BCCA Upholds Reasonableness of Review Officer’s Decision in Complex Bullying-and-Harassment Investigation Case

An employee appealed a series of decisions from WorkSafe BC which had imposed violation orders on the employer for its handling of a series of workplace harassment complaints, but did not apply any administrative penalties to the employer. The Court of Appeal held that WorkSafeBC’s Review Division reasonably declined to impose administrative penalties on the employer, finding that the employer’s flawed handling of bullying-and-harassment complaints created a low—not high—risk of serious injury and did not warrant further enforcement beyond existing orders. The Court also rejected allegations of bias or procedural unfairness, concluding that the Review Officer’s reasoning merely described the employer’s actions and did not endorse them.

Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Workers’ Compensation Board – Human rights complaints – Harassment – Psychological injuries – Judicial review – Appeals – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Reasonableness.

Pereira v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board), [2025] B.C.J. No. 2145, British Columbia Court of Appeal, November 5, 2025, B. Fisher, J.C. Grauer and M.L. Fleming JJ.A.

In Pereira v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board), 2025 BCCA 379, the British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by a former Dexterra Group employee who challenged WorkSafeBC’s refusal to impose administrative penalties on her employer for its handling of workplace bullying and harassment complaints. The Court upheld the Review Division’s decision as reasonable, and found no breach of procedural fairness or evidence of bias in the Board’s approach.

BACKGROUND

The appellant, Corinne Pereira, was employed by Dexterra Group, as a guest service agent at a lodge. In June 2020, she was informed that co-workers had complained about her conduct, alleging that she had been disrespectful towards them. Dexterra issued a verbal warning without informing Pereira about who had made the complaint or interviewing her or giving her an opportunity to respond. Pereira considered Dextrerra’s process profoundly unfair. She believed the co-worker complaints were false and themselves constituted “mobbing”. She believed that she was in fact the victim of bullying and harassment by her coworkers. In response, Pereira filed a grievance through her union and made a workplace harassment complaint under Dexterra’s Respectful Workplace Policy. She subsequently took medical leave due to anxiety.

On June 30, 2020, Pereira filed a complaint with WorkSafeBC, alleging Dexterra had failed to provide a safe workplace and had mishandled her bullying complaint.

In the meantime, Pereira’s union settled her grievance, but Pereira remained dissatisfied because no fact-finding occurred. When she attempted to return to work in September 2020, Dexterra terminated her employment.

WORKSAFE BC COMPLAINT, INVESTIGATIONS, AND DECISIONS

WorkSafeBC’s handling of Pereira’s complaint proved unusually protracted. In January 2022, an occupational safety officer found Dexterra’s response compliant with the Board. A Review Division decision in May 2022 upheld that finding. However, Pereira successfully sought judicial review in Pereira v. WorkSafeBC, 2022 BCSC 1654, where the court held that WorkSafeBC had failed to conduct a full investigation. The matter was remitted to the Board for reconsideration.

Following reconsideration, WorkSafeBC determined Dexterra did not adequately investigate the mobbing complaint and had breached its safety obligations under s. 21(1)(a) of the Workers Compensation Act. Dexterra was ordered to conduct a new investigation, which it completed in early 2023. That second investigation was deemed compliant, and the Board chose not to issue a penalty.

WorkSafeBC also found that Dexterra had not properly handled the co-workers complaint against Pereira, and issued violation orders. Specifically, WorkSafe BC found deficiencies in Dexterra’s procedures, policies, and training. However, again, no penalties were imposed. A December 2023 Review Division decision confirmed the violation orders but declined to impose administrative penalties. A reconsideration request was denied. Pereira then sought judicial review, which was dismissed in January 2025, leading to the present appeal.

APPEAL

Pereira advanced two central arguments on appeal:

First, that the Review Division of WorkSafeBC unreasonably found that Dexterra’s failures did not create a “high risk of serious injury,” and therefore improperly declined to impose penalties under s. 95 of the  WCA.

Secondly, Pereira argued that the Review Division allegedly endorsed Dexterra’s inadequate investigation by referring to the co-worker complaint as having “some merit,” thereby demonstrating bias.

With respect to the applicable standard of review, the Court confirmed that its task was to assess the Review Division’s decision itself, applying a reasonableness standard of review to substantive findings and correctness standard of review to any issues of procedural fairness.

With respect to the reasonableness of the Review Officer’s decision, Pereira argued that mishandling a workplace bullying complaint is inherently high-risk because it can lead to severe psychological injury. High risk incidents warrant application of higher penalties under section 95 of the WCA. The Court acknowledged this general principle, noting that failure to investigate harassment can create serious harm. But it rejected the notion that such violations are always “high risk.”

The Court found that the Review Officer had examined the circumstances specific to this employer and this workplace conflict, including the complexity of multiple overlapping complaints, Dexterra’s need to address concerns of several employees, and the passage of time and subsequent complaint investigation. The Officer had found Dexterra’s breaches created a low risk of serious injury, distinguishing the situation from those involving immediate risk of physical harm. The Court held this conclusion was open to the decision-maker and logically connected to the evidentiary record.

Pereira also contended the employer’s conduct was “intentional,” which would have strengthened the case for penalties. The Review Officer instead found Dexterra’s failures negligent but not deliberate. The Court held this finding was reasonable: although Pereira had repeatedly asked Dexterra to investigate, the evidence did not establish purposeful non-compliance.

The Court also considered the reasonableness of WorkSafeBC’s decision not to apply an administrative penalty to Dexterra. The court found that even in cases of repeated violations, penalties are not automatic under WorkSafeBC policy. The Officer considered Dexterra’s compliance history, the employer’s overall approach to health and safety, the fact that the violations arose from a single cluster of events in 2020, and the Board’s view that the existing orders already provided adequate enforcement. The Officer concluded that a penalty would not enhance future compliance. The Court found this analysis aligned with Policy P2-95-1 and was both transparent and defensible.

As a whole, the Court concluded that the WorkSafeBC decision had been reasonable.

With respect to the allegation of procedural unfairness and bias, Pereira argued that the Review Officer showed bias by referencing Dexterra’s finding that co-worker complaints had “some merit.” The Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that these statements were descriptive, not evaluative. The Review Officer did not endorse Dexterra’s disciplinary actions but merely explained the employer’s reasoning and why its investigation—though deficient—was not entirely absent.

The Court reaffirmed the high bar for establishing bias: suspicion or dissatisfaction is insufficient. There was no evidence that the Officer failed to act impartially.

Because the Review Decision was upheld, the Court found no fault in the Chief Review Officer’s refusal to reconsider the matter; none of the statutory grounds—new evidence, clear error, or procedural unfairness—were met.

CONCLUSION

The Court acknowledged Pereira’s understandable frustration with a prolonged and unsatisfying process that never resulted in a merits-based determination of her workplace complaints. Nevertheless, the Court held firmly that WorkSafeBC’s Review Division acted within its statutory mandate, applied the correct policies, and provided a reasoned and fair justification for declining to impose penalties.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

This case demonstrates that WorkSafeBC’s role in bullying-and-harassment matters is focused on evaluating employers’ investigative processes—not adjudicating the truth of workplace allegations—and that penalties are discretionary, reserved for genuinely high-risk or intentional violations. It also shows that Courts will defer to WorkSafeBC’s specialized expertise when its decisions are transparent, policy-based, and procedurally fair, even where the underlying workplace conflict remains unresolved on the merits.

This case was digested by Emma Jerrott of Harper Grey LLP.  If you would like to discuss this case further, please feel free to contact her directly at [email protected].