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 Mondaq.com.

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

Authors
Jeremy Schwartz
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
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
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions