A British Columbia jail guard who developed a mental disorder after being apprehended under the Mental Health Act and taken to hospital for a psychiatric assessment is not entitled to workers’ compensation, a tribunal has ruled.
The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal found the employer’s decision to apprehend the worker following comments about suicide was a management decision relating to his employment, placing it under a statutory exclusion that bars compensation for such cases.
The November 2025 decision highlights the tension between employer safety obligations and employee mental health protections under B.C.’s workers’ compensation system.
Background
On Oct. 26, 2022, the worker engaged in conversation with an administrative co-worker about cost-of-living pressures. According to the worker’s account, he made an offhand comment saying “What’s the point? We might as well end it all.”
The administrative co-worker reported the comment to supervisors, expressing concern about the worker’s well-being and stating he did not appear to be joking.
The worker’s supervising sergeant spoke with him about life stressors. The sergeant, who had assessed potentially suicidal people hundreds of times as a police officer, determined there was no significant risk and planned to have the worker continue his shift.
However, after the matter was reported up the chain of command, a staff sergeant decided the worker would be apprehended under section 28 of the Mental Health Act. The decision was made after consultation with multiple members of the police force and consideration of several factors, including the worker’s comment, recent poor work attendance, and reported personal stressors including financial pressures and family difficulties.
The apprehension
At 1 p.m., the worker was asked to change out of his uniform and taken to a boardroom where he met with two sergeants, a staff sergeant, a detective constable, and a nurse. He was told he was being taken to hospital for psychiatric assessment because of his comments that morning.
The worker protested and asked to speak with a mental health professional of his own choosing, but the request was denied. He was transported to hospital in an unmarked police car positioned in front of the building.
At the hospital, a psychiatrist assessed the worker and documented that he was under stress due to home life and significant financial stress. The psychiatrist noted the worker denied depression and denied suicide thoughts, though he acknowledged making the comment about suicide at work that morning. The psychiatrist concluded the worker had no primary psychiatric diagnosis and there was no risk of suicide. The worker was released without being certified under the Mental Health Act.
The employer requested medical clearance before the worker could return to work. His family physician could not provide clearance without seeing the hospital psychiatrist’s report, resulting in an extended absence.
Mental disorder claim
A psychologist later diagnosed the worker with adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressive mood. The psychologist stated the worker “experienced a significant deterioration in his mental health in response to the stressor of October 2022, when he was sectioned in his workplace and brought to hospital for perceived suicidality after making a comment to a coworker.”
The worker’s initial compensation claim was denied but later allowed by a review officer who found the employer’s actions were “excessive in intensity and disproportionate to the safety risk to the worker.”
Tribunal reversal
The tribunal overturned the review officer’s decision. While it agreed the Oct. 26, 2022 events constituted significant workplace stressors, it found the employer’s decisions fell under section 135(1)(c) of the Workers Compensation Act, which excludes compensation for mental disorders caused by employer decisions relating to employment.
The tribunal applied principles from a 2025 B.C. Supreme Court decision that limited the employer decision exclusion to “management decisions on generic processes and actions taken in good faith.”
The tribunal found the apprehension was “an aspect of the overall generic process of an employer attending to the health and safety of their workforce.” It concluded the decision was made after “significant deliberation and consultation” with no evidence of targeting or mistreatment.
The tribunal rejected arguments that the employer acted improperly by not providing the worker access to a lawyer, not offering a union representative, or placing him in an unmarked police car visible to colleagues. It found these circumstances did not establish the employer acted in bad faith or outside legitimate workplace safety concerns.
“Even if the employer’s actions were reasonable, I would still agree with the review officer that the events of Oct. 26, 2022 were significant stressors,” the tribunal stated. However, the intensity of the stressors did not prevent the employer decision exclusion from applying.
The tribunal allowed the employer’s appeal and denied the worker’s compensation claim. See more coverage in our sister publication HR Law Canada here.
