A worker who witnessed a co-worker’s spouse being sexually assaulted after a company Christmas party has been granted workplace injury benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal.
The tribunal overturned a previous denial of the worker’s claim, ruling that witnessing the sexual assault and subsequent threats of violence constituted an “objectively traumatic event” that triggered the worker’s pre-existing PTSD.
The case involves a shuttle driver who, while driving intoxicated co-workers home from a Christmas party in December 2016, witnessed the company’s service manager grab a co-worker’s wife’s genitals in the back of the van. The incident was followed by the husband threatening to kill the service manager.
The incident
The worker was employed as a shuttle driver for a car dealership and regularly drove employees home from the annual Christmas party because he did not drink alcohol.
On December 10, 2016, while driving several intoxicated couples home, the worker observed the dealership’s service manager sexually assault a service advisor’s wife in the back of the shuttle van. According to the worker’s testimony, the service manager “leaned forward with his right arm and hand extended and grabbed [the service advisor’s wife] on her vagina until [she] had to forceable [sic] push his hand off.”
The victim immediately reacted by repeatedly saying “what the f..k,” while the service manager responded with “f..k it” before exiting the vehicle.
When the victim’s husband learned what happened, he became enraged, threatened to kill the service manager, and attempted to exit the moving vehicle while the worker was driving away. The worker described being “out of control emotionally” during the incident.
Reporting and diagnosis
The worker did not immediately report the incident to the employer, explaining later that he had been asked not to by those involved. It wasn’t until August 2017, approximately eight months after the incident, that he informed management.
The worker continued working until September 25, 2017, when he stopped due to worsening symptoms. In October 2017, he sought medical treatment and was diagnosed with PTSD. His family doctor noted that the worker’s PTSD was “exacerbated by individuals at workplace.”
A psychiatrist who assessed the worker in October 2017 concluded that while the worker likely had pre-existing PTSD from childhood abuse and other traumas, the sexual assault incident “brought back extreme symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder” and “amplified” his condition.
Employer’s position
The employer disputed the worker’s claim, arguing that the incident was “minor and accidental” and didn’t require follow-up. The company owner claimed to have interviewed those involved, stating that “none of the parties involved remembered the incident.”
However, the tribunal found these assertions questionable after the service advisor (husband of the victim) provided a signed statement confirming the assault occurred and noting he was never interviewed by the employer as claimed.
The employer also argued that the worker’s delay in reporting and seeking treatment made it “virtually impossible to determine the significance” of the incident as a triggering event for his PTSD.
Tribunal’s decision
The tribunal panel rejected the employer’s arguments and granted the worker entitlement to benefits for traumatic mental stress. The panel found:
- The incident was “objectively traumatic” as defined in the WSIB policy, constituting an act of physical violence that the worker witnessed firsthand.
- The subsequent events, including death threats and the attempt to exit a moving vehicle, also constituted threats of physical violence that added to the traumatic nature of the experience.
- The circumstances—occurring in a “remote dark area” with intoxicated individuals—made the events unpredictable and more traumatic.
The panel accepted the worker’s explanation for the delayed reporting, including being asked to keep quiet by the individuals involved. They also found the delay in seeking treatment wasn’t significant, noting the worker’s testimony that his “symptoms increased over time, with inability to sleep and increased conflict at work until he could no longer tolerate it.”
Importantly, the tribunal clarified that the worker’s pre-existing history of trauma did not preclude his entitlement to benefits, stating: “workplace factors need not be the sole factors causing the injury, but need only be significant contributing factors, even if other factors also contributed or rendered the worker more vulnerable to injury.”
The panel noted that despite his personal history of trauma, the worker had performed his job for five years without issue until witnessing the sexual assault, which became the triggering event that rendered him unable to work.
The tribunal found “the evidence before us overwhelmingly establishes” that the December 2016 incident was a significant factor in triggering the worker’s PTSD symptoms to the point where he required psychiatric treatment, medication, and became unable to work.
For more information, see Decision No. 1472/24, 2025 ONWSIAT 221 (CanLII).
