Judge awards damages of $116K to insurance producer with PTSD after being harassed
The British Columbia Supreme Court ruled that an insurance brokerage company wrongfully terminated an insurance producer who developed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and major depressive disorder after a representative of one of her clients stalked and harassed her for years.
In 2014, the plaintiff in Hedrick v Johnston Meier Insurance Agencies Ltd., 2026 BCSC 1250, began working as an insurance producer at the defendant insurance brokerage.
Shortly after the stalking began, the employee informed her manager about the situation, which they addressed through office safeguards. However, by summer 2021, the stalking had become more frequent and intense.
The employee suggested potential additional changes to her work routine. According to her, her manager failed to help despite initially saying he would think of a plan. The employee’s mental health worsened as the stalking continued.
On Sept. 9, 2021, the employee asked whether she could temporarily work remotely from her rental property. According to her, her manager refused and threatened to take away her assistant if she worked remotely.
On pay day a week later, the employee noticed a substantial pay reduction.
On Oct. 4, 2021, the employee informed the manager that she needed a week of vacation time due to her worsening mental health. The manager told the employee to contact human resources to go on leave. When the employee specified that she was going on “vacation” rather than on “leave,” the manager suggested that she drop her “attitude.”
After that day, the employee went on sick leave. She did not resume work for the rest of 2021 and for most of 2022. She qualified initially for short-term disability benefits and later for long-term disability benefits.
WorkSafeBC decision
On Aug. 24, 2022, the Workers’ Compensation Board of British Columbia (WorkSafeBC) determined that:
- Partly due to her manager’s and the stalker’s actions, the employee had sustained workplace injuries that stabilized into permanent conditions by Aug. 29, 2022
- The employee would have trouble resuming work with her pre-injury employer
- The employee was entitled to a referral to vocational rehabilitation services
Relying on WorkSafeBC’s decision, the insurance brokerage formally terminated her employment on Sept. 16, 2022.
Wrongful dismissal damages
The Supreme Court of British Columbia awarded the employee $116,136 in wrongful dismissal damages, equivalent to nine months’ pay in lieu of notice, calculated based on her $12,904 average monthly income over her prior three years of employment.
The court held that the employer could not rely on the frustration defence, which failed at the second stage (requiring that neither party was at fault for the supervening event) of the test in Aldergrove Duty Free Shop Ltd v MacCallum, 2024 BCCA 28.
The court explained that the employer’s conduct directly contributed to the employee’s illnesses and inability to resume work.
Punitive, aggravated damages denied
The BC Supreme Court declined to award the employee punitive or aggravated damages.
The court accepted that the manager, who unilaterally reduced the employee’s pay leading up to her termination, contributed to her injuries and should have handled the matter differently.
However, the court did not consider the manager’s conduct high-handed, malicious, or rising to the level of professional humiliation or reputational damage in Boucher v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp, 2014 ONCA 419, or in Zheng v. China Southern Airlines Company Limited, 2023 BCSC 1763.
No WorkSafeBC deductions
The BC Supreme Court refused to grant any deductions from the damages award for WorkSafeBC benefits.
The court acknowledged that the benefits paid to the employee after she initially went on medical leave primarily sought to indemnify for lost wages.
However, the court determined that the benefits paid to the employee after Aug. 29, 2022, aimed to compensate her for her permanent injuries, loss of function, recovery, and return to work purposes, rather than seeking to replace her lost wages.
No deductions for failure to mitigate
The BC Supreme Court declined to make any deductions from the damages award for a failure to mitigate. Considering her medical conditions at the time, the court concluded that the employee made reasonable efforts to seek employment.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest labour and employment law news on the main page!
