A worker’s request for reconsideration of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) decision denying entitlement to traumatic mental stress (TMS) and chronic mental stress (CMS) has been dismissed, with the tribunal upholding that workplace harassment was not the cause of the worker’s psychological condition.
The worker, employed as a shop technician by a company providing fire extinguisher sales and service, alleged psychological injury due to workplace harassment, including inappropriate sexual comments made by a supervisor.
The original panel had denied entitlement for both TMS and CMS, finding that while harassment did occur, it was not “objectively traumatic” as required under the TMS policy, nor was it the significant contributing factor to the worker’s psychological diagnosis, as required under both TMS and CMS policies.
Background of the claim
The worker, who has cerebral palsy, was laid off in April 2014. Following the layoff, he initially filed a claim for a respiratory condition related to workplace exposure, which the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) ultimately denied. In December 2014, after learning of the denial of his respiratory claim, the worker was diagnosed by his family doctor, Dr. K., with generalized anxiety disorder. Subsequently, he was admitted for inpatient psychiatric treatment at North York General Hospital in January 2015, where he was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder.
In May 2015, Dr. K. submitted a WSIB Form 8 diagnosing “psychological stress from verbal sexual harassment.” The worker subsequently claimed psychological injury arising from workplace harassment experienced prior to his layoff.
Original panel findings
The majority of the original panel found the harassment incidents, although upsetting, did not meet the threshold of “objectively traumatic” required under the WSIB’s TMS policy. Furthermore, the panel concluded that workplace harassment was not a significant contributing factor in developing the worker’s psychological condition, identifying other more likely contributors, including the layoff, denial of the respiratory claim, and challenges related to his cerebral palsy.
The dissenting vice-chair disagreed, finding the harassment met the criteria for TMS entitlement and that it significantly contributed to the worker’s condition.
Reconsideration request arguments
The worker’s reconsideration request challenged the original majority’s findings, alleging errors in interpreting harassment under the TMS policy and errors in evaluating the medical evidence provided by his treating physicians. The worker argued the panel disregarded uncontested medical opinions linking his psychological condition to workplace harassment, citing medical documents from Dr. K. and hospital psychiatrists, Drs. Weinstein and Weinroth.
Tribunal rejects reconsideration
Upon review, the tribunal rejected the reconsideration request, finding no fundamental errors in the original panel’s reasoning. The tribunal concluded the panel appropriately assessed the medical evidence, including the timing of the worker’s claims, noting significant delays in attributing his psychological condition to harassment. It also rejected the argument that the medical evidence provided clear and uncontested opinions on causation, highlighting that the medical records lacked detailed explanations and largely relied on the worker’s self-reports.
In its decision, the tribunal reiterated that causation determinations remain the responsibility of the tribunal, not medical practitioners alone, emphasizing the panel’s entitlement to weigh medical evidence alongside other factual considerations. The tribunal further clarified that no reverse onus exists requiring the employer or the board to disprove causation once suggested by medical evidence.
Ultimately, the tribunal found the original majority’s conclusions on causation to be “transparent and intelligible,” supported by reasonable interpretations of the evidence.
Decision implications
As the tribunal confirmed the original panel’s causation analysis was sound, it stated any reconsideration of the interpretation of what constitutes objectively traumatic harassment under the TMS policy was unnecessary, given it would not alter the outcome of the case.
The tribunal thus denied the reconsideration request, affirming the original decision that the worker does not have entitlement to benefits for either TMS or CMS arising from workplace harassment.
For more information, see Decision No. 133/22R, 2025 ONWSIAT 21 (CanLII).
