- Sexual assault
- Board Directives and Guidelines (stress, mental) (traumatic event)
The worker appealed a decision of the ARO, which concluded that the worker did not have entitlement to benefits for traumatic mental stress as a result of a sexual assault in May of 2017.
The appeal was allowed.This issue turned on whether the incident "arose out of and in the course of the worker's employment," in accordance with OPM Document No. 15-03-02. The worker had been employed as a police officer since 2001. In November 2017, the worker reported to her employer that she was sexually assaulted by an Inspector, on May 11, 2017, while attending a retirement party for a work colleague. As per the policy, the worker had an acute reaction to a sudden and unexpected traumatic event. The incident in May 2017 was objectively traumatic and significantly contributed to the worker's DSM diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder with Anxious Distress. Further, the traumatic event arose out of and in the course of the worker's employment.OPM Document No. 15-02-02, "Accident in the Course of Employment," indicates that when determining whether a worker is in the course of employment, a decision maker applies the criteria of place, time, and activity. As the criteria of place and time were not applicable in this case, the Panel agreed with TCO submissions that OPM Document No. 15-02-02 has broad/inclusive language regarding the scope of the decision-maker's examination of work-relatedness. Accordingly, it was appropriate in this case to focus on the activity of the worker and to consider broadly the circumstances in which the incident occurred. The Panel considered the worker's relationship with the individual, and whether that relationship was primarily personal/social or work-related, and whether the activity was reasonably incidental to her employment. The Panel concluded that the worker's relationship was purely work-related, and that she had no personal or social relationship with him. It was inferred that the retirement party was a work sanctioned event because it was held to honour the retiring officer's service, as demonstrated by the official plaque that was presented to the officer at the party. Moreover, the event was posted online on a bulletin at work and was held at a location near the police division where police officers gathered on a regular basis. The Panel found that the traumatic event arose out of and in the course of the worker's employment because it was inextricably linked to the worker's employment as a police officer. The worker was only known to the individual through their employment as police officers for the same organization, and the sexual assault took place at a retirement party for a work colleague, held at a location close to work where police officers often gathered. Furthermore, in the Panel's view, the fact that the individual was investigated and found to have engaged in discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act and the employer's internal policies and directives, and then disciplined by the employer, supported a nexus to employment.