The Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) has ruled that a youth services officer employed at a correctional facility is entitled to benefits for traumatic mental stress (TMS) after being exposed to multiple distressing events.
The worker, referred to here as W.W., alleged she witnessed violent assaults, suicide attempts and verbal abuse while on duty over a 10-year period. In its decision, the tribunal concluded that the cumulative effect of these incidents “made a significant contribution” to her post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
W.W. initially filed a claim for PTSD, attributing her psychological condition to a series of events at work between 2003 and 2013. She said she was subjected to “verbal abuse by inmates, suicide attempts, violent beatings and fights.” According to the ruling, the tribunal found these episodes, although not always at the extreme end of the TMS policy examples, were “clearly and precisely identifiable as required by the TMS policy.”
W.W. worked on a casual basis for about nine years in a youth correctional facility, then for one year in an adult facility, before stopping work in 2013. She said she developed symptoms of depression and PTSD that year, ultimately seeking help from medical professionals. While she initially attributed much of her distress to family issues, her treating psychiatrist, Dr. M., later underscored workplace factors as a “significant contribution” to her PTSD.
‘Objectively traumatic’ events
The tribunal noted that one of the key questions was whether W.W. could establish “objectively traumatic” events under the TMS policy. The policy outlines that, in order to qualify for TMS, the event or events must be “clearly and precisely identifiable,” “objectively traumatic,” and “first-hand.”
W.W. recounted multiple scenarios, including violent inmate fights in which individuals were left “battered beyond recognition,” and incidents of physical or sexual harassment. She also described witnessing inmates engaged in self-harm or near-fatal overdoses, including one instance where she insisted an inmate be sent to the hospital despite a colleague’s initial dismissal.
According to the ruling, “the worker was a first-hand witness to traumatized individuals on multiple occasions, and was herself the object of physical and verbal harassment at work.” Although some of her experiences were not among the most severe examples listed in the TMS policy, the tribunal said the policy allows for entitlement where repeated or cumulative incidents “may be a result of a criminal act or a horrific accident,” or where workers are “the object of physical violence” or threats.
Delay in reporting issues
The tribunal addressed W.W.’s significant delay in reporting her issues to both her employer and health-care professionals. She had not formally connected her mental stress to her job until well after she stopped working, partly because she feared “ratting” on coworkers or appearing unfit.
W.W. testified she “did not want to jeopardize her employment,” noting that as one of few women in her role, she felt additional pressure to remain silent. Despite these delays, the tribunal concluded that such reporting gaps did not undermine her credibility, given the nature of the workplace environment and her “casual” status, which she felt placed her job security at risk.
Pre-existing psychological condition
Medical evidence in the record confirmed that W.W. carried a pre-existing psychological condition originating in childhood. Family doctors and psychiatrists had previously linked her mental health challenges to personal and familial sources, including difficult relationships with her father and sister. However, the tribunal applied the “thin skull” doctrine, finding that “the worker’s pre-existing psychological condition rendered her more vulnerable to the development of PTSD.”
Under workers’ compensation principles, employers take employees as they are, with pre-existing vulnerabilities not barring a claim if a workplace incident (or series of incidents) significantly contributes to the injury.
Some medical professionals initially questioned whether W.W.’s personal history could overshadow workplace causes. For instance, in one independent medical evaluation, a psychiatrist, referred to as Dr. O., focused heavily on her childhood issues and did not see evidence of workplace trauma. But subsequent reports from Dr. M. cited specific work incidents, aligning with the tribunal’s determination that “the occupational stressors, cumulatively, significantly contributed to the diagnosis of PTSD.”
These occupational events ranged from relatively minor forms of inmate misconduct to extremely violent occurrences. In one case, W.W. recalled a fight in which a youth’s head was “banging off the floor,” while others in the facility sometimes encouraged assaults or stood by. She also mentioned invasions of personal space from coworkers, including inappropriate touching. Moreover, at least three coworkers died by suicide during her tenure, which she found deeply unsettling.
Quoting from the ruling, the tribunal stated: “Although the worker’s traumatic experiences did not involve the more severe examples described in the TMS policy, she was a first-hand witness to traumatized individuals on multiple occasions, and was herself the object of physical and verbal harassment at work.” The adjudicators also found “no requirement that the last event(s) be the most traumatic,” affirming that repeated exposures can yield a cumulative traumatic effect.
‘Significant contributing factor’
In deciding in W.W.’s favour, the tribunal granted entitlement for TMS, effectively concluding that the workplace played a “significant contributing factor” in her mental health decline. The decision noted that W.W. was not obligated to prove her story with corroborating witness testimony; her own statements, medical reports, and consistent descriptions of events over time were sufficient to meet the balance of probabilities.
By accepting the notion that W.W.’s childhood trauma and other non-work issues did not exclude the workplace factor, the tribunal firmly applied the thin skull rule to mental stress cases. As a result, W.W. was awarded benefits for the PTSD she developed, in part, because of her exposure to recurring traumatic incidents on the job. The ruling clarifies that TMS entitlement can arise from repeated events that collectively satisfy the policy threshold, even if the final incident appears less intense on its own.
For more information, see Decision No. 1306/24, 2024 ONWSIAT 1717 (CanLII).
