A British Columbia court has dismissed a worker’s attempt to overturn a WorkSafeBC decision that deemed her employer’s followup investigation into a mobbing complaint sufficient and decided no penalties were warranted.
In this case, the employee challenged the Workers’ Compensation Board of British Columbia (WorkSafeBC) and its Review Division for concluding that her employer, Dexterra, had adequately responded to her allegations of workplace “mobbing.”
The worker, C.P., sought a judicial review after the Review Division upheld WorkSafeBC’s finding that the employer remedied initial shortcomings in its investigation. She argued that the investigation still failed to address her claims about co-workers and that no meaningful review of the complaints’ substance had taken place.
The court recounts how C.P. initially worked as a guest service agent for Dexterra in Kitimat, B.C., and was disciplined in 2020 when unnamed co-workers lodged misconduct complaints against her. C.P. believed she was the target of false allegations constituting bullying or mobbing, so she reported these concerns to both her union and WorkSafeBC.
When the union settled a grievance on terms she did not agree with, C.P. continued pursuing WorkSafeBC, insisting her employer should face sanctions for not fully investigating her mobbing allegations.
Early on, a WorkSafeBC occupational safety officer handled C.P.’s complaint but ultimately found Dexterra in compliance with provincial bullying and harassment requirements. C.P. appealed to the Board’s Review Division. After a first judicial review in another proceeding, the court directed WorkSafeBC to reconsider whether Dexterra met its obligations to investigate. The Board then revisited the file and concluded Dexterra’s initial process was insufficient. An order was issued requiring Dexterra to conduct a new investigation.
Following that new inquiry, WorkSafeBC held that Dexterra had sufficiently looked into C.P.’s concerns but issued no monetary penalty, noting the employer had remedied its procedural shortfalls. C.P. again appealed to the Review Division, which upheld this outcome. She then launched the judicial review that is the subject of the court’s recent decision, arguing the Review Division had not gone far enough in probing the quality of the employer’s fact-finding.
The court emphasizes that WorkSafeBC’s “focus in such matters does not extend to assessing the merits of individual complaints. Rather, the focus is ensuring that employers have appropriate systems and processes for handling such complaints, and reasonably investigate them.” According to the decision, C.P. insisted the Board needed to review the substance of accusations made against her co-workers. She believed the investigator’s conclusion — dismissing her mobbing complaint — was flawed because it lacked a detailed explanation of how each disputed fact was assessed.
Quoting the decision, the court states that what C.P. truly seeks is “a detailed breakdown of how every factual issue in dispute was dealt with and resolved by the investigator.” However, “such an analysis is not required in this context,” the court observes, adding that “the investigation required is not akin to a trial.” It notes that investigators can review available statements and interview willing parties without offering a “granular assessment of every issue considered.”
In this context, Dexterra’s second investigation included an experienced internal investigator from a different province who interviewed the complainant, available co-workers, and reviewed documentation. Some individuals no longer worked for Dexterra or declined to participate, a factor the court accepted as a practical limitation. Still, in its view, Dexterra’s new approach met the threshold of reasonableness under WorkSafeBC policy, which mandates an investigation that is “fair and impartial” and “as thorough as necessary in the circumstances.”
C.P. further argued that a penalty should have been imposed on Dexterra for failing to conduct an appropriate investigation initially. The Review Division refused, concluding a penalty was unwarranted because the employer’s lapse was procedural rather than a direct breach involving high risk of severe injury or death.
The court confirms that not every violation of an employer’s obligation under section 21(1)(a) of the Workers Compensation Act triggers a penalty. The decision, quoting the Review Division, explains that this matter “had to do with insufficient investigation by the employer into complaints of bullying and harassment … as opposed to directly exposing [anyone] to bullying and harassment.”
Despite C.P.’s contention that the employer had improperly dismissed her claims, the court notes that the real dispute is C.P.’s desire for a “decisive determination” that she was subjected to mobbing. However, the court says those specific merits were dealt with — or could have been dealt with — through the union grievance procedure, and a judicial review of WorkSafeBC’s process is not the appropriate mechanism for seeking a “collateral attack on the grievance procedure.” As the court explains, unionized employees have a collective process to handle employment disputes. C.P. voiced dissatisfaction with the union-led resolution but, according to the decision, that does not entitle her to invoke judicial review to re-litigate the termination or to force a merits determination from WorkSafeBC.
In dismissing C.P.’s application, the court concludes that WorkSafeBC and its Review Division made no errors warranting judicial intervention. The Board followed its mandate to evaluate whether the employer’s investigation was procedurally sound and reasoned. The court affirms that the second investigation satisfied WorkSafeBC’s requirements and that the refusal to impose a financial sanction was a valid exercise of discretion under policy guidelines.
For more information, see (Plaintiff) v British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board), 2025 BCSC 65 (CanLII).
