therefore, consistent exposure to a high level of routine stress over time may qualify as a substantial work-related stressor.
Jobs with a high degree of routine stress would typically have one or both of the following characteristics:
responsibility over matters involving life and death, or
routine work in extremely dangerous circumstances.
The policy also confirms that 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). I note that the initial psychiatric assessment, completed by Dr. AhmadzadAsl and Dr. Steingart, on April 15, 2023, confirmed the DSM diagnoses of post-traumatic stress disorder and alcohol use disorder. Therefore, the claim can be adjudicated.
The worker testified that they worked in a youth detention center from 1997 to 2002 but began their employment as a Special Constable in approximately 2001. Initially, they were employed part-time and worked in both positions. The worker described that as a Special Constable they escorted prisoners to court and then remained in the courtroom to ensure order. They noted that in this role, they would be exposed to different evidence as part of the court process, which could include pictures of crime scenes, child pornography, and dead bodies. They felt that the role was difficult, but they tried to “stay professional.”
The worker became full-time in 2004 or 2005 but transferred to Records Information and Management in 2006. When they assumed this position, they were responsible for reviewing and cataloging over 4,000 boxes of homicide evidence. The worker stated that this involved reading reports, seeing evidence, viewing crime scenes, and seeing autopsy photos. After two years in the role, they began to have panic attacks while performing this job, trouble sleeping, and felt that they could no longer continue in the role. The worker then transferred to an administrative role in court services, which involved preparing documents for failure to appear cases, running criminal history checks, and reviewing occurrence reports.
In 2017, the worker obtained a position as a 911 communicator. They noted that this position was difficult, as in the short time they performed the job, they had a call involving a house fire and another call where a granddaughter had discovered their grandmother who had been deceased for some time. The worker performed this job for approximately five months before transferring to a Records Operation position. The primary responsibility of this job was to take calls from officers and then process occurrence reports. The worker stated that it was sometimes difficult to read or hear about certain crimes. A year later, the worker worked for a brief period in a role with a law enforcement information centre, which was heavily administrative. They identified that they were not in this position for very long, but it was not difficult or stressful.
In approximately the summer of 2021, the worker took a temporary position with the body camera unit, which was then a pilot project. In the role, the worker would be responsible for viewing police body camera videos and editing them for court viewing. Specifically, removing witness information, graphic images, or other sensitive material. The worker testified that while many of the videos could be mundane, the role could often be very stressful, as there could be scenes that were very graphic and intense. The worker also noted that the video would need to be watched repeatedly so they could make the appropriate edits. If multiple officers were on the scene, they would need to view each body camera, which meant they were re-watching the incidents from numerous perspectives. The videos in question involved a wide variety of crime scenes, accidents, and investigations.
The worker provided an example of one video, which they continue to remember vividly. This video involved a domestic dispute where a suspect ran over the leg of their spouse. The worker had to watch the video multiple times, as there were numerous officers on the scene with body cameras, which clearly captured the screaming victim for a prolonged period, as well as their extensive leg injuries. The worker noted that officers would also display evidence found at the scene to their body cameras, such as holdi ng up cellular phones that had child pornography or voyeuristic content. The worker stated that if child pornography was seen, it would be sent to a specialized unit; however, this would not prevent them from being exposed initially.
The worker stated that they would sometimes talk about the difficulty of the job with other co-workers, but did not formally report any issues. As the body camera pilot was deemed successful, the rollout of body cameras increased, which led to more exposures. The worker stated that although they were beginning to have issues with their sleep, emotional regulation, alcohol use, and energy, they applied to stay in the body camera unit as it was more money than their previous position, which was important to them at that time in their life. The worker also acknowledged that their performance in the role was not going well, and their other non-work-related stressors were further complicating their functioning, as their ability to cope with their various life circumstances was worsening.
Within their testimony, the worker confirmed that they did initially stop working when they were recalled to in-person work due to performance issues. The worker stated that while the medical evidence notes that they were concerned about childcare, they could have sorted this out; however, they were stressed about ongoing family court matters with their ex-husband. The worker described how, at this time, they were unable to appropriately deal with the employment concerns; had ongoing issues with their ex-husband, which they often reported as a significant stressor when seeking medical attention; had increased their alcohol intake; and had “shut down.” The worker reiterated that while these non-work-related issues were present at the time they stopped working, they were not the cause of their post-traumatic stress disorder.
As noted above, Operational Policy 15-03-14, Chronic Mental Stress, confirms that 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. 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.
In considering if the worker suffered a substantial work-related stressor arising out of and in the course of their employment, I find that the worker’s job duties routinely resulted in exposure to traumatic events, which culminated in their employment in the body camera unit. In regards to this position, I accept that the exposures would be substantial, as they were excessive in intensity and duration compared to the normal pressures and tensions experienced by workers in similar circumstances. In doing so, I recognize that the worker spent much of their career in largely administrative roles. When they moved to the body camera unit, which was also an administrative civilian position, it was only a pilot project as body cameras were gradually being phased in by the employer. The worker would not necessarily have understood the stressors they would be exposed to when they moved to the role; however, the evidence before me confirms that they were directly viewing exactly what a police officer was seeing when attending a crime scene or accident.
In addition, as discussed above, the worker was the individual responsible for making the videos safe for others to view, which meant they were watching the original footage multiple times and sometimes for extended periods of time while editing the videos. These job duties are confirmed within the job description provided by the employer. This resulted in the worker regularly being exposed to high intensity incidents, imagery of victims, crime scenes, accidents, violence, child pornography, and other traumatic content. I find that these repeated exposures, which were unique to the body camera unit, would be excessive in intensity and duration in comparison to the normal pressures and tensions of a civilian administration role, which the worker and many other record officers perform.
While the worker was indirectly exposed to the same incidents that police officers would witness directly, the worker testified that during their time in the body camera unit, there were no debriefs or follow-ups that a police officer would receive after a difficult or traumatic call. While entitlement to benefits is not being considered under Operational Policy 15-03-13, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in First Responders
and Other Designated Workers, I would be remiss not highlight that under this policy, police officers have a presumption that their post-traumatic stress disorder arises out of and in the course of their employment, unless the contrary is shown. This recognizes the traumatic events that a police officer is expected to encounter during the course of their employment. In this case, while the worker would not have been on scene and dealing with incidents in the manner of a police officer, their job duties required them to view the same uncensored incidents, essentially from the police officer’s perspective, and often on a repeated basis.
Although I have established that a substantial work-related stressor is present, the policy confirms that it must also be shown that this stressor arose out of and in the course of the worker’s employment and was the predominant cause of the appropriately diagnosed mental stress injury. In my review of the available medical information, I acknowledge the family doctor’s chart notes from the period when the worker stopped working concerned employment, being recalled to work in the office, and childcare issues. In addition, the psychotherapy records from July 2023 to November 2023 and September 2024 only discuss the worker’s non-work-related stressors. However, it is important to note that the appeal before me is not the worker’s entitlement to ongoing benefits, but rather the specific issue of if the worker’s post-traumatic stress disorder resulted from a substantial work-related stressor arising out of and in the course of their employment. When considering this, I place significant weight on the psychiatric assessment, which was completed by Dr. AhmadzadAsl and Dr. Steingart on April 15, 2023.
On that date, the worker underwent a comprehensive psychiatric assessment after a referral from their family doctor. During the assessment, the worker confirmed that their chief complaint was “The way that my work affected my life.” The report confirms that the worker expressed that their “work [had] significantly impacted her mental health, causing her to experience depression, anxiety, panic attacks, insomnia, and alcohol consumption.” The psychiatrist confirmed that the worker had their first depressive episode at the age of twenty-seven and this related to harassment at work and not being given full-time employment. At the time of the assessment, the worker was anxious, lacked motivation, had difficulty sleeping, and increased alcohol use. The worker related that since their twenties, they suffered from excessive worrying and often chose to avoid social situations.
The worker further confirmed that they have experienced panic attacks since their early twenties. They related that they were also exposed to traumatic events throughout their life, such as the loss of their mother when they were fifteen, domestic violence between their parents, physical and emotional abuse in their previous marriage, the death of their brother due to a possible overdose, witnessing a child hang themselves while working in a jail, and being exposed to child pornography at work. The psychiatrist identified that the worker has recurrent and distressing memories of traumatic events, persistent negative mood, and hypervigilance.
Overall, the psychiatrist provided the diagnoses of post-traumatic stress disorder and alcohol use disorder, as well as several other possible diagnoses that needed to be ruled out or considered. In rationalizing the diagnoses, the psychiatrist stated that the worker had experienced adverse childhood experiences, but identified that the worker’s post-traumatic stress disorder related to the following:
As a law enforcement officer, she had direct and indirect exposure to several traumatic events, leading to re-experiencing, avoidance, negative emotional impact, and hyper-arousal symptoms. These symptoms are likely consistent with a PTSD [post-traumatic stress disorder] diagnosis.
When considering the above opinion, I find it relevant that the psychiatrist was fully aware of the worker’s ongoing non-work-related stressors and history and reviewed these issues in detail; however, they explicitly attributed the worker’s diagnosis to their work duties. I place significant weight on this report, as it is comprehensive, reviews the worker’s history in detail, and is the only reporting on file from a
psychologist or psychiatrist. There is also no other medical information on file to contradict the findings of the report. Furthermore, the report is unbiased and unsolicited. In fact, following the assessment, the psychiatrist contacted the a social services agency due to their concerns about the worker’s alcohol use.
While I again recognize the significance of the worker’s history, their vulnerability to a mental health injury, and the presence of concurrent non-compensable stressors, I also considered the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal medical discussion paper titled Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, which was cited by the worker’s representative during the hearing. This paper confirms that the first criterion that must be met to establish a post-traumatic stress disorder diagnosis is as follows:
Trauma – Criterion A Stressor:
The person was exposed to actual or threatened death, serious injury or sexual violence in one (or more) of the following ways (one required):
Direct exposure;
Witnessing in person;
Indirectly, by learning that a close relative or close friend was exposed to trauma. If the event involved actual or threatened death, it must have been violent or accidental;
Repeated or extreme indirect exposure to aversive details of the event(s), usually in the course of professional duties (e.g. first responders, collecting body parts, professionals repeatedly exposed to details of child abuse). This does not include indirect non-professional exposure through electronic media, television, movies, or pictures.
Comment: An event may be traumatic i.e. distressing and upsetting to an individual however to meet the PTSD criteria outlined above the following MUST be met
In this case, I accept that the reporting from the psychiatric assessment aligns with the medical discussion paper. While the worker did experience various trauma throughout their life, there is no suggestion that the non-work-related issues involved threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence. Rather, during the course of the worker’s employment, I have established that they experienced repeated or extreme indirect exposure to aversive details of events involving death, serious injury, or sexual violence. While this criterion mentions that this would not include indirect exposure through electronic media or pictures, it also confirms that this would only apply to non-professional exposures, whereas the worker’s exposures were in the course of their professional duties.
The medical reporting does state that the worker was diagnosed with depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder by their family doctor in 2004, and that they saw a psychologist in approximately 2017. During their testimony, the worker stated that these possible diagnoses were provided in 2004 when they were having difficulty in the court services role, but they were never confirmed and no formal treatment or assessment was received. In regards to the psychological treatment that occurred in 2017, they stated that this was as a result of their separation from their now ex-husband. I find that the worker’s medical history identifies prior psychological issues and vulnerabilities; however, I continue to accept the opinion of the assessing psychiatrist, which stated that the worker’s indirect and direct exposure to occupational trauma was the predominant cause of the diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder.
In consideration of all of the above, I find that the worker experienced a substantial work-related stressor arising out of and in the course of their employment, as per Operational Policy 15-03-14, Chronic Mental Stress, and has entitlement to benefits for a chronic mental stress injury and the diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder.
In addition to post-traumatic stress disorder, I note that the worker was also diagnosed with alcohol use disorder. In reviewing if this was also a result of a substantial work-related stressor, the psychiatrist identified that the worker has “a long history of alcohol use, beginning at age 11 and continuing daily since 2005.” The report confirms that the worker’s drinking did increase in November 2022, and they later completed a virtual treatment program. The worker’s family doctor also confirmed a long history of alcohol use, as they stated that the worker had been “drinking since age 13.” During the testimony, the worker noted that their alcohol use did not increase until 2022; however, they also admitted to drinking daily in a manner that they did not consider excessive.
While the medical information establishes that the worker’s alcohol use did increase during specific periods of their life, I do not find that the predominant cause of the worker’s alcohol use disorder was a result of the other events that I have reviewed in regard to their post-traumatic disorder. Rather, the medical information establishes that this was a long-standing issue that pre-dated their employment, and that the worker’s maladaptive use of alcohol could coincide with various life stressors that were not exclusive to their occupational exposures.
As a result, I find that the worker does not have entitlement to alcohol use disorder under Operational Policy 15-03-14, Chronic Mental Stress or Operational Policy 15-03-02, Traumatic Mental Stress.
In summary, the worker has entitlement to benefits for a chronic mental stress injury and the diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder but does not have entitlement to benefits for the diagnosis of alcohol use disorder.
Given the lack of updated medical information concerning the worker’s post-traumatic stress disorder, I remit the nature and duration of benefits flowing from this decision to the Operating level. The worker maintains the right to appeal any subsequent decisions of the Operating level.
Issue #2- Entitlement to benefits for traumatic mental stress.
As a mental stress injury has already been confirmed under Operational Policy 15-03-14, Chronic Mental Stress, it is not necessary to consider or make further findings regarding the reported exposures under Operational Policy 15-03-02, Traumatic Mental Stress.
CONCLUSION
I find that the worker has entitlement to benefits for a chronic mental stress injury and the diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder but does not have entitlement to benefits for the diagnosis of alcohol use disorder.
The objection is allowed-in-part.
DATED JANUARY 2, 2026
Neil Clark
Appeals Resolution Officer Appeals Services Division