An Alberta worker’s claims for compensation related to psychological injuries caused by alleged workplace bullying and harassment were denied by the Appeals Commission for Alberta Workers’ Compensation, even though multiple medical professionals diagnosed her with depression and anxiety disorders linked to her work environment.
The worker, who has a hearing disability, filed two separate workers’ compensation claims alleging her supervisor and a manager from another department subjected her to discriminatory treatment, micromanagement and humiliation that caused major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder and panic disorder.
Medical evidence supported work-related diagnoses
Multiple healthcare providers confirmed the worker’s psychological conditions were related to her workplace experiences. An independent psychiatrist diagnosed major depressive disorder in August 2021, documenting “the worker’s concerns that she was verbally harassed by two upper management people at work.”
A psychotherapist diagnosed generalized anxiety disorder in February 2022, stating “the primary trigger was workplace tensions and feelings of being bullied.” Another psychiatrist in March 2022 diagnosed major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder and panic disorder, documenting “the work events as the precipitating factor.”
The worker’s treating physician recommended she take short-term disability leave in March 2021 “based on the worker’s stress and anxiety from work.”
Allegations of discrimination and harassment
The worker, who is deaf in her left ear, claimed her supervisor and the manager refused to accommodate her hearing disability and subjected her to discriminatory treatment. She alleged they “refused to believe she had a hearing disability that required accommodation.”
Specific incidents included being publicly criticized during virtual meetings for incomplete tasks that had actually been finished, being forced to attend weekly meetings with a note-taker present, and having her supervisor dictate paragraph rewrites in documents she was writing.
The worker said her supervisor micromanaged her work to the point of humiliation and accused her of computer misconduct when she improved the employer’s system by adding programming. She also claimed the manager told her during a recorded meeting: “oh look at you there are lots of things you haven’t done.”
Appeals Commission findings
However, the Appeals Commission found no objective evidence of traumatic or chronic workplace stressors as defined under Workers’ Compensation Board policy. The panel concluded the incidents described by the worker reflected “various types of normal conduct in the work environment, from supervisors and managers.”
Regarding the recorded meeting comment, the panel stated: “This was not the statement made. In any event, we do not interpret the statements made by the manager to be accusatory, bullying, or harassment. Rather, we find the manager’s statement and the way it was stated, was an offer to help the worker.”
The Commission found the employer made reasonable efforts to accommodate the worker’s hearing disability, noting attempts to provide note-taking services and audio transcription tools. The panel stated: “We do not find it discriminatory that the employer requested proof of the worker’s hearing disability.”
Investigation reports supported employer
Two workplace investigation reports found the worker’s allegations unsubstantiated. A June 2022 investigation determined all allegations were unfounded, including claims that the manager ignored the worker in meetings and questioned her disability.
The investigation found the manager “did not recall ignoring the worker or questioning her disability” and that discussions about accommodation options like closed captioning “was not considered outside of the respectful workplace policy.”
A February 2023 Workers’ Compensation Board investigation noted the employer used an “alternative remedies” approach to address the worker’s concerns and that her union was working with the employer to assist her.
Policy requirements not met
Under WCB policy, psychological injuries must result from either traumatic workplace events involving “behaviours that are aggressive, threatening, or abusive” or chronic stress from “repeated incidents of objectionable or unwelcome conduct, comment, bullying or action intended to intimidate, offend, degrade or humiliate.”
The Commission found the worker’s experiences did not meet these criteria, stating: “We find no objective evidence before us that the worker experienced interpersonal relations with her supervisor or her manager that can be reasonably and objectively assessed as aggressive, threatening, or abusive behaviour.”
The panel noted that while the worker “developed stress as a result of her perceived stressors in the workplace,” this does not translate to workplace stressors that would qualify for workers’ compensation coverage.
Normal employment pressures
The Commission emphasized that WCB policy considers certain workplace actions as normal employment pressures, including “performance evaluations and/or performance corrective actions,” “workload fluctuations and management and/or assignment changes,” and general “actions taken by an employer relating to management of work and employees.”
The panel concluded: “We find that the worker’s exposure to various incidents at work did not exceed typical employer manager practices in the worker’s employment.”
Both psychological injury claims were denied, with the Commission confirming the original WCB decisions that found no compensable workplace injuries.
For more information, see Decision No.: 2025-0296, 2025 CanLII 55788 (AB WCAC).
