The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal has dismissed a complaint by a former worker who alleged that WorkSafeBC discriminated against him based on a mental disability.
C.T. claimed that WorkSafeBC unjustly denied him benefits and treatment after he developed mental health conditions at work, reportedly due to workplace bullying, harassment, and stress.
The complaint centred on the claim that WorkSafeBC presumed C.T.’s case was fraudulent and ignored his application for benefits when he first applied in December 2021. However, WorkSafeBC contested this allegation, asserting that they followed standard procedures, which included both initial assessment and subsequent reviews of the claim. Notably, in August 2022, WorkSafeBC reversed its previous denial and accepted his claim, providing him with wage loss and treatment benefits.
C.T., dissatisfied with the process, filed a human rights complaint on November 8, 2021, arguing that WorkSafeBC’s actions amounted to discrimination based on his mental disability. He described encountering “extraordinary obstacles” in receiving benefits, despite eventually having his claim approved.
In response, WorkSafeBC applied to dismiss the complaint, citing Section 27(1)(f) of the Human Rights Code, which allows for dismissal if the substance of the complaint has already been dealt with in another proceeding. Tribunal Member Edward Takayanagi ruled in favour of WorkSafeBC, concluding that the substance of C.T.’s complaint had indeed been appropriately addressed in the previous WorkSafeBC proceedings.
The tribunal’s decision noted that the initial denial of C.T.’s claim was subject to multiple reviews within WorkSafeBC, which ultimately led to the acceptance of his claim in August 2022. C.T. argued that he had not received any response or benefits from WorkSafeBC, alleging that the organization had fabricated “a supposed remedy that never actually occurred without evidence to support it.” However, WorkSafeBC provided documentation indicating that as of February 2023, he had received $10,985.02 in benefits, including wage loss and healthcare costs.
The tribunal determined that C.T.’s complaint was essentially an attempt to relitigate the same dispute that had already been resolved through WorkSafeBC’s internal review process. “The evidence before me is that (C.T.) already obtained the remedy they are seeking from the Tribunal from the WorkSafeBC review process,” Tribunal Member Takayanagi wrote in the decision. “Their claim was accepted, and WorkSafeBC has provided benefits to them.”
Additionally, the tribunal found that C.T. had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that WorkSafeBC’s initial denial of his claim was connected to his mental disability, a necessary component of proving discrimination under the Human Rights Code. The decision referenced previous tribunal rulings, noting that simply experiencing an adverse impact due to a disability is insufficient; there must be a demonstrable link between the protected characteristic and the adverse treatment.
“(C.T.) has not alleged facts which contravene the Code,” the decision stated, citing Ingram v. Workers’ Compensation Board and others, which requires a complainant to provide evidence that their disability was a factor in the adverse impact they experienced.
For more information, see Taggart v. WorkSafeBC, 2024 BCHRT 217.
