The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal (WCAT) of British Columbia has upheld a previous decision to grant compensation to a worker for the aggravation of a pre-existing mental health disorder caused by workplace stress.
The decision, rendered on Aug. 16, 2024, confirms that the worker is entitled to compensation for the exacerbation of her generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) following a Feb. 4, 2022, workplace incident involving aggressive customers and insufficient managerial support.
The employer’s appeal, which sought to overturn an August 2023 Review Division decision that had granted compensation for the worker’s mental health condition, was denied in the ruling by WCAT Vice Chair Deirdre Rice. It highlights the growing recognition of mental health claims in workplaces and the responsibilities employers bear in providing a supportive environment, particularly in stressful situations.
Incident leading to claim
The worker, employed as a cannabis consultant since September 2018, filed a mental health claim in early 2022, asserting that her pre-existing anxiety and depression had been aggravated by a hostile workplace interaction.
The key incident occurred on Feb. 4, 2022, when two customers, who had been previously refused service, became combative and verbally abusive toward the worker after she again denied them service. Despite asking for support, her manager refused to assist, stating, “I am on my (lunch) break.”
The worker later experienced a panic attack, left the workplace, and was marked absent without leave (AWOL) by the same manager, escalating her distress.
Following the incident, the worker sought medical treatment and filed a claim with the Workers’ Compensation Board (Board). A physician’s report from March 2022 confirmed that the worker’s generalized anxiety disorder, which had previously been manageable, was aggravated by the workplace stress.
Despite this, a Board adjudicator initially denied her claim in January 2023, stating that the events leading to the worker’s panic attack were not sufficiently traumatic or emotionally shocking within the context of her job. However, the worker appealed, and a Review Division officer subsequently ruled in her favour in August 2023, citing that the workplace stressor met the criteria for a significant work-related stressor under the Workers Compensation Act.
Employer’s appeal and arguments
In their appeal, the employer, represented by an adviser, argued that while the customer interaction was stressful, it did not rise to the level of a predominant cause for the worker’s mental health disorder. The employer conceded that the customer behaviour was excessive, but maintained that the manager’s response, while perhaps unprofessional, was not abusive or threatening, and therefore should not be considered a significant workplace stressor under the law.
The employer further contended that the worker’s condition was the result of a culmination of non-workplace-related stressors, including the worker’s pre-existing mental health issues and the personal impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
They also pointed to an opinion from Dr. Lawrence, a psychologist who assessed the worker, which stated that the worker’s mental health was aggravated by multiple factors, including her employer’s decisions, but that the February 4 incident was only a moderate contributor.
WCAT’s decision
In reviewing the case, WCAT found that the customer interaction was indeed a significant work-related stressor and that the worker’s manager’s handling of the situation exacerbated her mental health condition. Vice Chair Rice noted that “any reasonable person who heard [the manager’s] advice to the worker that he would mark her absent without leave would clearly see it as abusive or personally threatening.”
Dr. Lawrence’s report, which identified the Feb. 4 incident as a “major contributor” to the worker’s panic attack, was a key factor in the tribunal’s decision. WCAT accepted Dr. Lawrence’s findings that the combination of the customer confrontation and the manager’s dismissive response were the primary causes of the worker’s aggravated anxiety disorder.
“[The] claim incident may be characterized as a significant stressor or as a traumatic event,” Dr. Lawrence noted in his assessment. He further stated that “the worker said [the incident] was more intense and shocking than most instances, and she clearly experienced verbal abuse.”
The tribunal ruled that while the worker had multiple stressors in her life, including pre-existing mental health conditions, the February 4, 2022, event was the predominant cause of the aggravation of her generalized anxiety disorder. WCAT concluded that the worker was entitled to compensation under section 135(1) of the Workers Compensation Act for the exacerbation of her GAD, though not for her persistent depressive disorder, which was found to be less directly related to the workplace incident.
For more information, see A2302045 (Re), 2024 CanLII 84868 (BC WCAT).
