A former Yellowknife firefighter is asking the NWT Supreme Court to review a tribunal decision denying him compensation for a psychological injury related to workplace harassment.
According to court documents, the man began working as a firefighter and paramedic for the City of Yellowknife in December 2018. It is uncontested that he was harassed on four occasions in the workplace between the time he was hired and June 2020.
In three instances, court documents state the man’s supervisor forced him to wear bunker gear as punishment for losing items of equipment, for not immediately responding to a request to pick up a cabinet while he was servicing a piece of equipment, and for leaving the rear doors of an ambulance open.
In another instance, the man was required to wear a wooden pager for three weeks for missing a fire alarm on his pager while he was cleaning. If he was found without the wooden pager, he was required to run stairs or buy his co-workers energy drinks.
In early June 2020, the man responded to an ambulance call. During that call, the patient died of a heart attack on the way to the hospital. The man’s supervisor questioned his decision-making and actions and placed him on a mentorship program.
Advertisement.
Advertisement.
In October that year, a psychiatrist diagnosed the man with an unspecified trauma and stressor-related disorder and major depressive disorder. The doctor found the man had some symptoms resembling post-traumatic stress disorder, but did not meet the criteria for a diagnosis as his stressors were related to a hostile work environment, with the man having earlier experienced severe childhood bullying.
The man had previously been diagnosed with major depressive disorder and significant generalized anxiety disorder following a head injury in 2011. Evidence suggests he was asymptomatic when he was hired by the city in 2018, the court documents state.
The man stopped working in November 2020, following the recommendation of a psychiatrist that he be off work for at least three months. He made compensation claims to the Workers’ Safety and Compensation Commission alleging he had suffered severe psychological injuries due to harassment and his employer’s reaction to the patient’s death on June 2.
Between September 2020 and August 2021, the compensation commission denied those claims. It found the “interpersonal incidents” were labour relations issues and therefore not compensable.
Advertisement.
Advertisement.
The man requested a review and, in May 2022, the commission’s review committee determined he was entitled to compensation, finding his injury was the result of cumulative workplace harassment.
The city appealed that decision and, in June 2022, the workers’ compensation appeals tribunal overturned the review committee’s decision. While the tribunal agreed the man had developed a psychological disorder due to harassment, it did not find that entitled him to compensation.
“Such forms of reprimand were standard methods of training in military and paramilitary organizations for decades – in the past. The use of humiliation as punishment was intended to instill blind obedience in those whose duties required strict adherence to standards of procedures,” the tribunal’s decision states. “However, maladministration or arcane supervisory tactics may fall within the scope of labour relations.”
For harassment to be compensable, the tribunal added, it must be traumatic in nature. The tribunal found the harassment to which the man was subjected did not fit the definition of a traumatic event under the compensation commission’s policy.
“Being forced to unnecessarily wear bunker gear or carrying a wooden pager is grossly inappropriate and potentially humiliating; these events are not horrific, violent or life-threatening,” the tribunal’s decision states.
Now, the man is asking for the supreme court to quash that decision.
“If the decision of the appeals tribunal stands, it may well be that no worker will ever succeed with a claim for psychological injury in the workplace,” he argues.
The city, however, argues that decisions from the appeals tribunal are “final, conclusive” and exempt from review except on narrow grounds that, the city suggests, this case does not meet.
