Decision looks at new rules around psychological injury caused ‘wholly or predominantly’ by significant work-related stressors
A Nova Scotia employer that insisted that a student sexually assaulting one of its educational assistants fell within the expected risks of the role has lost its case.
On Feb. 18, 2026, appeal commissioner David Pearson of the Nova Scotia Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal denied the employer's appeal, affirming the worker had sustained a compensable psychological injury.
Adjudicated under the province's newly effective Board Policy 1.3.10, the ruling carries consequences for Canadian employers managing high-risk support roles.
Sexual assault at work
On April 15, 2021, the educational assistant was in the pool with a student when he sexually assaulted her. She completed a Reportable Occurrence form that same day. The employer did not dispute that the incident occurred as she described.
The employer nonetheless argued the assault formed part of expected behaviours endemic to the work of an educational assistant, pointing to prior incidents — including having scissors put against the worker's throat — as conduct typical in the role.
When the worker returned in September 2021, she reported to administration that she was not doing well with the sexual assault and was crying and shaking. No one from administration had followed up since April. She went off work and sought psychological treatment.
She also received benefits from her workplace disability insurer.
In August 2023, an Injury Report was filed with the Workers’ Compensation Board of Nova Scotia in relation to the April 15 On Dec. 4, 2023, a board case manager decided the EA had sustained a compensable psychological injury. The employer appealed this decision to a hearing officer, but its appeal was denied on April 30, 2024.
The employer then appealed that decision to the tribunal.
Psychological injury rules
Nova Scotia's Board Policy 1.3.10, effective Sept. 1, 2024, requires that a psychological injury be wholly or predominantly caused by a significant work-related stressor — one that is "considered significant in intensity and/or duration in comparison to the normal pressures, tensions or events experienced by workers in similar circumstances, occupations, or professions."
The employer relied on the Job Site Assessment and Teacher Assistant Guidelines to argue that unpredictable or violent student behaviour was an anticipated feature of the role. The tribunal found that the JSA did not raise the prospect of an EA being sexually assaulted in the role, and that the Teacher Assistant Guidelines did not elevate the type of behaviour the April 15 incident represents to typical, expected, or anticipated conduct.
The worker drew her own clear line at the hearing. She described chair-throwing, spitting, and hitting as typical for her students but categorized the sexual assault, having a student put scissors to her throat, and being punched more than normal as atypical.
The tribunal accepted that distinction.
Refusal to accommodate requests
Psychologist Kontuk wrote in October 2021 that the worker needed to refrain from work while undergoing treatment for "a latent episode of PTSD that has been activated by a current trigger at work."
The employer refused the return-to-work conditions Kontuk proposed in April 2022. It made no contact with the worker until June 2023, when it told her she had two choices for September: return to the same position and school where the assaulting student still attended or resign.
As a result of the employer's refusal to accommodate the worker's requests for return to a safe environment, there was "a resurgence of symptoms and a reactivation of the trauma beliefs of 'I'm not safe' and 'No one believes me', resulting in a reactivation of symptoms,” said Kontuk.
The tribunal found the April 15 incident remained the predominant cause of the worker's stress, time loss, and need for treatment.
See 2024-239-AD (Re)
