In Vancouver Island Health Authority v Safaei and British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, 2025 BCSC 340, the employee was terminated during the probationary period. The employee then filed the “trifecta” of complaints against the employer: a union grievance, human rights complaint, AND a WorkSafeBC claim for mental disorder arising from alleged bullying and harassment in the workplace. The WCB claim was adjudicated first, and WorkSafeBC found the employee was not credible and that there was no bullying and harassment that would amount to a “traumatic” workplace event which is required by the legislation before a claim will be allowed. The employee appealed all the way to WCAT (the highest level of appeal for WCB matters) and her appeal was denied.

‍

When the BC Human Rights Tribunal finally got around to reviewing the complaint, the employer applied to dismiss the case on the basis that the matter had already been adjudicated through the WCB process and the employee should not a get a “second kick at the can” through the human rights process. The Tribunal declined to dismiss the claim, saying that the WCB process did not consider the Human Rights Code and therefore the case was not the same. The employer sought a judicial review through the courts and the BC Supreme Court agreed with the employer. Of importance, the Court said the law is clear that where one administrative decision-maker decides facts and reaches conclusions about the workplace, those conclusions will be binding on subsequent decision-makers from other tribunals and/or courts. For example, if WCB or WCAT decides that there was no bullying and harassment after hearing the employee’s evidence, then the employee cannot seek to get an opposite ruling from the Human Rights Tribunal.

‍

As the WorkSafeBC process is often the first one engaged in employee complaints (including Prohibited Action, bullying and harassment, or the new Duty to Maintain Employment/Duty to Accommodate) it is extremely important for employers to pay careful attention to the process and participate meaningfully in the claims process. The decisions of WorkSafeBC could have far-reaching ramifications beyond the WCB claim, including creating a binding precedent for future complaints made through other processes.

‍

In Pickering v Workers’ Compensation Board, 2025 BCSC 376, the BC Supreme Court ruled that the "labour relations exclusion" for a WCB mental stress claim was unconstitutional. The exclusion normally functions to prevent a worker from getting WCB benefits on the basis of a mental disorder if the mental injury was caused by a decision of the worker’s employer relating to the worker’s employment i.e. a decision relating to performance management, termination, investigations, etc. In a long and complex decision, the Court ruled that this the labour relations exclusion was arbitrary because it did not distinguish between employer’s actions that were taken in good faith and those that were not. In the result, section 135(1)(c) of the Act must be "read down" to correct the arbitrariness. This means that the provision must be read to only apply to management decisions on "generic processes" and actions that are taken in good faith. As a result of this change, employers must now show that the decisions relied on for the exclusion were in good faith and fell within the category of generic processes, such as routine performance management. We expect that this change will result in a lower barrier for the acceptance of mental stress claims and ultimately higher costs for the employers who pay the premiums.

‍