To many, it may come as a surprise that there is no protection or remedy for workers who are fired for the simple act of filing a compensation claim.
The Workers’ Compensation Act (Act) prohibits employers from retaliating against a worker who exercises a right under Part 2, the OH & S part of the Act. Sections 47-50 identifies the retaliatory actions as “prohibited actions” and the protection and remedies available to affected worker through a “prohibited action” complaint. Prior to 2022, the Board followed two WCAT decisions that held that the “bare filing of claim” was not an OHS matter and so it was not protected by these sections1.
There were great hopes when, in 2022, was amended to add section 73(2) to the OHS section. It stated that employers must not engage in “prohibited actions” to impede a worker from filing or pursuing a compensation claim. This new section was in response to a recommendation in New Directions2, that workers should have their right to file a compensation claim protected and also to the growing evidence of claim suppression in B.C.3
But after November 2022, the Board adopted a bizarre interpretation of the new provision.
The Board considers that section 73(2) gives it the authority to investigate and regulate claim suppression under its OH & S powers. It has created a “Worker Rights and System Integrity Team” or WRSI. In 2024, this team investigated 60 claims of claims suppression4 – a modest but welcome step.
At the same time, the Board maintains that section 73(2) does not apply to individual cases of claim suppression. Its Legal Department, which adjudicates “prohibited action” complaints, strictly applies the former WCAT decisions and the view that the bare “filing a claim” is not a protected matter. The cases explain that new section 73(2) does not change this approach.
For example, in 2024, an injured temporary foreign worker made a “prohibited action” complaint when her employer pressured her not to file a claim and then fired her. These facts were not in dispute. In the Prohibited Action decision (CD2024373, December 23, 2024), the Adjudicator denied her complaint and wrote:
I note that the filing of a compensation claim for injury in itself is not a protected activity under section 48 of the Act. Further, while these alleged employer actions may be investigated under the claim suppression provisions of the Act, they would not be considered to amount to prohibited action in the narrow sense contemplated by sections 47 and 48 of the Act.
This old WCAT analysis is consistently applied in all “prohibited action” cases after 2022, including a case where an electrician was “let go” while he was sitting in the emergency room with a work-related foot injury (CD2023362 – November 24, 2023). The Board embeds this approach in its public face about how to address claims suppression.5
Without an individual worker remedy, claims suppression cannot be addressed.
First, there is a tremendous financial incentive for some employers to engage in claims suppression. The most blatant cases of claims suppression ( firing, etc.) are likely in non-union workplaces or in contract or precarious work, where the discipline, intimidation & firings of injured workers are not likely to be challenged. There, firings, even if challenged, are addressed through the Employment Standards Act with a remedy of severance – small potatoes compared to a compensation claim. In effect, there is little risk and a high financial reward for claim suppression in these environments and it is likely to be both successful and persistent. This may well be a hidden engine of claims suppression.
Second, this same dynamic effectively hides claim suppression actions from the Board. Who is going to report these actions, if injured workers don’t have clear protection and a remedy for doing so? It is much more likely that the situation of an affected worker is never seen or known. The WCB’s view, that it can address claims suppression through OH & S regulation powers alone, is wrong. Not only are the investigations small and limited compared to the financial drivers of claim suppression, but they can only be initiated when claim suppression is “discovered” Most are never discovered, for reasons given above.
Only when injured workers are fully protected with an avenue to safely report claim suppression and obtain remedies from harm will there be a more accurate picture of the nature and extent of claims suppression. The possibility that there could be a flood of such cases, as suggested by the recent BC study, should not be considered a deterrent to providing this avenue.
Finally and not least, it is a matter of justice for injured workers. Those who experience claims suppression, on top of a work injury, are in a horrible position. Injured, without work and often facing a hostile employer, these workers face adversity in filing a claim, if they even know about their right to compensation at all. “Filing a claim” should not be a right only afforded to workers with strong union protection – it should be a right of all workers in B.C. and both enforced, and be seen to be enforced, under the Act.
Many thought that adding section 73(2) would do the job. Clearly it has not and injured workers, who are fired for filing compensation claims, have no remedy. Clearly, new directions are needed, including, potentially, new legislation.
- The two Noteworthy WCAT cases usually referenced are WCAT 2010-02964 and WCAT 2015-03765.
↩︎ - The 2019 New Directions report noted that certain WCAT decisions meant that most workers who experienced claim suppression c had no protection or remedy [see p. 139-142 New Directions] and made recommendation #43: That the Workers Compensation Act be amended to provide protection to and remedy for a worker facing retaliation for filing a compensation claim (claim suppression).
↩︎ - Paul Petrie provided two Addendums to his 2018 report Restoring the Balance: A worker-centred approach to workers compensation policy” – Addendum #1 – Claims Suppression – the Elephant in the Workplace” (2022) and Addendum #2 – “WCB at the Crossroads: Experience Rating and Claims Suppression” (April 2025). The Addendums were based on research and FOI information obtained after the completion of his 2018 report. ↩︎
- The WRSI investigations resulted in 14 orders (10 warning letters and 4 administrative penalties). Several of these orders have been appealed to the Review Division – see R0312888 (June 11/24) and R0329921 (April 1/25). ↩︎
- See “Prohibited Action Complaints: Workers” Factsheet 2024. ↩︎