Psychological Safety Obligations Under BC Law

Psychological safety for gig workers in BC means having a workplace free from harassment, bullying, and mental harm — with legal protections now extending to many gig workers under the 2025 reclassification rules.

In BC, psychological safety isn’t optional — it’s written into the law. Under WorkSafeBC regulations, employers must actively work to prevent and address bullying and harassment, including behavior that causes psychological harm. The BC Human Rights Code also protects workers from discrimination and harassment tied to protected grounds like disability, race, gender, and sexual orientation.

For gig workers now classified as employees, these protections are real. They apply whether the problem comes from a supervisor, a fellow worker, or even a customer.
Think about:

• A food delivery driver dealing with repeated verbal abuse from customers.
• A rideshare driver pushed into unsafe schedules with no breaks.
• A freelancer isolated from any mental health support while facing unrealistic deadlines.

In Vancouver, Burnaby, Surrey, and Richmond, gig platforms must now treat these scenarios as workplace issues — and fix them. That could mean removing a problem customer, reassigning work, or offering proper support.

If you’ve faced harassment, bullying, or mental health risks in the gig economy, you don’t have to deal with it alone. Tim Louis & Company can help you understand your rights, collect the evidence you need, and hold your employer accountable.

Harassment Protections for Gig Workers

As of 2025, many gig workers in BC can file harassment complaints, and that protection extends to problems with managers, co-workers, and even customers.

If you’ve worked in the gig economy for any length of time, you’ve probably heard stories — or maybe experienced it yourself — where a customer crossed the line, a dispatcher treated someone unfairly, or a fellow worker made the job harder than it needed to be. Before this year, most gig workers had no real way to demand change. That’s different now.

With the 2025 reclassification rules, if you’re legally an employee, your platform has to follow BC’s harassment laws the same way any other employer would. This means they can’t just ignore a complaint. They have to take it seriously — investigate, act, and make sure the behavior stops.

The law covers harm from:

• Platform managers or dispatchers who decide where you work and when.
• Other workers on the same platform who cross boundaries.
• Customers or clients who act abusively or make discriminatory comments while you’re just trying to do your job.

WorkSafeBC says every employer must have a written policy to prevent bullying and harassment, and that includes gig employers. In practice, that might mean banning a customer who’s been abusive, reassigning jobs, or retraining staff to handle situations better.

For workers in Vancouver, Burnaby, Surrey, and Richmond, this is a real shift. You don’t have to put up with mistreatment just because you’re “gig-based.”

If you’re dealing with harassment, even if it feels like a grey area, it’s worth talking to someone who knows the law. Tim Louis & Company can walk you through your rights, help collect the details you’ll need, and stand between you and a company that’s not listening.

Case Law That Strengthens Worker Rights

Here’s the short answer for voice search: In BC, cases like Stewart v Elk Valley Coal Corp (2017) and Honda Canada v Keays (2008) show that employers — including gig platforms — can be held liable for harming a worker’s mental health or acting in bad faith.

Two landmark cases shed light on why psychological safety isn’t just a policy — it’s a legal obligation.

Stewart v Elk Valley Coal Corp (2017) dealt with an Alberta mine worker who was fired after disclosing a drug addiction only after a workplace accident. The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the employer’s decision, but the case drew attention to the duty to accommodate disabilities, including mental health conditions. For gig workers now classified as employees, this principle applies: if your mental health is affected by your job, your employer has a legal duty to consider accommodation before taking disciplinary action.

Honda Canada v Keays (2008) set another important precedent. The Supreme Court awarded damages for mental distress after finding that the employer acted in bad faith during a dismissal. The message was clear — employers who ignore their obligations or treat workers unfairly can face serious financial penalties.

For gig platforms operating in Vancouver, Burnaby, Surrey, and Richmond, these cases are a warning: reclassification brings legal accountability. If they fail to protect worker mental health, ignore harassment, or act in bad faith, they risk lawsuits, damage to their reputation, and significant payouts.

Tim Louis & Company uses cases like these to build strong arguments for workers’ rights. If you’re in the gig economy and have faced mental health harm, wrongful deactivation, or harassment, these precedents can be powerful tools in your corner.