What is the current state of the law on traumatic stress disorder at the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal?

The parties raised Atkins v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal), 2018 BCSC 1178 in their submissions. Arguably, the case supports the proposition that, once it is determined from an objective view that an event has occurred, the determination on whether it is traumatic is solely subjective to the claimant. I do not subscribe to this proposition because it is based upon obiter dicta which is not binding upon me. I also find this interpretation of the policy lacks persuasiveness given that it suggests an individual’s completely irrational interpretation of an otherwise innocuous event might deem it traumatic or a significant stressor for the purpose of accepting a mental disorder. In my view, such an interpretation is contrary to the explicit wording in policy, to which I am bound. It is also contrary to the broader purpose of the Act, which requires that traumatic and significant stressors arise both in the course of and out of the employment. In my view, the legislation requires, at least partly, an objective analysis. In short, the employment must have some cause in the mental disorder. It should not be caused solely by the internal workings of an individual’s mind and perception.