A cashier in Alberta who said she suffered from severe depression and anxiety due to workplace bullying, mistreatment, and harassment over a 10-year period has been denied workers’ compensation benefits for psychological injury.
The Appeals Commission for Alberta Workers’ Compensation found her claim did not meet the criteria under provincial policy.
The employer acknowledged that the worker had reported being bullied and harassed on different occasions and that she was terminated from her position shortly after her final incident.
A registered psychologist diagnosed the worker with major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder in July 2022. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) ruled that the claim was not acceptable, concluding the psychological injury did not meet the requirements for coverage. That decision was upheld by the Dispute Resolution and Decision Review Body (DRDRB) and subsequently appealed to the Appeals Commission.
Criteria for psychological injury claims
Under Policy 03-01, Part II, Application 6, a psychological injury is compensable if it falls into one of the following categories:
- A reaction to a traumatic workplace event or series of traumatic events;
- An extreme emotional reaction to a work-related physical injury or illness;
- An extreme emotional reaction to treatment for a work-related injury;
- Chronic onset psychological injury resulting from a significant work-related stressor or an accumulation of verifiable work-related stressors over time.
The Appeals Commission found that the worker’s claim did not meet any of these criteria.
No traumatic event under policy
The worker cited multiple workplace incidents, including verbal altercations with co-workers and managers, aggressive behaviour from colleagues, and an incident where a co-worker allegedly engaged in inappropriate physical contact. However, the panel determined these did not qualify as traumatic events under the policy, which requires incidents to involve actual or threatened death, serious injury, or a clear threat to personal integrity.
“The worker’s experiences, while distressing to her, do not meet the definition of a traumatic event under policy,” the panel stated. “Verbal disagreements and interpersonal conflicts, even if perceived as aggressive, are not considered traumatic unless they involve specific threats or acts of violence.”
The Commission also noted that a co-worker’s alleged staring, patting on the shoulder, and squeezing of the worker’s hand did not constitute a threat to her physical integrity, as required under policy.
Chronic onset claim also rejected
The worker’s representative argued that the claim should be accepted as a chronic onset psychological injury due to a prolonged pattern of mistreatment. The panel found that while the worker had a DSM-5-confirmed diagnosis, the evidence did not establish that workplace stressors were the predominant cause of her condition.
Medical records showed the worker had been dealing with stress from personal issues, including family illness and bereavement, which contributed to her psychological condition.
“There is insufficient medical evidence linking the worker’s psychological diagnoses directly and predominantly to her workplace experiences,” the panel found.
Furthermore, the Commission determined that the incidents described by the worker did not meet the policy’s definition of workplace bullying or harassment, which requires repeated and intentional conduct meant to intimidate, degrade, or humiliate. Many of the incidents cited involved performance disputes, miscommunications, and interactions with co-workers that, while unpleasant, were deemed to fall within the normal pressures of employment.
No objective evidence of racial discrimination or harassment
The worker also alleged racial discrimination, stating that managers showed favoritism toward employees of a particular ethnic background. However, the panel found no objective evidence to support this claim.
“The worker has not provided any supporting documentation, witness statements, or other evidence demonstrating that racial bias influenced management’s decisions or treatment toward her,” the decision stated.
Similarly, the Commission rejected the worker’s sexual harassment allegations against a male co-worker, finding that the employer had investigated and determined the behaviours in question—such as staring and touching—were misinterpreted rather than sexually motivated. The employer also took steps to address the worker’s concerns by ensuring she was not alone with the co-worker in the office.
Appeal denied
The Appeals Commission concluded that the worker’s claim did not meet the requirements for an acceptable psychological injury under Alberta’s Workers’ Compensation Act and related policies.
“The weight of evidence does not establish that the worker has an acceptable WCB claim for a psychological injury on either a traumatic or chronic onset basis,” the panel ruled.
As a result, the worker’s appeal was denied, and the DRDRB’s decision was upheld.
For more information, see Decision No.: 2025-0051, 2025 CanLII 15639 (AB WCAC).
