The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal (WCAT) has determined that a former BC Hydro employee’s claims of workplace harassment and sexual harassment fall within the scope of the province’s workers’ compensation system.
The decision effectively bars the employee, E.L., from pursuing a civil lawsuit against the employer for injuries stemming from workplace misconduct.
E.L., who worked for BC Hydro as a dam safety engineer from September 2019 to February 2021, alleged she experienced bullying, harassment, and sexual harassment by a colleague, P.G. She stopped working in February 2021 and later filed a mental disorder claim with WorkSafeBC. Separately, she initiated a court action against BC Hydro, claiming the employer breached its duty of good faith by failing to adequately address the alleged misconduct, resulting in injury.
BC Hydro applied to WCAT for a certification to court, arguing that any alleged injuries arose out of and in the course of employment, making them compensable under the Workers Compensation Act (the Act) rather than through civil litigation.
Employment connection established
WCAT examined multiple incidents outlined in E.L.’s complaint, including verbal abuse, intimidation, unwelcome sexual advances, and inappropriate conduct during work-related travel. The tribunal considered whether the alleged injuries were sufficiently connected to employment by applying criteria set out in WorkSafeBC’s policy manual.
Among the key findings:
- E.L. was a “worker” within the meaning of the Act.
- BC Hydro was an “employer” as defined by the Act.
- The alleged incidents, including those occurring off-site, had a substantial connection to employment.
- The injuries arose out of and in the course of employment within the scope of the compensation system.
WCAT placed significant weight on BC Hydro’s internal investigation, which confirmed that P.G.’s conduct violated the company’s respectful workplace policy. The investigation, conducted by an independent third party, substantiated allegations of workplace intimidation and sexual harassment.
Additionally, WCAT noted that E.L. and P.G. worked closely together, with P.G. exercising informal authority over her daily work. This relationship created an employment-related power imbalance that influenced the tribunal’s assessment of whether the harassment incidents had a sufficient nexus to the workplace.
Business travel and workplace jurisdiction
The decision also addressed misconduct that occurred during work-related travel. Policy guidance from WorkSafeBC states that injuries sustained on business trips are generally considered to arise out of employment unless there is a distinct personal departure.
WCAT found that multiple incidents, including unwelcome advances and inappropriate conduct at a hotel during a work trip, occurred within the context of E.L.’s employment duties. Given that travel was a required part of her role, the tribunal determined that incidents occurring in that setting were within the scope of employment.
Employer liability under workers’ compensation
In addition to confirming that E.L.’s injuries fell within the workers’ compensation system, WCAT considered whether BC Hydro’s alleged failure to prevent or properly respond to workplace harassment could be adjudicated outside of the Act.
The tribunal cited past decisions indicating that employer negligence in supervision, hiring, or enforcing workplace policies generally falls within the scope of employment unless the conduct is so extreme that it constitutes an intentional act of harm or gross negligence. WCAT found no exceptional circumstances in this case that would allow the claim to proceed outside of the workers’ compensation system.
Implications for the civil action
By issuing this certification to court, WCAT confirmed that E.L.’s claims must be pursued through the workers’ compensation system rather than through civil litigation. The decision means that claims related to workplace injuries, including those arising from harassment or bullying, are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of WorkSafeBC.
While E.L. had also initiated a separate lawsuit against P.G., that action was discontinued before WCAT’s ruling. Notably, WCAT’s decision left open the possibility of a future determination regarding P.G.’s status in the employment relationship, should such a request be made.
For more information, see A2301525 (Re), 2025 CanLII 9781 (BC WCAT).
