Kara O’Halloran and Michelle Westgeest successfully challenged a decision from the Dispute Resolution and Decision Review Body (DRDRB) in Decision No.: 2025-0667 (2025 CanLII 112291). In that case, an emergency department nurse working during the COVID-19 pandemic received a diagnosis of adjustment disorder with anxiety from her family physician in 2022 and filed a claim with the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) for a work-related chronic onset psychological injury. The WCB denied her claim on the basis that, although she had a confirmed psychiatric diagnosis and the work-related stressors she experienced were the predominant cause of her injury, the work-related stressors were not excessive or unusual in comparison to the normal pressures and tensions experienced by the average worker in a similar occupation, nor were they objectively confirmed in their entirety. The Dispute Resolution and Decision Review Body upheld this WCB’s decision, prompting the nurse to file a Notice of Appeal with the Appeals Commission.
In assessing the nurse’s claim, the Appeals Commission confirmed that the “normal pressures and tensions” described in WCB policy are those the average nurse experiences in normal conditions, not in unprecedented pandemic conditions. The Appeals Commission determined that the additional duties, enhanced PPE requirements, workload fluctuations, health and safety concerns, and changing government directives and restrictions flowing from the COVID-19 pandemic response went far beyond the normal pressures and tensions the average nurse experiences during the normal course of a career in nursing. Likewise, the Appeals Commission recognized that the vitriol directed at nurses by patients and family members who were frustrated with pandemic-related restrictions amounted to bullying and harassment as defined by WCB policy.
In addition to witness statements confirming specific incidents, the Appeals Commission found that many of the adverse work conditions and events the nurse recounted could be objectively confirmed by publicly available databases, news reports, or AHS and public health directives. As a result, the Appeals Commission concluded that the appellant nurse had a compensable claim for a work-related chronic onset psychological injury.
Although Appeals Commission decisions are not binding, this case may be helpful on other pandemic-related chronic onset psychological injury claims, particularly with respect to the evidence that may be relied on to objectively confirm events and contextualize the “normal pressures and tensions” of employment during a pandemic.