Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Judicial review focused on the reasonableness of WorkSafeBC’s investigation into workplace mobbing.

• The petitioner alleged procedural unfairness and inadequate investigation by both her employer and WorkSafeBC.

• The court emphasized that its role was not to decide the merits of the bullying claims but to assess procedural adequacy.

• It found that Dexterra’s initial investigation was insufficient but accepted that the follow-up investigation in 2023 met statutory requirements.

• No substantive findings on whether workplace mobbing occurred were made, consistent with administrative law limits.

• The petition was dismissed, with no costs or damages awarded.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and workplace dispute

Corinne Pereira was employed as a Guest Service Agent at Crossroads Lodge, operated by Dexterra Group in Kitimat, British Columbia. In 2020, she received two disciplinary warnings from Dexterra due to alleged disrespectful behavior toward co-workers. Pereira denied the allegations and believed she was being targeted through false and malicious complaints—behavior she characterized as “mobbing.” After filing internal complaints through her union and withdrawing from the workplace for medical reasons, she submitted a formal harassment complaint to WorkSafeBC in June 2020.

WorkSafeBC initially conducted a limited investigation and concluded Dexterra met its obligations. Pereira sought judicial review, and in a previous 2022 decision, Justice Gomery found that the initial investigation was insufficient, particularly because it failed to meet the standards under WorkSafeBC policy for thorough harassment inquiries. This led to a second investigation in 2023, which WorkSafeBC deemed sufficient. Pereira again challenged that finding via judicial review.

Judicial review and procedural focus

In the current decision (Pereira v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board), 2025 BCSC 65), the Court reviewed whether the 2023 investigation into Pereira’s mobbing complaint was reasonably conducted according to the Workers Compensation Act and applicable WorkSafeBC policies. Pereira argued that the investigation was procedurally unfair, lacked thorough evidence analysis, and failed to establish that her allegations were false. She also objected to the fact that the investigator did not follow up with her after speaking to additional witnesses.

Justice Thomas clarified that the Court’s role in judicial review is not to assess whether bullying occurred but to ensure that procedural standards—such as impartiality, adequacy, and diligence—were met. The Court found that the 2023 investigation satisfied these criteria. Although the investigation was limited by witness unavailability and time lapse, the employer’s efforts were deemed reasonable under the circumstances.

Outcome and reasoning

The Court concluded that WorkSafeBC’s Reconsideration Decision was procedurally fair and legally sound. Pereira’s demand for a detailed factual ruling and affirmation of her harassment claims was found to be beyond the scope of judicial review. The Court emphasized that such issues were addressed through the union grievance process and could not be relitigated in this forum.

Disposition and costs

The judicial review was dismissed. No order for costs or damages was made. The Court implicitly recognized the self-represented nature of the petitioner and the administrative context of the case.