Page 1  
Decision No.: 2022-0294  
Appeals Commission for Alberta Workers’ Compensation  
Docket No.: AC0440-21-55  
Decision No.: 2022-0294  
Overview  
[1]  
[2]  
The issue in this worker appeal is whether the worker has an acceptable  
claim for a psychological injury.  
The worker was employed as a health and safety officer with the employer. The  
worker stated that her supervisor and other co-workers bullied and harassed her  
at work, starting in May 2020.  
[3]  
On January 6, 2021, the worker sought medical attention and was diagnosed  
with adjustment reaction with anxiety. As this is the first date she sought medical  
attention, the date-of-accident was deemed to be January 6, 2021, in accordance  
with Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) procedure.  
[4]  
[5]  
[6]  
The worker submitted a claim to the WCB on January 25, 2021. The WCB  
denied the worker’s claim for a psychological injury on July 29, 2021.  
On December 9, 2021, the Dispute Resolution and Decision Review Body  
(DRDRB) upheld the adjudicator’s decision.  
The worker filed her Notice of Appeal on December 15, 2021, within the  
legislated time limit. The employer participated in the appeal hearing. The WCB,  
while notified, did not participate.  
[7]  
Based on the evidence before us and for the reasons that follow, we find that the  
worker does not have an acceptable claim for a psychological injury.  
[8]  
[9]  
The worker’s appeal is denied.  
The DRDRB’s December 9, 2021 decision is confirmed.  
Preliminary Matters  
[10]  
At the start of the hearing, the panel clarified the roles of the various attendees.  
The worker had one observer in attendance in addition to her representative from  
the Advisor Office. The employer had its external representative, an internal  
representative and an observer present. It was confirmed at the start of the  
hearing that the observers would not have an active role in the hearing.  
Classification: Protected A  
Page 2  
Decision No.: 2022-0294  
[11]  
The employer’s internal representative noted that she may provide some  
submissions and comments and would respond to any questions. The panel  
decided that it was appropriate for the internal representative to remain in the  
hearing room throughout the hearing and did not exclude her prior to her  
submissions. This is because the employer’s internal representative was  
participating not only as a potential witness, but also in her capacity as the  
corporate employer’s delegate. An employer is generally entitled to full  
participation rights. In addition, the panel was of the view that the internal  
representative may need to be present to instruct the external representative.  
[12]  
[13]  
The appeal proceeded as a combined teleconference and videoconference  
hearing. The worker, her representative and both observers attended by  
teleconference. The employer’s external and internal representatives attended  
by videoconference, as did the panel.  
At the request of the panel, after the hearing the employer submitted additional  
documents relating to an external Occupational Health and Safety (OHS)  
inspection. These documents were provided to the worker’s representative for  
comment. On June 29, 2022, the worker’s representative advised that she had  
no comment or response to the new documents.  
Analysis  
Legislation and Policy  
[14]  
The legislation governing workers’ compensation matters in Alberta is the  
Workers’ Compensation Act, RSA 2000, c W-15 (WCA). The WCA authorizes  
the Appeals Commission to hear and decide appeals from the DRDRB and to  
make final and conclusive decisions (section 13.1(1)).  
[15]  
[16]  
The Appeals Commission must follow and apply the provisions of the WCA and  
WCB policies relevant to an appeal (section 13.2(6)).  
In considering the issue, we applied the legislation in effect at the time of the  
hearing. In addition, we applied the policies in effect at the time of the  
adjudicator’s July 29, 2021 decision. Excerpts of the relevant legislation and  
policies are included as appendices.  
[17]  
[18]  
Under the WCA, workers are entitled to compensation if they suffer personal  
injury due to an accident (WCA, sections 1(1)(a), and 24(1)(a)).  
The WCB will consider a claim for a psychiatric or psychological injury when  
there is a confirmed psychological or psychiatric diagnosis as defined in the most  
current version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders  
(DSM) and the condition results from certain criteria. There are two criteria from  
the policy that are relevant to this claim - traumatic onset psychological injury and  
Classification: Protected A  
Page 3  
Decision No.: 2022-0294  
chronic onset psychological injury (Policy 03-01, Part II, General, Application 6:  
Psychiatric or Psychological Injury).  
[19]  
[20]  
A traumatic onset psychological injury is compensable when it is an emotional  
reaction in response to a single or cumulative series of traumatic  
work-related events.  
A traumatic event is defined as a direct personal experience of an event or  
directly witnessing an event that, reasonably and objectively assessed, is:  
sudden/unexpected,  
frightening or shocking,  
having a specific time and place, and  
involving actual or threatened death or serious injury to oneself or others, or  
threat to one’s physical integrity (i.e., assault).  
[21]  
[22]  
Interpersonal relations between a worker and coworkers, management, or  
customers may be traumatic when they result in behaviours that are aggressive,  
threatening, or abusive (Policy 03-01, Part II, Application 6).  
A standard of causation is the legal standard or legal test applied to determine  
whether the injury is caused by work. Generally, the standard of causation used  
is the “but for” test – that is, if not for the work exposures, the injury would not  
have happened. The “but for” test is a finding of fact – the work exposures were  
necessary for the accident and injury to occur (Policy 02-01, Part II, Application  
7: Causation). The standard for causation for traumatic onset psychological  
injury is the “but for” test.  
[23]  
Chronic onset psychological injury is compensable when it is an extreme  
emotional reaction to:  
an accumulation, over time, of a number of verifiable work-related stressors  
that do not fit the definition of traumatic event;  
a significant work-related stressor that has lasted for a long time and does  
not fit the definition of traumatic event; or  
bullying or harassment, defined as a repeated incident of objectionable or  
unwelcome conduct, comment, bullying or action intended to intimidate,  
offend, degrade or humiliate a particular person or group.  
[24]  
Also, there must be a confirmed psychological or psychiatric diagnosis as  
described in the DSM, the work-related events must be excessive or unusual in  
comparison to the normal pressures and tensions experienced by the average  
Classification: Protected A  
Page 4  
Decision No.: 2022-0294  
worker in a similar occupation and there must be objective confirmation of the  
events (Policy 03-01, Part II, Application 6).  
[25]  
[26]  
In addition, unlike for traumatic onset psychological injuries (where the general  
standard of causation applies), for a chronic onset psychological injury to be  
compensable, the work-related events or stressors must be the predominant  
cause of the injury, which means the prevailing, strongest, chief, or main cause  
of the chronic onset psychological injury (Policy 03-01, Part II, Application 6).  
The standard of proof for both traumatic onset and chronic onset psychological  
injuries is the balance of probabilities (Policy 02-01, Part II, Application 7:  
Causation).  
Questions to be Answered  
[27]  
[28]  
Accordingly, to determine whether the worker has an acceptable claim for a  
psychological injury, we must answer the following questions arising from  
legislation and policy.  
For a traumatic onset psychological injury, the questions are:  
[28.1]  
Does the worker have a confirmed psychological or psychiatric injury as  
described in the current DSM?  
[28.2]  
Has the worker directly personally experienced or directly witnessed a  
traumatic work-related event(s) that, reasonably and objectively assessed,  
is:  
sudden/unexpected;  
frightening or shocking;  
having a specific time and place; and  
involving an actual or threatened death or serious injury to oneself or  
others or threat to one’s physical integrity?  
[28.3]  
[28.4]  
Has the worker experienced interpersonal relations with coworkers,  
management, or customers that resulted in behaviours that are  
aggressive, threatening, or abusive?  
Does the weight of medical evidence establish that the diagnosed  
psychiatric/psychological condition resulted from the traumatic  
work-related event or events?  
Classification: Protected A  
Page 5  
Decision No.: 2022-0294  
[29]  
For a chronic onset psychological injury, the questions are:  
[29.1]  
Does the worker have a confirmed psychological or psychiatric injury as  
described in the current DSM?  
[29.2]  
Is the worker’s diagnosed psychological condition an extreme emotional  
reaction to:  
An accumulation over time of a number of a number of verifiable  
work-related stressors or a significant work-related stressor that has  
lasted for a long time; and the stressor (or stressors) does not fit the  
definition of traumatic event?  
OR  
Bullying or harassment, defined as a repeated incident of objectionable  
or unwelcome conduct, comment, bullying or action intended to  
intimidate, offend, degrade or humiliate a particular person or group?  
[29.3]  
[29.4]  
Are the work-related events or stressors the predominant cause of the  
injury?  
Are the work-related events excessive or unusual in comparison to the  
normal pressures and tensions experienced by the average worker in a  
similar occupation?  
[29.5]  
Is there objective confirmation of the events?  
Evidence and Findings  
Confirmed DSM psychological diagnosis  
[30]  
Both traumatic onset and chronic onset psychological injuries require a confirmed  
psychological or psychiatric injury as described in the current DSM. We are  
satisfied that the weight of evidence demonstrates the worker has such an injury,  
based on the following evidence and reasons.  
[31]  
[32]  
The worker was diagnosed with adjustment reaction with anxiety on January 28,  
2021, by her family doctor.  
In a June 1, 2021 response to the WCB, the worker’s family doctor outlined the  
DSM diagnostic criteria he used to support the worker’s diagnosis. He noted:  
“1. The development of emotional and behavioural symptoms in response  
to identifiable stressor occurring within 3 months of stressor.  
2. Significant impairment in social, occupational fx [functions].  
Classification: Protected A  
Page 6  
Decision No.: 2022-0294  
3. Does not represent bereavement.  
4. Excessive worry, nervousness, jitteriness.  
5. Not an exacerbation of pre-existing mental disorder.”  
[33]  
[34]  
The family doctor provided prescriptions for two medications to treat the worker’s  
condition – Cipralex (also known as Escitalopram) and Ativan (also known as  
Lorazepam). These medications continued to be prescribed at the visits. The  
worker’s psychologist noted these medications in her reports as well.  
The employer’s representative argued that the worker’s treating psychologist did  
not diagnose the worker with a psychological condition and did not support the  
worker’s diagnosis by her family doctor. She submitted that the psychologist’s  
lack of confirmation of the diagnosis should be given more weight than the family  
doctor’s diagnosis, as a psychologist has specialized psychological training  
compared to a family doctor. She also argued that the family doctor’s diagnosis  
should be given less weight because it was based on what the worker told him.  
[35]  
[36]  
[37]  
The employer’s representative cited a recent Appeals Commission case,  
Decision No. 2022-0277, as authority for placing less weight on a medical  
practitioner’s opinion than a psychologist or psychiatrist when dealing with  
psychological injuries.  
The worker’s representative argued that WCB Business Procedure 4.8 allows a  
worker to be diagnosed by a physician. She further noted that this family doctor  
was the worker’s regular doctor, had been treating the worker, and had cited  
reasons for the diagnosis that met the DSM criteria.  
The worker’s representative also argued that the cited case was not dealing with  
a DSM diagnosis. Instead, it was discussing a worker’s capacity to return to  
work. She also noted that in the cited case, the medical consultant had not  
treated the worker. Both were distinguishing factors from the situation in the  
current appeal.  
[38]  
[39]  
We agree with the arguments of the worker’s representative.  
The family doctor diagnosed “adjustment reaction with anxiety.” We note the  
diagnostic criteria used by the family doctor reflect the diagnostic criteria for  
adjustment disorder with anxiety set out in the DSM-5-TR, which is the most  
current version of the DSM. Given his reference to the specific diagnostic  
criteria, we are satisfied that the condition diagnosed was adjustment disorder  
with anxiety. Adjustment disorder with anxiety is a DSM diagnosis.  
[40]  
We acknowledge that we are not bound by the Business Procedures, but they  
may provide a helpful guide in some cases. We gave some weight to the fact  
that the WCB will accept a psychological diagnosis from a physician as well as  
from specialists. We also note that there is no requirement in Policy 03-01,  
Classification: Protected A  
Page 7  
Decision No.: 2022-0294  
Part II, Application 6 that a psychological injury be diagnosed by psychologists or  
psychiatrists.  
[41]  
In addition, for the following reasons, we are not persuaded from the absence of  
an expressed diagnosis in her reports that we can infer that the psychologist was  
of the view that there was no psychological injury.  
[41.1]  
First, the worker’s representative argued that psychologists, when filing  
their WCB reports, rarely confirm a diagnosis.  
[41.2]  
Second, we note from our own review of the reports that the template  
report form completed by the psychologist does not ask for any such  
confirmation or for the psychologist to specify a diagnosis, unlike many of  
the other standard WCB forms.  
[41.3]  
Third, it is clear that the psychologist was aware of the medications the  
family doctor prescribed to treat the psychological condition, as they are  
listed in her report. There is no indication on the file that she was  
concerned that the worker had been inappropriately prescribed these  
medications, which would reasonably be expected if she was of the view  
that the worker was not suffering from a psychological injury.  
[42]  
In addition, we also are of the view that it was appropriate to rely on the family  
doctor’s diagnosis, based on the specific facts of this case. These facts include:  
the worker’s testimony that the doctor was her family doctor for two years,  
which in our view showed that there was an ongoing professional  
relationship; and  
the evidence showing the doctor understood and applied relevant DSM  
diagnostic criteria in coming to his diagnosis.  
[43]  
[44]  
In our view, these are significant distinguishing factors from the prior Appeals  
Commission case cited to us, which was not dealing with a supported DSM  
diagnosis and was not considering the opinion of a treating physician.  
We also do not think that the fact that the doctor was relying on what the worker  
told him is a reason to discount his diagnosis. Many treating practitioners rely on  
the information provided by the worker, including treating psychologists or  
psychiatrists. That concern may be more relevant to opinions on causation,  
however, in our view, it is less relevant to the diagnosis itself, which is based on  
the doctor’s understanding and application of the diagnostic criteria set out in the  
DSM.  
[45]  
Accordingly, we find that the weight of evidence shows the worker had a  
confirmed psychological diagnosis.  
Classification: Protected A  
Page 8  
Decision No.: 2022-0294  
Events  
[46]  
[47]  
We understand from the worker’s representative’s submissions that there are  
three distinct events that are the focus of the worker’s claim. We will discuss  
each in turn, addressing whether it meets the traumatic onset psychological  
injury criteria or the chronic onset psychological injury criteria set out in policy.  
However, before moving to the assessing the events, we would like to address  
an overall argument made by the worker’s representative. She argued that the  
events below were, to the worker, aggressive, threatening or abusive. She also  
argued that it was not relevant whether someone else believed that any or all of  
the events were discriminatory or harassing. She noted that the worker  
perceived the actions of her supervisor and co-workers to be excessive and  
unusual, and she felt belittled, humiliated and intimidated. The representative  
further argued that the worker’s vulnerability or reaction to her work situations  
should not be questioned but rather accepted as true based on her personal  
reactions. She also cited the thin skull theory in her submission.  
[48]  
We understand from the submissions that the worker’s representative is  
essentially arguing that the events have to be considered subjectively and only  
from the worker’s perspective.  
[49]  
[50]  
We were not persuaded by this argument.  
We are bound by WCB policy. We interpret the language of the policy to import  
a more objective lens. That is, by use of phrases such as “reasonably and  
objectively assessed” under traumatic onset, and “normal pressures and  
tensions”, “average employee,” “similar occupation,” “action intended to” and  
“reasonable actions taken by an employer” under chronic onset, the policy  
requires us to consider the incidents from a broader perspective, and not just the  
perspective of the worker. The requirement to look beyond the worker’s  
subjective experience is also reflected in other aspects of the policy, for example,  
the requirement that there be objective confirmation of the incidents.  
[51]  
[52]  
Therefore, when considering the events below, we will assess them using the  
more objective lens set out in policy, rather than relying solely on the worker’s  
perspective.  
May 5, 2020 interaction between the worker and her supervisor  
This incident was reported by the worker as follows:  
[52.1]  
The worker questioned why her company credit card was being taken  
away, on direction from the president. When she did not receive what she  
considered to be a satisfactory response from her supervisor, she talked  
to the president, who denied asking for the card. On May 5, 2020, the  
Classification: Protected A  
Page 9  
Decision No.: 2022-0294  
worker advised her supervisor that she had talked to the president. The  
worker said the supervisor was screaming, spitting, and had angry bulging  
eyes as she threw the worker out of her office. The worker said she left  
the office “shocked, terrified and in total shock.” The worker stated that  
she spoke to other co-workers who were shocked, but did nothing.  
[52.2]  
[52.3]  
The worker said she emailed the president who said they should just leave  
it alone. The supervisor barely spoke to the worker and hated looking at  
her after that.  
At the hearing and in the worker’s representative’s submissions, the  
worker also indicated that she thought the supervisor was going to hit her.  
[53]  
Evidence for the employer can be summarized as follows:  
[53.1]  
[53.2]  
The employer had been reviewing its credit card policy since 2019.  
Between September 2019 and February 2020, the worker was reminded  
several times to provide receipts for various credit card expenses that had  
not been submitted in accordance with the credit card policy. In April  
2020, some charges on the worker’s credit card were questioned,  
including one charge to pay for a hotel room for personal use.  
[53.3]  
Given the continuation of issues related to the credit card coinciding with  
the internal review and assessment of credit card needs, the supervisor  
decided to not renew the worker’s credit card, which the worker had lost.  
The worker was advised of this on April 23, 2020. The worker was also  
told that, as a result the review, total company credit cards were reduced  
from seven to two.  
[53.4]  
[53.5]  
On April 24, 2020, the worker voiced her concerns by email with the  
supervisor about the removal of her credit card.  
The supervisor gave the worker an oral response to her concerns about  
the removal of her credit card around April 27, 2020, after talking to the  
accounting coordinator and payroll and benefit coordinator. The  
conversation was calm and addressed the concerns the worker had  
identified.  
[53.6]  
[53.7]  
Over the next several days, the worker shared her displeasure with this  
decision with various co-workers, but did not raise them again with her  
supervisor.  
On May 5, 2020, the worker went to speak to the president about her  
displeasure with the decision. The president told her to take her complaint  
to her supervisor, in accordance with company policy.  
Classification: Protected A  
Page 10  
Decision No.: 2022-0294  
[53.8]  
Later on May 5, 2020, the worker and the supervisor met to discuss the  
worker’s performance issues and failure to comply with the chain of  
command requirements in policy. The supervisor said that the worker only  
became forthright about her meeting with the president once the  
supervisor told the worker she was already aware of it. The supervisor  
told the worker the decision regarding the credit cards was final and asked  
the worker to leave the office, as the conversation was not productive.  
The supervisor denied raising her voice or yelling at the worker. There  
were no direct witnesses to the event.  
[53.9]  
Around 12:30 p.m., the worker sent an email to the supervisor, saying  
“I just wanted to respond to our meeting this morning. I did not intend to  
cause problems between you and I. I was just following up with my  
inquiry and as I know you are busy, I just followed up with person next  
inline. I can assure you that I intended no ill will.  
I hope we can put this aside so that we can continue to work in a  
proficient manner.”  
[53.10] At 2:50 p.m., the worker emailed the president about the interaction with  
the supervisor. The email indicated that the supervisor was angry, her  
face got red and her eyes were flashing, she stood up and was speaking  
loudly. The email stated:  
“. . . She was speaking very loudly, perhaps on the verge of screaming  
and then told me to "GET OUT, I DON'T WANT TO TALK TO YOU. THIS  
IS NOT A GOOD IDEA TO BE TALKING NOW. LEAVE" !!! . . .”  
[53.11] The supervisor responded to the worker’s email at 4:20 p.m. asking the  
worker to check policy and seek clarification if she had questions.  
[53.12] The worker sent an email to the president on May 6, 2020, suggesting  
they “not fight with” the supervisor and that they should “let it go.” The  
president interpreted the email as the worker not having any further  
concerns. The president responded by email saying “Sounds like a good  
plan.”  
[54]  
The file was referred to the Special Investigations Unit of the WCB. In a  
June 10, 2021 report, the investigator recorded the results of interviews with four  
potential witnesses, whose names had been provided by the worker.  
[54.1]  
The first person interviewed had never heard the supervisor raise her  
voice or yell at the worker. This person indicated that the supervisor used  
to allow the worker to work independently but that changed when the  
supervisor found out the worker was delegating her tasks to someone  
else. This person also said the worker was not told why her credit card  
was taken from her.  
Classification: Protected A  
Page 11  
Decision No.: 2022-0294  
[54.2]  
The second person identified two things that were upsetting to the worker  
– taking away of the corporate credit card and the special projects  
consultant taking the lead on the audit process going forward. This  
witness did not speak to whether she heard raised voices, yelling or  
screaming on May 5, 2020.  
[54.3]  
[54.4]  
The third person indicated he was only present when the worker was  
talking to another co-worker about a “yelling match” in the supervisor’s  
office.  
The fourth person was the co-worker to whom the worker was discussing  
the yelling match. He said that he heard a commotion and a loud voice or  
voices coming from the supervisor’s office, which is directly above the  
lunchroom. The worker came into the lunchroom a short while later,  
obviously upset and trying to hold back tears. The worker said she did not  
think missing the audit was a big deal because she got an extension.  
[55]  
[56]  
[57]  
Based on the weight of evidence above, we find that the May 5, 2020 interaction  
between the supervisor and the worker did not involve yelling or screaming.  
However, we do find that the weight of evidence supports that there may have  
been raised voices. The WCB investigator spoke to four employees, none of  
whom saw or heard screaming or yelling and only one of whom indicated that he  
heard raised voices. The worker’s email to the president noted that the  
supervisor spoke loudly and she was “perhaps on the verge of screaming,” which  
also suggests that, at the time, the worker was of the view that the discussion  
involved loud voices rather than screaming or yelling.  
We also find that the weight of evidence does not support that there was a threat  
of physical violence, that is, that the supervisor threatened, verbally or by her  
actions, to hit the worker. A threat of being hit was not mentioned by the worker  
in her reports to her family doctor, in her Worker Report of Injury, in the General  
Information Questionnaire for Emotional Injuries, in her email to the president or  
in her earlier email recounting the event to the WCB. From the material before  
us, the worker did not mention that she was afraid the supervisor was going to hit  
her until an email to the WCB on July 16, 2021. On this point, we put more  
weight on the earlier accounts of the worker than on the later recollection.  
Given these findings, we find that, when reasonably and objectively assessed,  
the May 5, 2020 interaction was not frightening or shocking, and did not involve  
any actual or threatened injury to the worker. At this time, the weight of evidence  
supports that the supervisor was concerned with:  
the worker’s performance (e.g., the failure of the 2019 external audit,  
discussed below in the Other matters referenced by the worker section);  
Classification: Protected A  
Page 12  
Decision No.: 2022-0294  
the worker’s persistent questioning of the decision not to supply her with a  
credit card; and  
the worker’s non-compliance with the company policies (credit card policy  
and insubordination policy).  
[58]  
[59]  
We find that a conversation with loud voices in this context, viewed reasonably  
and objectively, is not frightening or shocking. Further, we are not persuaded  
that there was a threat of physical violence. As all four criteria are required to be  
satisfied under the policy, we find that this event does not meet the policy criteria  
for a traumatic work-related event.  
We also find that the weight of evidence does not support that the event was  
aggressive, threatening or abusive. While we accept that there may have been  
raised voices, this does not show the behaviour was aggressive, threatening or  
abusive. We note that the worker’s recollection of the conversation contains no  
threat to the worker’s person, employment or position. In the worker’s recounting  
of the conversation, there is no indication of any abusive language.  
[60]  
Considering the context of the discussion, noted above, we accept that the  
supervisor may have been frustrated, irritated or angry and may not have wanted  
to speak to the worker any more about the issue. However, we are not  
persuaded by the evidence that this was an aggressive interaction.  
[61]  
[62]  
It therefore follows that we find that this event does not meet the policy criteria for  
a traumatic event based on interpersonal relations.  
In addition, we find that this event does not meet the criteria under chronic onset  
psychological injury. As noted above, we found that this event did not involve  
yelling or a physical threat. We note that there is no objective confirmation of  
yelling or a physical threat.  
[63]  
We also find that a meeting between a supervisor and a worker, in which there  
are raised voices and the worker is asked to leave the office, does not constitute  
bullying or harassment under the policy. The weight of evidence does not  
support that this event was a repeated incident of objectionable or unwelcome  
conduct, comment, bullying or action intended to intimidate, offend, degrade or  
humiliate the worker. The weight of evidence does not support an intent by the  
supervisor to intimidate, offend, degrade or humiliate the worker.  
[64]  
Instead, when considered in its overall context, we find that the event was part of  
the normal pressures and tensions that would be experienced by an average  
worker in a similar occupation.  
Classification: Protected A  
Page 13  
Decision No.: 2022-0294  
June 2, 2020 interaction between the worker and a manager  
[65]  
[66]  
[67]  
[68]  
The worker stated that on June 2, 2020, another manager came into the worker’s  
office and started screaming and swearing at the worker. She asked him to quit  
screaming and to leave her office.  
The worker sent the manager an email the same day, copying her supervisor. In  
it, she said “I just wanted to let you know I do not appreciate you ‘screaming’ at  
me in front of my co-workers.”  
The worker stated that the supervisor never subsequently addressed the issue.  
She knew then she was “in the line of fire” and this “set the bar” on how people  
thought they could treat her.  
The employer’s information regarding this event can be summarized as follows:  
[68.1]  
On or around June 5, 2020, employees under this manager were sent  
home from a job site as a result of the worker not having completed the  
site orientation, a task for which the worker was responsible.  
[68.2]  
[68.3]  
The manager recalled a conversation with the worker regarding the matter  
where he expressed his displeasure. He stated he did not yell at her.  
A potential witness in the adjacent office stated that sometime during  
June, she heard elevated voices but did not hear yelling.  
[68.4]  
[68.5]  
A second potential witness did not hear any elevated voices or yelling.  
With respect to the email the worker sent to this manager, which was  
copied to the supervisor, the worker did not identify any further follow-up  
or action that was required, nor did she request to talk to the supervisor.  
[69]  
[70]  
Given the date of the worker’s email to the manager, we accept that this event  
took place on June 2, 2020.  
However, the weight of evidence does not support that the event involved  
screaming, as the co-worker in the area who did hear something indicated that  
she did not hear yelling, but instead heard raised voices. We also note that in  
the worker’s email to the manager, she used quotation marks around the word  
screaming. This phrasing suggests to us that, at the time, the worker may not  
have considered the manager to be actually screaming. We accept that the  
weight of evidence supports that there were raised voices.  
[71]  
The weight of evidence also does not support that the manager swore at the  
worker. In the worker’s email to the manager and the worker’s supervisor on  
June 2, 2020, she did not mention that the manager swore at her. There was no  
indication in any of the reporting about the specific swear words used, if any.  
Classification: Protected A  
Page 14  
Decision No.: 2022-0294  
[72]  
[73]  
Therefore, based on the weight of evidence before us, we find that the manager  
and the worker had an interaction on June 2, in which there were raised voices  
but not yelling, screaming or swearing.  
Given this finding, we also find that, when reasonably and objectively assessed,  
the June 2 interaction was not frightening or shocking and did not involve any  
actual or threatened injury to the worker. As previously noted, all four criteria are  
required to be satisfied under the policy. As a result, we find that this event does  
not meet the policy criteria for a traumatic work-related event.  
[74]  
Considering the context of the discussion, in which employees of the company  
were required to leave a job site as a result of uncompleted work by the worker,  
we accept that the manager may have raised his voice with the worker.  
However, we are not persuaded by the weight of evidence before us that the  
manager’s behaviour was aggressive, threatening or abusive. It therefore follows  
that we find that this event does not meet the policy criteria for a traumatic event  
based on interpersonal relations.  
[75]  
[76]  
We also find that this event does not meet the criteria under chronic onset  
psychological injury. As noted above, we found that this event did not involve  
screaming, yelling or swearing. We also note that there is no objective  
confirmation of screaming, yelling or swearing.  
Given the context in which this event occurred, we find that a raised voice  
discussion between the manager and the worker does not constitute bullying or  
harassment under the policy. The weight of evidence does not support that this  
event was a repeated incident of objectionable or unwelcome conduct, comment,  
bullying or action intended to intimidate, offend, degrade or humiliate the worker.  
The weight of evidence does not support an intent by the manager to intimidate,  
offend, degrade or humiliate the worker.  
[77]  
Instead, when considered in its overall context, we find that the event was part of  
the normal pressures and tensions that would be experienced by an average  
worker in a similar occupation. That is, it is not excessive or unusual for a  
co-worker to be upset about having to remove his staff from a job site due to the  
worker not completing her job and to have raised his voice in speaking to the  
worker about it.  
January 20, 2021 attendance by two co-workers at the worker’s place of residence  
[78]  
The last incident highlighted by the worker’s representative as meeting the policy  
criteria for either a traumatic onset or chronic onset psychological injury involves  
a January 20, 2021 visit by two employees to the worker’s apartment.  
Classification: Protected A  
Page 15  
Decision No.: 2022-0294  
[79]  
The worker provided the following evidence:  
[79.1]  
The harassment continued as the employer was always trying to contact  
the worker once she was away from the employer’s premises.  
[79.2]  
When the worker was on medical leave, she just wanted to hide and heal  
in her condominium, but the company refused to allow her the time to  
heal. The executive director kept calling her, but the worker did not  
answer the phone as she was on medical leave, was depressed and had  
anxiety about talking to anyone. On January 20, 2021, they entered the  
condominium building without the worker having let them in. They went to  
the secure parking to see if the worker’s car was there. Then they came  
and knocked on the worker’s door. She felt this was a violation of her  
privacy, and felt threatened and afraid.  
[79.3]  
The worker also perceived these actions as stalking.  
[80]  
The employer’s evidence can be summarized as follows:  
[80.1]  
Due to the worker’s allegations of bullying and harassment, on  
January 11, 2021, the worker’s reporting relationship was changed so that  
she reported to the executive director rather than the supervisor.  
[80.2]  
[80.3]  
The worker was advised of this by email from the executive director on  
January 12, 2021.  
On the same day, an independent investigator told the worker that an  
investigation into her complaint of harassment would begin on her return  
to the work.  
[80.4]  
[80.5]  
[80.6]  
On January 14, 2021, the worker emailed the executive director, providing  
a work absence certificate and asking about benefits. The executive  
director responded the same day referring the worker to the payroll and  
benefits coordinator.  
On January 14, 2021, an external OHS officer conducted an inspection  
with the employer. One of the orders issued that day was for the  
employer to carry out an investigation into the worker’s reported event of  
harassment/violence. The date for completion was February 12, 2021.  
On January 15, 2021, the executive director emailed the worker as she  
needed additional information from the worker to help the employer make  
decisions about accommodating the worker, providing disability leave or  
assessing if the worker could return to work. This included a medical  
ability to work form. The worker was also asked to return her fuel card  
and cell phone to the executive director for the duration of her leave. The  
Classification: Protected A  
Page 16  
Decision No.: 2022-0294  
email was read but the worker did not respond. We understand the  
worker also was in possession of keys to a safety truck at this time.  
[80.7]  
[80.8]  
On January 20, 2021, the executive director called the worker three  
separate times and left voicemails each time. The worker did not return  
any of the calls.  
On January 20, 2021, the executive director and the payroll and benefits  
coordinator, on advice from the employer’s legal counsel, went to the  
worker’s condominium. Using the building's access intercom, they dialled  
the worker’s condominium and were directed to her voicemail message.  
They entered the parkade and confirmed that the worker’s vehicle was  
parked at the condominium. They then knocked on her door twice. The  
worker did not answer her door.  
[80.9]  
On January 22, 2021, the executive director sent an email to the worker’s  
daughter, as prior attempts to reach the worker were not successful.  
Registered mail also was sent to the worker on January 22, 2021, but it  
was not collected.  
[80.10] A second registered letter was sent on February 1, 2021. The worker was  
requested to return her work phone and company property by February 4,  
2021. Due to unsuccessful attempts to contact the worker, her phone and  
work email accounts were cancelled.  
[80.11] On February 11, 2021, the employer requested an extension to the OHS  
order to conduct an investigation, as the worker had not returned to work.  
[80.12] The worker returned the company’s safety truck keys to a different  
employee on March 24, 2021.  
[81]  
We find that, on balance, the evidence demonstrates that:  
[81.1]  
[81.2]  
[81.3]  
[81.4]  
There were multiple attempts to contact the worker to which the worker did  
not respond, although she had previously responded to inquiries.  
The employer was reasonably requesting information related to the  
worker’s medical leave.  
The worker was in possession of company property, including a cell  
phone, a fuel card and safety truck keys.  
An order had been issued by OHS to complete an investigation by a  
February 12, 2021 deadline.  
Classification: Protected A  
Page 17  
Decision No.: 2022-0294  
[81.5]  
The employees who went to the worker’s residence were not involved in  
the events the worker had complained of to her employer, nor were they  
responsible for investigating the allegations.  
[81.6]  
[81.7]  
The employees accessed and looked in the parkade, knocked twice on  
the worker’s door, then left.  
The worker did not interact with the employees at this visit.  
[82]  
Given the above circumstances, based on the evidence before us, we find that,  
when reasonably and objectively assessed, the weight of evidence does not  
show that the visit to the worker’s condominium was shocking or frightening or  
that it involved actual or threatened injury or a threat to the worker’s physical  
integrity. While the visit may have been unexpected, in our view, from a  
reasonable and objective perspective, it is not shocking or frightening that the  
worker’s new supervisor and a payroll and benefits person would attempt to  
contact the worker in these circumstances, even in person.  
[83]  
[84]  
[85]  
We also find no support in the evidence that there was an actual or threatened  
injury or threat to the worker’s physical integrity.  
Since two of the four required criteria under the policy have not been satisfied,  
we find that this event is not a traumatic work-related event.  
We also are not persuaded that, when viewed in context, the visit and the prior  
attempts to contact the worker were aggressive, threatening or abusive. There is  
no indication in the evidence that there was any yelling, abuse, aggression or  
threats, and the visit itself did not involve any interaction. The employees  
involved had not been involved in the harassment complaint. There were  
legitimate reasons for the attempts to contact the worker, including for the  
purposes of management of employer assets, management of medical leave,  
and the employer’s responsibility to follow-up on health and safety issues.  
[86]  
[87]  
We also find that the January 20, 2021 visit to the worker’s residence does not  
satisfy the chronic onset psychological injury criteria.  
While the worker characterized these behaviours as stalking or harassment, we  
find that the weight of evidence does not support that this visit or the prior  
attempts to contact the worker while on leave were actions intended to intimidate,  
offend, degrade or humiliate the worker.  
[88]  
As noted above, there were legitimate reasons the employer was reaching out to  
the worker. The emails and letters on the file were respectful and professional.  
No evidence was provided to us to suggest that the content of the voice mail  
messages were any different. The employees involved in reaching out to the  
Classification: Protected A  
Page 18  
Decision No.: 2022-0294  
worker were not involved in the prior harassment allegations, but had been in  
discussion with the worker already regarding her medical leave and benefits.  
[89]  
We find that this event, as well as the attempts to contact the worker by email  
and phone, fall within the normal pressures and tensions of employment which  
include managing medical leaves, following up on workplace health and safety  
issues and management of the employer’s assets.  
Other matters referenced by the worker  
[90]  
[91]  
Although the focus of the worker’s representative’s submissions were on the  
above three events, certain other matters were raised by the worker over the  
course of the claim.  
These matters included:  
[91.1]  
the supervisor micromanaging the worker, criticizing her work and time  
management skills;  
[91.2]  
the changing of the worker’s job description, which the worker  
characterized as a demotion from being a manager of health and safety;  
and  
[91.3]  
the re-assignment of certain projects or duties from the worker to another  
staff member or consultant.  
[92]  
[93]  
The worker submitted she was unaware of concerns with her performance; she  
had previously received a good performance rating in her 2019 performance  
review and that therefore these actions by the employer were in response to the  
May 5,2020 event and her having complained to the president about the  
supervisor’s behaviour.  
The employer’s representative argued that these actions were in response to,  
among other things:  
[93.1]  
The worker’s inadequate performance in relation to a 2019 external audit,  
which the company failed. The failure resulted in the employer losing its  
Certificate of Recognition (COR), and having to undertake corrective  
actions before regaining its COR;  
[93.2]  
[93.3]  
The worker’s failure to complete required job tasks, such as completing  
job hazard assessments in a timely manner, reviewing and editing certain  
manuals within certain timeframes, incorporating edits into manuals; and  
The worker’s failure to complete the mandatory internal audit within the  
required time limit.  
Classification: Protected A  
Page 19  
Decision No.: 2022-0294  
[94]  
[95]  
[96]  
[97]  
The employer also noted that the worker had never been a manager, as was  
clear from her letter of offer when she was hired and her job description.  
Both the employer and the worker provided several emails and other documents  
in relation to the above matters.  
After reviewing of all of the evidence in relation to these matters, we find that  
these matters fall within the normal pressures and tensions of employment.  
We find that the weight of evidence shows that while the worker may have  
received a good performance rating in November 2019, this was just after she  
was hired in June 2019. However, by early 2020, the evidence shows the  
employer was concerned about the worker’s performance of her job duties and  
compliance with policies. This is evident from the various emails between the  
worker and her supervisor, in which unfinished tasks, mistakes and  
communication issues are noted and work is reassigned. Other co-workers also  
noted increased oversight and certain mistakes when talking to the WCB’s  
investigator.  
[98]  
We accept the employer’s explanation that these performance concerns resulted  
in increased supervision and oversight by the supervisor, certain duties being  
reassigned to others, and the worker’s job description being revised.  
[99]  
All of these actions fall within normal pressures and tensions of employment  
under the policy, which includes performance management, staff assignments  
and restructuring, and workload management.  
[100]  
While the worker may have found these actions distressing, these actions are all  
considered to be non-traumatic and non-compensable under Policy 03-10,  
Part II, Application 6.  
Conclusion  
[101]  
[102]  
The weight of evidence shows that the worker has a confirmed psychological or  
psychiatric injury as described in the current DSM.  
However, the weight of evidence does not support that any of the three events  
cited by the worker satisfy the policy criteria for either a traumatic onset  
psychological injury or a chronic onset psychological injury.  
[103]  
The weight of evidence does not show that these events  
were shocking or frightening;  
involved actual or threatened death or serious injury; or  
involved a threat to the worker’s physical integrity.  
Classification: Protected A  
Page 20  
Decision No.: 2022-0294  
[104]  
[105]  
In addition, the weight of evidence does not show that the events involved  
behaviours that were aggressive, threatening or abusive.  
Finally, the weight of evidence did not support that the events constitute bullying  
or harassment, defined in the policy as a repeated incident of objectionable or  
unwelcome conduct, comment, bullying or action intended to intimidate, offend,  
degrade or humiliate a particular person or group. Nor did the weight of evidence  
support that the events occurred as described by the worker and therefore, they  
were not verifiable or objectively confirmed.  
[106]  
[107]  
Instead, the weight of evidence supports that the events were part of the normal  
pressures and tensions of employment. They were not excessive or unusual  
compared to what would be experienced by an average worker in a similar  
occupation.  
The additional matters raised by the worker also do not meet the policy criteria.  
They relate to performance management issues, workload management and  
staff assignments, all of which are considered non-traumatic and  
non-compensable under the policy.  
Classification: Protected A  
Page 21  
Decision No.: 2022-0294  
Decision  
[108]  
The worker does not have an acceptable claim for a psychological injury.  
[109]  
[110]  
The worker’s appeal is denied.  
The Dispute Resolution and Decision Review Body’s December 3, 2021 decision  
is confirmed.  
This decision is made with the full agreement of the hearing panel.  
Decision signed in Calgary, Alberta on July 5, 2022.  
J. Saunders  
Hearing Chair  
(on behalf of the panel)  
Hearing Panel:  
J. Saunders  
D. Gilman  
G. Bogstie  
– Hearing Chair  
– Commissioner  
– Commissioner  
Typed by: ab  
E_DEC08D (20210701)  
Classification: Protected A  
Page 22  
Decision No.: 2022-0294  
Appendix A  
Legislation – Workers’ Compensation Act, RSA 2000, c W-15 (WCA)  
The legislation in effect on the date of this hearing, June 22, 2022, was the Workers’  
Compensation Act, RSA 2000, c W-15 (WCA), in force since April 1, 2021. Reference  
is to that version, unless otherwise specified.  
Section 1(1)(a)  
“Interpretation  
1(1) In this Act,  
(a) ‘accident’ means an accident that arises out of and occurs  
in the course of employment in an industry to which this Act  
applies and includes  
(i) a wilful and intentional act, not being the act of the  
worker who suffers the accident,  
(ii) a chance event occasioned by a physical or natural  
cause,  
(iii) disablement, and  
(iv) a disabling or potentially disabling condition caused by  
an occupational disease;”  
Section 13.1(1)  
“Power of the Appeals Commission  
13.1(1) Subject to sections 13.2(11) and 13.4, the Appeals  
Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to examine, inquire into, hear  
and determine all matters and questions arising under this Act and  
the regulations in respect of  
(a) appeals from decisions of a review body under section 9.4,  
. . .  
and the decision of the Appeals Commission on the appeal or other  
matter is final and conclusive and is not open to question or review in  
any court.”  
Classification: Protected A  
Page 23  
Decision No.: 2022-0294  
Sections 13.2(6)(a), (b)  
“Appeals  
. . .  
13.2(6) In the hearing of an appeal under this section, the Appeals  
Commission  
. . .  
(a) shall give all persons with a direct interest in the matter  
under appeal an opportunity to be heard and to present any  
new or additional evidence,  
(b) is bound by the board of directors’ policy relating to the  
matter under appeal,”  
Section 24(1)(a)  
“Eligibility for compensation  
24(1) Subject to this Act, compensation under this Act is payable  
(a) to a worker who suffers personal injury by an accident,  
unless the injury is attributable primarily to the serious and  
wilful misconduct of the worker, and  
(b) . . .”  
Classification: Protected A  
Page 24  
Decision No.: 2022-0294  
Appendix B  
Workers’ Compensation Board Policy  
The deemed date of accident was January 6, 2021 and the adjudicator’s decision was  
dated July 29, 2021. The versions of the WCB policies applied are based on these  
dates.  
Policy 02-01, Part II, Application 7: Causation, issued April 3, 2018:  
“3.  
What is a standard of causation?  
A standard of causation is the legal standard or legal test that is applied  
to determine whether the injury or disease is caused by work (that is, to  
have arisen out of and occurred in the course of employment).  
4.  
What standard of causation does WCB apply?  
The standard of causation used by WCB is the ‘but for’ test, except when  
specifically stated otherwise.  
5.  
What is the ‘but for’ test?  
The ‘but for’ test is a finding of fact – the work exposures were necessary  
for the accident and injury to occur. In other words, if not for the work  
exposures, the injury or disease would not have happened.  
In some cases there may be several causes that meet the ‘but for’ test  
that work in combination to cause an injury. Work does not have to be  
the only factor, or even the primary one, for the injury to be compensable.  
It must, however, be a necessary factor; if the injury or disability would  
have happened anyway, regardless of the work factor, it is not  
compensable.  
The finding of fact is based on the evidence and accepted medical  
knowledge, not on a speculative connection.  
6.  
How does the balance of probabilities apply when  
determining causation?  
The balance of probabilities is the standard of proof used by  
WCB-Alberta.  
For example, when adjudicating a claim where the standard of causation  
is the ‘but for’ test, WCB weighs all the evidence and determines if it is  
more likely than not that, but for the worker’s employment, the injury  
would not have occurred (see also Policy 01-03, Benefit of Doubt).”  
Classification: Protected A  
Page 25  
Decision No.: 2022-0294  
Policy 03-01, Part II: General; Application 6: Psychiatric or Psychological Injury,  
issued January 5, 2021  
“1.  
What is a work-related psychiatric or psychological injury?  
A psychiatric or psychological injury is confirmed when there is a  
diagnosis, as defined in the most current version of the Diagnostic and  
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, (DSM)* and the condition results  
from one of the following:  
organic brain damage caused by a work-related head injury; exposure  
to toxic chemicals or gases; anoxia; or other work-related injury,  
disease, or condition  
an extreme emotional reaction to a work-related physical injury/illness  
(for example, depression related to prolonged disability or an  
amputation)  
an extreme emotional reaction to treatment for a work- related  
injury/illness (for example, complicated recovery from surgery, added  
pain from a treatment process)  
traumatic onset psychological injury following a traumatic workplace  
event/incident or series of traumatic events/incidents  
chronic onset psychological injury (See Question 7 for further details  
on when WCB accepts claims for chronic onset psychological injury)  
*NOTE: When a new edition is published, WCB will designate an  
effective date, as close as practicable to the date for publication, for use  
of the new edition (see Addendum A).”  
2.  
How does WCB determine whether a psychiatric or  
psychological injury is compensable?  
As with other types of injuries, to be compensable the psychiatric or  
psychological injury must arise out of and occur in the course of  
employment.  
Traumatic psychological injury  
Unless elsewhere specified, WCB uses the “but for” test to determine  
causation (see Policy 02-01, Part II, Application 7, Questions 4 and 5).  
Chronic onset psychological injury  
For chronic onset psychological injury, WCB uses ‘predominant cause’ to  
determine compensability. Due to the multifactorial nature of chronic  
psychological injury and the interaction of those multiple factors, WCB  
accepts that causation is established when all the criteria set out in policy  
are met and occupational exposures are the predominant cause of the  
chronic onset psychological injury (see Questions 6 and 7).  
. . .  
Classification: Protected A  
Page 26  
Decision No.: 2022-0294  
4.  
What is mental stress?  
Mental stress is a commonly used term that describes an individual’s  
non-specific physical and psychological response to the events or  
changes that occur in his or her life. These events are known as  
stressors. Some level of stress is a normal part of life; however, when a  
person’s ability to cope with the stressors is overwhelmed, distress, a  
negative form of mental stress, can develop and result in diagnosable  
psychological or psychiatric injuries.  
It should be noted that ‘stress’ is not an accepted medical diagnostic  
term, but can result in psychiatric or psychological diagnoses such as  
adjustment disorders, anxiety disorders, or mood disorders, depending on  
the circumstances.  
5.  
What is work-related traumatic onset psychological injury?  
Traumatic onset psychological injury is compensable when it is an  
emotional reaction in response to a single traumatic work-related event or  
a cumulative series of traumatic work-related events experienced by the  
worker.  
A traumatic event(s) is defined as a direct personal experience of an  
event or directly witnessing an event that, reasonably and objectively  
assessed, is:  
sudden/unexpected  
frightening or shocking,  
having a specific time and place, and  
involving actual or threatened death or serious injury to oneself or  
others or threat to one’s physical integrity (i.e., assault).  
For example, a victim of a robbery or hostage-taking incident; witnessing  
the death or severe injury of a co- worker; or providing first response to  
victims of severe physical trauma or fatalities.  
Interpersonal relations  
Interpersonal relations between a worker and coworkers, management, or  
customers may be traumatic when they result in behaviours that are  
aggressive, threatening, or abusive.  
NOTE: A full psychological or psychiatric evaluation may not be required  
for short-term claims for psychological injury resulting from a single  
traumatic work-related event.  
6.  
What is work-related chronic onset psychological injury?  
Chronic onset psychological injury is compensable when it is an extreme  
emotional reaction to:  
a) an accumulation, over time, of a number of verifiable work-related  
stressors that do not fit the definition of traumatic event,  
Classification: Protected A  
Page 27  
Decision No.: 2022-0294  
b) a significant work-related stressor that has lasted for a long time and  
does not fit the definition of traumatic event, or  
c) bullying or harassment, defined as a repeated incident of  
objectionable or unwelcome conduct, comment, bullying or action  
intended to intimidate, offend, degrade or humiliate a particular person  
or group  
and when all the criteria outlined in Question 7 below are met.  
7.  
When does WCB accept claims for chronic onset  
psychological injury?  
As with any other claim, WCB investigates the causation to determine  
whether the claim is acceptable. Claims for this type of injury are eligible  
for compensation only when all of the following criteria are met:  
there is a confirmed psychological or psychiatric diagnosis as  
described in the DSM,  
the work-related events or stressors are the predominant cause of the  
injury; predominant cause means the prevailing, strongest, chief, or  
main cause of the chronic onset psychological injury,  
the work-related events are excessive or unusual in comparison to the  
normal pressures and tensions experienced by the average worker in  
a similar occupation, and  
there is objective confirmation of the events.  
Ongoing compensability for chronic onset psychological injury will be  
accepted when the medical evidence shows that the work or work-related  
injury is the predominant cause of the current symptoms.  
8.  
What are non-traumatic and non-compensable normal  
pressures and tensions of employment?  
In addition to the duties reasonably expected by the nature of a worker’s  
occupation, actions taken by an employer relating to management of work  
and employees are considered a normal part of employment.  
Normal employment expectations include, but are not limited to, the  
following:  
Hiring employees  
Performance evaluations and/or performance corrective actions  
Staff assignments, transfers or restructuring  
Promotions, demotions, lay-offs, and terminations  
Workload fluctuations and management and/or assignment changes  
Timeline/deadline pressures  
Classification: Protected A  
Page 28  
Decision No.: 2022-0294  
Work environment, including health and safety concerns, and union  
issues.  
. . .  
10.  
When is this policy application effective?  
This policy application (Application 6 – Psychiatric or Psychological Injury)  
is effective January 1, 2021, and applies to all claims with dates of  
accident on or after that date, except when noted otherwise in a specific  
policy section(s).”  
Classification: Protected A  


© 2022 IncJournal is not affiliated with or endorsed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission