The major pieces of legislation and the few collective agreements that address the issue of workplace violence are based on case law or a set of legal decisions made in civil and criminal cases, the thorough examination of which would go beyond the objectives of this Web site. Due to the high standard of evidence required for injuries of a predominantly psychological nature attributable to workplace violence, our review of case law in Quebec focuses primarily on these injuries. First, however, a few clarifications are in order.

• The worker's perception is not enough to demonstrate a link between an attack and a physical or mental injury. There needs to be proof that can be backed up by verifiable events and a thorough medical assessment, which can only be deemed to be valid by CSST (occupational health and safety board) and CLP (Commission des lésions professionnelles, employment injury board) representatives, but matching testimonies by witnesses are also helpful in solidifying proof.

• At the present time, a microtraumism is not accepted as a disorder related to post-traumatic stress, but it is admissible as an injury when seen as the result of an industrial accident. Some decisions have stipulated that each traumatism must be of an unforeseeable and sudden nature in order for the accident-related injury to be admissible. However, most decisions are based on multiple traumatisms that appear insignificant on their own.

• The "Thin Skull Rule," or that of a person's pre-existing condition, can be described as follows: no matter how fragile or what personality type a victim is, it is essential to determine whether a link exists between the injury and verifiable circumstances in the workplace that are responsible for it. In other words, if there is no link, it is only a personal condition that is showing up at work rather than an employment injury attributable to workplace violence

Addressing situations where the possibility of workplace violence is questioned, the following list covers several circumstances or realities in the workplace, and these will subsequently be differentiated in light of some legal precedents:

• personality conflicts,
• disciplinary measures,
• criticizing work and giving performance appraisals,
• supervision,
• threats and false accusations,
• refusing vested rights,
• changes in work organization or conditions of employment.

Each of these situations illustrates the importance, for both employers and workers, of having explicable and justifiable reasons to back up one's position regarding claims for compensation for psychological injuries.

It is important, here, to briefly review the legal issues involved in each of these cases.

• Personality conflicts

An unhealthy work atmosphere caused by personality conflicts is not admissible as a psychological injury. In the Arseneau case, the claim by an employee who suffered from depression following a difficult and violent relationship with a co-worker was not accepted because it did not correspond to any unforeseen and sudden event potentially leading to a work accident. On the other hand, in the Bussière case, compensation was granted to a worker who was forced to work with a teammate with violent behaviour who refused to collaborate and displayed unpredictable aggressiveness. 

• Disciplinary measures

Verbal or written disciplinary measures rarely correspond to a situation that is admissible as a psychological injury. In the Welch case, a worker who claimed to be the victim of psychological harassment on the part his superiors by means of verbal and written warnings that he received, had his claim rejected. The measures taken were considered to be fair on account of the employee's inadequate performance. On the other hand, when the courts are presented with cases involving two disciplinary measures corresponding to a single event or an unjustified disciplinary measure, they conclude that there has been an abuse of managerial prerogatives. Moreover, disciplinary meetings between supervisors and employees continue to be the norm in organizations. They cannot be seen as unforeseeable, sudden events that lead to compensation for psychological injury.

• Criticizing Work and Giving Performance Appraisals

Reminders, observations, negative comments and criticism made by a supervisor in the course of an employee's work, such as comments to the effect that if the employee in question wants to keep her job, she had better improve her performance, are not automatically considered to be definitions of harassment toward the employee. Such remarks, addressed to an employee by a supervisor, are rarely recognized as a psychological injury. Furthermore, performance appraisals, in which such criticism is often expressed, must be based on sound explanations and justifications. In the Barber case, the worker held a position as a town councillor in addition to his job as a firefighter, and he claimed to be the victim of harassment on the part of his supervisor on account of a poor performance appraisal. However, this worker did not prove that the appraisal was inexplicable and unjustified. His employer had given him permission to take on the role of town councillor on the condition that it did not interfere with his work as a firefighter. In the Blagoeva case, the psychological injury inflicted on a worker by her immediate supervisor was recognized, in particular because of an unfavourable performance appraisal that was not based on any sound justification. In addition, the employer, in this case, had not taken any constructive measures to resolve the problems in the workplace.

• Supervision

Reasonable supervision is never out-of-place and is sometimes necessary in an organization where employees' mistakes and poor performance appraisals accumulate, or on account of the complexity of the tasks that need to be coordinated. On the other hand, what leads to legal recourse are mainly exaggerations or excessive supervision without valid grounds. Thus, in the Roulier case, the abusive supervision of a worker by a foreman was deemed to be a source of humiliation and an attack on his dignity. This supervision also affected the physical and mental health of the worker. In Quebec case law, supervision in the workplace, unto itself, does not constitute a reason for recognizing psychological injuries, but it has been accepted in combination with other factors in cases where compensation was granted for this type of injury. 

• Threats and False Accusations

No matter what the source, threats and false accusations are not a normal part of the usual work of employees. In the Leduc case, a recently-appointed manager twice notified a worker that she was fired without any just cause, and then he changed his story and told her that it wasn't true. False accusations made in front of co-workers or by managers to employees have been recognized by the courts as having a serious affect on the people they are directed at . 

• Refusing Vested Rights (days off, vacation, etc.)

Good judgement and caution are required on the part of managers when it comes to authorizing or denying the vested rights of employees. In the Béliveau case, a worker was not permitted to take her vacation, among other consequences, after refusing her supervisor's advances. The assignment of positions based on seniority is also an area where managers must be especially careful. In the Leduc case, referred to above in the section on threats and false accusations, a psychological injury was accepted in particular because the manager of the company did not take seniority into account when drawing up the work schedule. However, this was not the only reason cited in favour of recognizing the injury in this case.

• Changes in Work Organization or Conditions of Employment

Technological and organizational changes, when they are known, cannot be compared to microtraumatisms. In the Champoux case, an employee associated her psychological injury with an overload of work caused by a reduction in her scheduled hours, but as there was no unforeseen and sudden increase in work, her claim for compensation was rejected. On the other hand, in the Gagnon case, the difficult conditions under which a worker had to write a report, the numerous changes made to his conditions of employment and the pressure exerted on him in an unforeseen and sudden manner led the court to lean in favour of accepting his claim for compensation.