It said it was only trying to help, but a judge wasn't buying it
A British Columbia employer that discouraged a worker from taking her mental disorder claim to the province's workers' compensation board has lost its bid to overturn that finding, even though management insisted it was only trying to help.
On May 29, 2026, Justice Whately of the Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed BC Hydro's petition for judicial review, leaving in place a Workers' Compensation Board order that found the utility had sought to dissuade a worker from reporting a mental disorder claim. Because the Board chose not to seek costs, none were ordered.
The matter began in November 2020, when the worker raised concerns about a fellow employee and engaged BC Hydro's respectful workplace process. She went off work for medical reasons in February 2021. The following month, management met with her and advised that she would receive disability benefits and was not required to file a claim with the Board.
The worker said she was told it was preferable to stay on disability benefits rather than report the claim, because a Board investigation would be upsetting and unpleasant. She eventually filed the claim herself in August 2021, after the company told her in May that the option was open to her. By the end of that August, the Board had issued an inspection report and order against the company.
An honest mistake?
The company argued it never intended to keep the worker from the Board. Its staff, BC Hydro said, were under the mistaken impression that they had to investigate the claim before reporting it, and were reasonably assisting a worker to obtain benefits rather than trying to block her.
BC Hydro also argued that section 73 of the Workers Compensation Act, which bars employers from discouraging workers from reporting injuries, did not capture mental disorders at the time of the events, and that any breach required proof of intent the Board had not established.
Justice Whately was not persuaded. "In my view, BC Hydro's interpretation of s. 73 is rigid and somewhat tortured," the judge wrote, concluding the Review Division had reasonably found the protection reaches mental disorders.
Intent did not require bad faith
On the question of intent, the judge sided with the Board, agreeing that "a finding of intent to dissuade does not require a finding of mal-intent, or bad faith intent." Whether management was mistaken about the process or genuinely worried about the worker, the result was the same.
In the underlying decision, the review officer wrote: "I find the evidence supports a conclusion that the employer sought to discourage and dissuade the worker from reporting her mental disorder to the Board." Two findings drove that conclusion: BC Hydro had persuaded its disability insurer to keep paying benefits even after learning the claim was work-related, and had told the worker that staying on those benefits was preferable to a Board investigation.
Justice Whately also set aside the company's complaint that the Board never labelled the provision a strict liability offence. "In my view, the failure to explicitly find that s. 73 is a strict liability offence is a red herring," the judge wrote. With the petition dismissed, the order against BC Hydro stands.
