An empty company fridge sent the crew out for dinner, then everything went sideways
A worker beaten unconscious by a co-worker in a restaurant parking lot after hours has won workers' compensation, after a British Columbia tribunal tied the attack to a jobsite dispute the day before and found a lack of food at the company house was what sent the crew out to eat.
In a decision dated June 10, 2026, Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal Vice-Chair Kathleen Mell dismissed an employer's appeal and confirmed that the worker, a heavy equipment operator who had been on the job only days, was entitled to benefits for injuries he suffered when a co-worker assaulted him on March 9, 2024.
A new hire, scarce food and a night out
The worker had relocated from another province days earlier to take the operator role, and his offer of employment provided housing and food. The tribunal heard that on the night in question there was little usable food at the company house, so when a co-worker invited him to join the group for dinner, he went along.
Vice-Chair Mell rejected the employer's position that the house was adequately stocked, finding, "I do not accept that the evidence establishes that there was sufficient food in the house that night." Credit card records did not show a large grocery run around that weekend, and the crew had ordered in the night before.
The worker was new to the city, the supervisors were out of town and a colleague was leaving for the evening. Mell found that joining the only other workers heading out for dinner was reasonable, and that he was in employer-provided accommodation and in the course of his employment when he went to the restaurant.
Co-worker dispute
The day before, the worker, who was the certified operator, had told the co-worker he could not run a piece of equipment because he was not certified for it. A supervisor testified that the co-worker walked away angry and said he wanted to punch the worker.
At the restaurant, evidence indicated the co-worker became belligerent and was ejected by staff after directing slurs at a doorman. Once the group reached the parking lot and was sorting out a ride home, the co-worker struck the worker from behind and continued beating him until a bystander stepped in. The worker was knocked unconscious and suffered head trauma and facial injuries.
The employer argued the worker had thrown the first punch and that the co-worker acted in self-defence, relying on accounts the co-worker gave a supervisor and the company president. Mell gave that little weight, noting the co-worker never testified, faced criminal charges at the time, and that the worker's injuries were not consistent with someone simply defending himself.
Why the tribunal said it counted as work
Mell applied tribunal policy on assaults and on departures from employment. She found the violence was at least partly driven by the co-worker's anger over the equipment refusal, pointing to supervisors' evidence that the co-worker had threatened the worker the day before and had later linked the attack to the jobsite exchange.
She also rejected the argument that the worker had taken himself outside his employment. He was not driving the company truck that night, a colleague was, and going out for a meal when the house lacked food was not a personal detour that broke the connection to work. The evidence, she found, made it at least as likely as not that the workplace dispute contributed to the assault.
Mell dismissed the employer's appeal and confirmed the earlier decision allowing the claim, concluding that "the worker's injury was the result of an assault that arose out of and in the course of the worker's employment and the worker is entitled to compensation." The worker testified that the co-worker's criminal case had concluded and that he was sentenced to one year in custody.
