Canada: Stress Claim Tsunami? Tribunal Declares Stress Provisions Of Workplace Safety And Insurance Act Unconstitutional

In one of the most significant decisions in recent memory, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (the "Tribunal") has declared that most of the legal restrictions placed on Workplace Safety and Insurance Board traumatic mental stress claims are unconstitutional.  The Tribunal essentially held that imposing restrictions on eligible mental conditions which are not imposed on physical injuries violates the equality provisions of section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This decision may expand entitlement for mental stress and the Attorney General contended at the hearing of the appeal that it could also have a significant fiscal impact on the WSIB which is already experiencing a large unfunded liability.   

Since 1997, the Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Act ("WSIA") restricted entitlement for workers claiming mental stress to situations where a worker has suffered an acute reaction to a sudden and unexpected traumatic event arising out of and in the course of employment.  A worker is not entitled to benefits for traumatic mental stress that are a result of the employer's employment decisions or actions. 

The WSIB Policy on the issue stated that traumatic mental stress may be a result of a criminal act, harassment, or a horrific accident, and may involve actual or threatened death or serious harm against the worker, a co-worker, a worker's family member, or others.  The Policy also required workers to have suffered or witnessed the traumatic event first hand, or heard the traumatic event first hand through direct contact with the traumatized individual(s) (e.g., speaking with the victim(s) on the radio or telephone as the traumatic event is occurring).

The WSIB has also provided for compensation to workers who develop a mental disability as a result of a work related physical injury.  For example, a worker who developed depression as a result of a physical injury in the workplace would be entitled to compensation without restriction. In practice, the legal restrictions made it very difficult for workers to get WSIB benefits for traumatic mental stress.  It has been our experience that the Tribunal had employed a somewhat less rigid interpretation of the restrictions on stress claims than the approach employed by the WSIB and the WSIB Appeals Branch.

Decision 2157/09 

The case involved a nurse who had worked at the same hospital for 28 years. For 12 years, the worker was subject to ill treatment from a doctor who persistently yelled at her and made demeaning comments.  The events came to a head when the doctor repeatedly interrupted the worker's history taking with patients, told her to "shoo," and closed the door on the worker's heels.  The worker was "effectively" demoted after this incident and was diagnosed with adjustment disorder arising out of these events. 

The worker's claim for benefits was denied by the WSIB and the WSIB Appeals Branch.  The Tribunal held in an earlier decision in November 2010, Decision 2157/09I, that while it accepted that the doctor's actions caused the worker's adjustment disorder, the doctor's actions did not constitute a "traumatic and unexpected event" within the meaning of the WSIB Policy and thus entitlement was denied.  There was no detailed discussion of whether these incidents could have cumulatively been considered "sudden and traumatic" within the meaning of the policy.  While the Tribunal is not bound by legal precedent, there have been other similar cases where the Tribunal granted entitlement for the cumulative effect of traumatic mental stress (see for example Tribunal Decisions 2685/01, 1945/11, 1882/12).  

A Charter challenge to the constitutionality of the restrictions on entitlement for mental stress followed the Tribunal's denial of the worker's appeal on the merits.   The worker argued that the WSIA's restrictions on stress claims violated the equality rights provisions of section 15 of the Charter.  Specifically the worker challenged the provisions of sections 13(4) and 13(5) of WSIA which restrict entitlement to situations where a worker suffers an acute reaction to a sudden and unexpected traumatic event arising out of the course of employment.  The worker did not challenge the exclusion related to entitlement for mental stress caused by an employer's decisions or actions.

Litigation under section 15 of the Charter is both legally and factually complicated and involves a detailed multi-step legal analysis.  As we are not writing a legal treatise, we do not propose to exhaustively review every single aspect of the Tribunal's analysis. 

However, the essence of an equality case under the Charter involves comparison of the treatment of the party alleging discrimination (i.e. workers suffering from work related mental disabilities who are restricted from WSIB entitlement) to other parties (workers with physical injuries).  Assuming that discrimination were established, the Tribunal must also determine whether the discrimination results in "substantive inequality" by perpetuating a historical disadvantage of a claimant group. 

The Attorney General of Ontario argued that there was no discrimination against workers who suffered from mental stress because the treatment of the injury was focused on the injuring process (i.e. whether the injury was "traumatic") rather than a distinction between physical and mental disabilities.  The Attorney General called extensive evidence to establish that the restrictions on traumatic mental stress were required as it is medically impossible to conclusively determine whether a worker's mental condition is caused by work related issues or external factors. 

The Attorney General relied on expert evidence that medical professionals often adopt the suggestion of workers that a condition is work related and that workers often are more inclined to suggest that the stress was work related as opposed to being caused by other factors. 

The Tribunal categorically rejected these arguments and concluded it violated the Charter to treat physical and mental injuries differently.  Further, the Tribunal accepted expert evidence called by the worker that medical professionals are reasonably capable of determining the causation (work related or not) of a worker's medical condition.  The Tribunal pointed out that there are a number of physical injuries where there are tricky issues about whether the physical condition is work related or not (i.e. carpal tunnel syndrome and lung cancer) and these issues are regularly determined by the WSIB and the Tribunal.

A Reasonable Limit?

After concluding that the restrictions on mental stress were unconstitutional the Tribunal was obliged to consider whether the restrictions were "saved" by Section 1 of the Charter as a reasonable limit which can be "demonstrably justified in free and democratic society".  

There have been a number of other cases which have considered whether restrictions on government entitlement programs violate section 15 of the Charter or can be saved by Section 1.  In such cases, the government invariably argues that the Charter allows it to make policy decisions which may have the impact of disadvantaging a particular group and that the Courts ought not to be allowed to dictate to the government where to draw the line on policy decisions about benefit programs.

Courts have accepted this type of argument on a number of occasions.  For example, in Granovsky v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), the Supreme Court of Canada held that the Canada Pension Plan did not infringe section 15(1) of the Charter because the contributions requirement failed to take into account the fact that persons with temporary disabilities may not be able to make contributions for the minimum qualifying period because they are physically unable to work.  The Court stressed that drawing lines for entitlement is an unavoidable feature of the Canada Pension Plan and other comparable schemes. 

More recently, the Ontario Court of Appeal dealt with a section 15 issue in Wynberg v. Ontario.  The Court held that even if the government decision to exclude children over the age of 6 from an expensive therapy program which was proven to treat autism violated the rights of the children under section 15 of the Charter, it was saved by Section 1.  The Court found that the policy choices made by the government fell within the range of reasonable alternatives that balanced the needs of all autistic children.  The Court held that by distributing the available resources as broadly as possible among those children who could benefit the most, the test under section 1 was satisfied.

The Tribunal itself has considered issues related to section 15 in the past.  In Decision 512/06, it rejected a constitutional challenge to the provisions of WSIA which restrict entitlement to benefits for workers who are injured after the age of 63 and cuts off benefits for workers injured before the age of 63 after they reach the age of 65.  The Tribunal found no violation of section 15 and held that that the time limitation is consistent with the overarching aims of WSIA.  The Tribunal noted that the WSIA is intended to provide loss of earnings benefits "flowing from the injury" in a "financially responsible and accountable manner" and that the age limit accomplishes this goal. 

On the other hand, the Courts have made some decisions which have held that government benefit programs violated section 15.  For example, in Plesner v. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, the majority of the British Columbia Court of Appeal concluded that restrictions on workers' compensation stress claims which were similar to the restrictions at issue in this matter were unconstitutional and were not saved by section 1.  The dissenting justice concluded that there was no Charter violation on the facts.  The Tribunal gave significant consideration to the findings of the majority of the Court in Plesner

What About the Costs?

The unfunded liability of the WSIB has been the subject of considerable public discussion and was one of the reasons that the WSIB commissioned Professor Harry Arthurs to undertake an exhaustive review of the funding of the WSIB.  The Tribunal indicated that the Attorney General of Ontario argued that the financial impact on the system (and presumably the employer's premiums that fund the system) of allowing entitlement in these type of claims should be given consideration.

The Tribunal held that it was provided with no evidence that the WSIB system was in a financial crisis or was in a crisis when the restrictions were put in place.  The Tribunal specifically held that there was inadequate evidence regarding the effect of mental stress claims on the insurance fund to justify a conclusion that any implied financial or budgetary issue was overly relevant to the issue of reasonableness.

One can imagine that employers will be very frustrated by this finding.  The precarious financial situation of the WSIB is widely known and subject to a number of recent WSIB sponsored processes in an effort to alleviate the situation.  One can understand that it may have been difficult for the Attorney General to assemble definitive evidence of the potential financial impact of this decision.  However, it is difficult to imagine that allowing such claims will not result in increased financial obligations on the system and thus potentially require increases to premiums and surcharges. 

Where Do Go From Here?

Unlike a decision of a Court, the decision of the Tribunal is binding only the parties to this Appeal.  It remains to be seen whether other panels will adopt this approach.  It seems likely that the Attorney General will seek judicial review of the decision.  

The decision does not necessarily mean that thousands of stress claims will suddenly be approved.  It remains to be seen whether the WSIB will amend the Policies relevant to stress.  The Tribunal made some comments in the decision which suggested that the Alberta Workers' Compensation Board approach to stress was one it considered to strike an appropriate balance.  In Alberta, stress claims are granted where the workplace was the "predominate cause" of the condition and the events causing the stress were "excessive or unusual".

The Alberta approach does not allow approval of all stress claims, but it would open the door to allowing a much broader range of stress claims to be approved.  We also note the question of what happens to older stress claims which were denied under the Policy since 1997.  This issue is particularly significant to Schedule 2 employers who are not subject to the experience rating process which involves a "window" of time for responsibility for claims.  

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Jeremy Schwartz
Events from this Firm
25 Oct 2016, Other, Toronto, Canada

The new Sexual Violence and Harassment Action Plan Act (Bill 132) imposes a range of new duties in regard to workplace harassment. These include requiring employers to amend their programs to implement workplace harassment policies and establish new rules for the investigation of workplace harassment incidents or complaints.

Receive expert guidance from experienced employment lawyers as to how your organization can comply with this new law painlessly and address workplace harassment effectively

16 Nov 2016, Conference, Toronto, Canada

This past year has been marked with significant changes to employment legislation, and watershed decisions that will affect employers for years to come. We've designed this year's conference to deliver a practical and digestible review of what you need to know to manage your employees effectively.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.