Tribunal finds employer's handling of accommodated role aggravated PTSD
A British Columbia paramedic has won his workers’ compensation appeal after the province’s Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal (WCAT) found that an employer’s handling of an accommodated role aggravated his permanent post‑traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
In the decision, Vice Chair Melissa R. Clarke allowed the worker’s appeal and varied a Feb. 28, 2025 Review Division ruling that had upheld WorkSafeBC’s denial of a 2024 mental‑disorder claim.
“I find that the worker is entitled to compensation under section 135 of the Act for a mental disorder, specifically aggravation of his permanent PTSD (which the Board had accepted under the 2020 claim),” Clarke wrote.
Prior PTSD diagnosis and new claim
The worker – a long‑serving primary care paramedic – had an accepted PTSD claim from 2020, recognized by WorkSafeBC as a permanent condition with associated restrictions. The Review Division had previously concluded there was no new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)‑based diagnosis under the 2024 claim.
Clarke rejected that reasoning. She held that the existing permanent PTSD diagnosis satisfied the statutory requirement in section 135(1)(b): “I am satisfied that the worker’s permanent PTSD diagnosis under the 2020 claim is sufficient to meet the criteria under the Act,” she wrote.
Clarke added that she was “not persuaded that a worker with a permanent DSM diagnosis under a prior claim (involving the same employer) is required by law and policy to be diagnosed, yet again, by a psychiatrist or psychologist where one of the issues to be decided is whether that same diagnosis was aggravated.”
Worker threatened to be fired if there’s another ‘PTSD moment’
The dispute centred on a remote, administrative project coordinator role the worker began in December 2023 as an accommodated position intended to be “non‑stress” and compatible with his PTSD.
The worker reported that his trainer belittled him, dismissed his PTSD and told him he would be fired if he had another “PTSD moment.” Clarke accepted that this statement was made and found it crossed the threshold into a traumatic event under section 135 and WorkSafeBC policy.
“I am satisfied that a reasonable person, in the worker’s situation and with the general characteristics of the worker, would find the trainer’s statement to the worker that he would be fired if he had any more ‘PTSD moments’ to be a traumatic event,” Clarke wrote.
She noted that “when a co‑worker in a position of authority in the workplace tells a worker that they will be fired for displaying signs of a compensable mental disorder at work, that statement is sufficient to constitute a traumatic event within law and policy.”
The employer had described the situation as a “clash of personalities” and, at most, unprofessional behaviour. Clarke instead found that the trainer’s conduct was “abusive in the context of her dealings with a worker with known permanent PTSD” and amounted to bullying and harassment when viewed collectively.
Previously, Ontario's Superior Court of Justice dealt with a case involving a worker who signed a release after being terminated, but later sought to challenge its validity. The worker claimed he suffered from PTSD as a result of the harassment, which affected his decision-making ability when signing the release.
Sexualised interaction, harassment findings
Among the incidents described in the case before Clarke, the worker said the trainer asked him to place or adjust a “pain management device” on her back, which he viewed as sexualised and inappropriate. The employer argued this was a misunderstanding about assistance with a medical device.
Clarke rejected that submission. “I am not persuaded by the employer’s submission that the sexual harassment/innuendo incident…was merely ‘a misunderstanding’,” she wrote. “I find that this particular interaction was beyond the realm of normal interactions between co‑workers in any workplace.”
She called the employer’s position on this point “disingenuous and beyond comprehension,” noting that the accommodated duties were administrative and did not involve providing physical care to the trainer.
Just days before International Women's Day (IWD) 2026, a report detailed how the culture at the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) suggests many women are far from being free of sexual harassment.
Wellness check, privacy breach
A March 11, 2024 wellness check also came under scrutiny. After the worker failed to attend in‑person computer testing at an ambulance station, a supervisor attended his condominium, spoke with a neighbour and disclosed information about his situation.
Clarke accepted the worker’s evidence that his mental‑health condition was revealed and found that disclosure to be abusive. “I am not persuaded that the supervisor’s disclosure of the worker’s confidential medical information can be considered merely an interpersonal conflict.”
She stated that she did “not accept the employer’s submission that the supervisor’s conduct…was ‘conducted in a courteous and respectful good faith manner’,” concluding instead that it was “egregious and amounted to abusive conduct.”
The employer acknowledged that, at the time, it “did not have a formalised wellness check policy.”
Labour‑relations exclusion
The employer argued that many of the incidents fell within the Act’s exclusion for mental disorders caused by decisions relating to discipline, job duties or other labour‑relations matters.
Relying on the BC Supreme Court’s decision in Pickering, Clarke held that this “labour relations exclusion” is limited to generic management processes undertaken in good faith. She found that the trainer’s conduct and the supervisor’s disclosure during the wellness check did not meet that standard and therefore were not shielded from compensation analysis.
She noted that she was also “not persuaded that the supervisor’s actions of disclosing the worker’s mental health condition to his neighbour during the wellness check is captured by the term ‘labour relations exclusion’.”
Clarke concluded that all statutory criteria were met and allowed the appeal, granting compensation for an aggravation of the worker’s permanent PTSD.
The document did not provide the name of the employer.
In a previous case, an Alberta employer fired a worker for egregious conduct and ultimately won on that point. But in a decision signed February 20, 2026, Hearing Chair A. Edmunds of the Appeals Commission for Alberta Workers' Compensation ruled that the employer remained on the hook for months of workers' compensation claim costs regardless.
