A worker’s claim for compensation for a psychological injury was denied by Alberta’s Appeals Commission despite having a confirmed PTSD diagnosis, after the panel found insufficient objective evidence to support allegations of workplace harassment and bullying.
The worker, who was paralyzed from the waist down due to a spinal cord injury, filed a claim in July 2021 alleging psychological harm stemming from workplace treatment between 2017 and 2021. She claimed her employer failed to accommodate her disability and subjected her to harassment, bullying and isolation.
Background of the claim
The worker began employment with the company in 2009 and initially enjoyed her work. She told the panel “it was like Christmas for her going through the various product arrivals, and she took pride in her work.” In 2016, she felt comfortable enough in her employment to move to a new upgraded home.
However, the worker said her work environment “drastically changed in 2017” when she returned from medical leave for a neck injury. She alleged management failed to accommodate her restrictions and subjected her to derogatory comments and isolation.
The worker’s allegations included being excluded from team meetings, having her vacation revoked without notice, being forced to use walkie talkies unnecessarily, and claims that staff were told not to speak with her. She also alleged physical harassment, such as being bumped by carts and having obstacles placed in her way.
Medical evidence and diagnosis
A registered psychologist assessed the worker between March and May 2022, determining she met DSM-5 criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder. The psychologist noted the worker “was not experiencing symptoms in 2014 or 2017” according to medical reporting, and presumed “her symptoms stemmed from the experiences during the last years of her employment.”
Multiple healthcare providers, including the worker’s family physician and a behavioural health consultant, documented that workplace harassment and lack of accommodation were contributing factors to her psychological condition.
Investigation findings
The Appeals Commission reviewed extensive evidence, including witness statements, audio and video recordings the worker had made, and employer investigation reports.
A Special Investigation Unit report detailed interviews with witnesses. One witness reported being told by a co-worker that “if I don’t want to be in a bad situation at work, I should not talk to her.” However, when questioned further, the witness confirmed they were “never directly or indirectly told by a member of management or supervisory team that the worker was not permitted to leave her workstation or pick her own products.”
The panel found the witness statements were based on “speculation” and “perception of observations, not factual direction.”
Audio and video evidence
The worker provided 14 recordings of workplace interactions as evidence of harassment. However, the panel found the recordings did not support her allegations. The panel noted that in many clips, supervisors were “speaking with the worker listening to the worker’s complaints and attempting to problem solve with the worker.”
Regarding walkie talkies the worker was required to use, the panel found the audio evidence showed a supervisor “was encouraging the worker to use the walkie talkies to address the worker’s complaint regarding having to rely on team members to provide her product in a prompt manner.”
Employer’s response
The employer conducted multiple investigations into the worker’s complaints, including formal harassment complaint procedures. Investigation reports showed that when the worker alleged she was being watched and followed, camera footage was reviewed with the worker present.
One investigation found that when a team member looked in the worker’s direction, it was because “the conversation was regarding which rack was ready to grade” and “the rack was near the worker and the other team members which was the reason for the team members looking in that direction.”
The employer also addressed accommodation concerns, moving the worker to a different work area when she complained about too much traffic at her original station.
Policy requirements not met
Under Alberta workers’ compensation policy, chronic onset psychological injury claims must meet four specific criteria: a confirmed DSM diagnosis, work-related events as the predominant cause, events that are excessive compared to normal workplace pressures, and objective confirmation of events.
While the panel accepted the worker had a confirmed PTSD diagnosis and that she viewed workplace events as the predominant cause, they found the other criteria were not met.
The panel determined the workplace events “were not excessive or unusual in comparison to normal pressures and tensions experienced by the average worker in a similar occupation.” They noted that actions such as performance management, workload adjustments and workplace investigations “are considered a normal part of employment.”
Critically, the panel found “no objective evidence to support the worker’s allegations” of harassment and bullying.
Panel’s conclusion
The panel acknowledged the worker’s perceptions caused her “stress and anxiety” but emphasized that “for acceptance of a psychological injury based on mental stress and behavior outside of that one can typically expect in the workplace, there must be independent confirmation to support these behaviors and negative actions occurred.”
The panel concluded: “Although we do not dispute some of the interactions and events may have happened, there is insufficient independent objective confirmation to confirm the worker was subjected to aggression, threats, abuse, bullying, or harassment.”
The worker’s representative had argued the claim should be accepted because healthcare providers confirmed both the diagnosis and workplace causation. However, the panel noted that while these represented two of the four required criteria, “all four criteria must be met.”
The appeal was denied and the original Workers’ Compensation Board decision was upheld.
For more information, see Decision No.: 2025-0281, 2025 CanLII 52746 (AB WCAC).
