- Board Directives and Guidelines (stress, mental) (traumatic event)
In 2019, the worker had multiple reactions to airborne exposures at work. On October 15, 2019, a severe anaphylactic event due to a peanut allergy sent her to the hospital. She returned to work on November 13, 2019, but encountered peanuts and had debilitating anxiety symptoms. She then was off work until May 2020, when remote work became available. The issue under appeal was initial entitlement for Traumatic Mental Stress (TMS), or in the alternative, for Chronic Mental Stress (CMS).
The appeal was allowed. The worker had initial entitlement to benefits for TMS. The Panel found as follows: the worker had a mental stress injury, which was diagnosed in accordance with the DSM. The worker experienced objectively traumatic workplace events. The events arose out of and occurred in the course of employment. The worker was participating in work activities when the events occurred. The events occurred when the worker was at work during her regular work shift. The Panel found that the life-threatening aspect of the anaphylactic reactions was enough to find the events were traumatic. However, the worker's mental stress injury was meaningfully contributed to by the totality of the events, not just the anaphylactic reaction aspect of the events. The Panel found that eating peanuts at work, contrary to the peanut-free policy, was a willful and reckless disregard for the worker's life by her colleagues. Further, Ontario employers also have an obligation under the Human Rights Code to accommodate workers up to the point of undue hardship. The employer's efforts to address the workplace harassment and to accommodate the worker were inadequate and ineffective. Some colleagues continued to violate the peanut-free policy. The employer did not conduct any kind of follow-up investigations, workplace harassment focused or otherwise, or implement corrective measures.The Panel noted that inadequate and ineffective efforts by an employer to investigate workplace harassment and accommodate a worker amounts to conduct that a reasonable person would find egregious. That conduct therefore falls outside of the scope of actions that are considered part of the employment function. The October 15, 2019, anaphylactic event was the pivotal moment when the worker's psychological health shifted. On the balance of probabilities, the Panel was satisfied that the worker's psychological disorders developed because of objectively traumatic workplace events. On the balance of probabilities, the cumulative effect of the objectively traumatic workplace events significantly contributed to causing the worker's mental stress injury.