A British Columbia healthcare worker’s claim for compensation due to a mental disorder stemming from alleged workplace bullying has been denied by the B.C. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal (WCAT). The ruling, which confirmed a previous decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board (WorkSafeBC), found that the incidents described by the worker did not meet the threshold for significant workplace stressors required to qualify for compensation under the Workers Compensation Act.
The worker, a registered nurse, sought compensation for depression and anxiety that he claimed were the result of a series of incidents at his workplace in the summer of 2022.
Incidents in question
Among the incidents, the worker cited being mistakenly called “ma’am” by his supervisor, having his lunchbag hidden by the supervisor and another colleague, and being subjected to remarks that he perceived as questioning his intelligence and parenting abilities.
The worker argued that these incidents, combined with other interactions with colleagues, constituted bullying and harassment, leading to his mental health decline. He reported experiencing severe anxiety symptoms, depression, and episodes of crying and isolation, ultimately leading to his admission for emergency psychiatric care on two occasions in October 2022.
Upsetting but not ‘significant workplace stressors’
Despite these claims, the tribunal concluded that the incidents described, while upsetting to the worker, did not rise to the level of significant workplace stressors as defined by law. The tribunal noted that compensation for mental disorders is only available when the disorder is either a reaction to a traumatic event or is predominantly caused by a significant work-related stressor, including bullying or harassment, and that the stressor must be excessive in intensity and duration beyond normal workplace pressures.
The tribunal found that the incidents involving the worker were not threatening or abusive, as required for compensation. The ruling stated, “These interactions could be described as rude and thoughtless, and were clearly upsetting to the worker, but the worker’s upset is not sufficient to find the incidents were significant workplace stressors.”
Interpersonal conflicts, impolite comments
The tribunal also highlighted that interpersonal conflicts or impolite comments at work, which are part of the normal pressures of employment, do not generally qualify as significant stressors unless they involve extreme conduct. The tribunal pointed out that while the worker subjectively found the incidents stressful, objective evidence from co-workers suggested that the workplace environment was one where joking and banter were common, and the comments made were not intended to be harmful.
In addition to the incidents cited by the worker, the tribunal considered the broader context of his workplace interactions, including his ongoing issues with attendance and performance, which had led to his involvement with the employer’s Human Resources department prior to the incidents in question. The employer had also investigated the worker for his social media activity, which included posts that violated company policies.
Legitimate workplace decisions
The tribunal noted that some of the stressors identified by the worker were related to legitimate workplace decisions, such as job assignments and scheduling, which fall under the labour relations exclusion of the Workers Compensation Act. This exclusion bars compensation for mental disorders caused by routine employment decisions, unless those decisions are communicated in a manner that is abusive or threatening.
In its analysis, the tribunal acknowledged the worker’s mental health diagnosis, which included Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD) and Adjustment Disorder (AD) with depressive features, but found that the medical records did not demonstrate that the workplace incidents were the predominant cause of the worker’s mental disorder. The tribunal noted that the worker had other significant stressors in his life, including issues with his landlord and difficulties with childcare, which also contributed to his mental health decline.
Ultimately, the tribunal ruled that the worker was not entitled to compensation for a mental disorder, stating, “To be entitled to compensation, the evidence must demonstrate that the comment was extremely offensive and insulting, intended to inflict injury or damage, threatening, or abusive. In my view, there was nothing extremely offensive, threatening, abusive, or implying injury or damage in the incidents described by the worker.”
The worker’s appeal was denied, and no compensation for expenses related to the appeal was awarded.
For more information, see A2301657 (Re), 2024 CanLII 77636 (BC WCAT).
