FAQ's Cases - Stewart McKelvey

- 5 -would not talk much about it then, or while she was off work. He had announced that he wasgoing on strike the day that she left her job. He encouraged her to take the 17 weeks off thatwere allowed by Employment Insurance which she did and, he said, she seemed healthyafterwards. Mr. Chartrand confirmed that there had been a number of phone calls from and fourmeetings with Roberta Pozniak during the plaintiff’s stress leave, and that there was somediscussion about how long the plaintiff expected the defendant to hold the job for her, causingthe plaintiff concern about losing her job. Once the plaintiff returned to work, the situation wasgood for a while but then deteriorated and he became concerned for the plaintiff’s health. Afterthe plaintiff’s resignation, it was six to eight months before her condition improved.[19] The plaintiff’s doctor, Dr. David Beck, testified.[20] He first met the plaintiff on May 1, 2006 when she reported that the work environmentwas causing her stress. It appeared that no help was needed then, but when he next saw her onJune 5, 2006, he felt that she needed relief from the environment and gave her a note to be offwork for medical reasons. On June 28, 2006, he noted she was showing more signs ofdepressive illness and her mental status was deteriorating. So, she was prescribed an antidepressantmedication. He saw her about monthly. After returning to work in October, 2006,she exhibited stress-related phenomena but was being assertive, had a plan in place and waslooking forward to dealing with the situation. In subsequent months, her stress levels appearedto increase, but they showed improvement after her resignation.2011 ONSC 2148 (CanLII)[21] Previous to Dr. Beck, the plaintiff had Dr. Elizabeth Barrett at the same clinic, who shehad last seen on May 9, 2003. In cross-examination, Dr. Beck said he had not read the plaintiff’schart, likely except for the last one or two entries. He could not recall reading Dr. Barrett’s May9, 2003 entry and did not recall discussing with the plaintiff her family history of depressionnoted therein. He did not know if the plaintiff had taken anti-depressants before.[22] Questioned about the factors which can contribute to depression, the doctor said thesewere variable but that family history is important and that financial pressure is one. He wasreferred by counsel to the May 31, 2006 note entitled “Sault area hospital crisisintervention/emergency psychiatric assessment”, found at Exhibit 1, Tab 47, which says, amongother things, “Ct reports increased financial stress as her husband may be going on strike.” Dr.Beck said he could not argue the effect of that on the plaintiff one way or the other.[23] Dr. Beck said that it is the patient’s perception which is important. He did not get intodetails with her. The cause of stress, anxiety and depression vary among people. The plaintiff’sperception of workplace events led to his diagnosis of work-related stress.