independently of the address and occupancy issues, the worker's March 18, 2026 Formal Notice — sent
directly to WorkSafeBC Case Management and to Arcose — identifies a further, more direct problem: the
physical condition of the equipment during testing did not match the condition that caused the injury.

Evidence: Gmail thread, “FORMAL NOTICE: Staged Test Environment & Active Suppression of Evidence — Claim
#42647461,” March 18, 2026.

Critically, BCRTC management did not first learn of this allegation from a regulator or from litigation —
they learned it fram Jason Mayo forwarding the worker's own email internally at 11:59 AM that same
morning, under the same subject line. From that point forward, management had actual, written, internal
notice that the test data underlying any denial might not reflect the conditions that caused the injury.

7. Pre-emptive Damage Control — The March 18, 2026 Call te the Adjudicator

The Formal Notice described in Section 6, above, did:not sit unanswered. WorkSafeBC records show that
within hours of the worker's 4:45 AM email — and before BCRTC’s own internal forward of that email at
11:59 AM the same morning (Section 6, above} — a BCRTC representative had already placed a direct call
to the adjudicator assigned to the file.

A WorkSafeBC Phone Memo logged at 12:11 PM on March 18, 2026 records that Jason Mayo left a
voicemail for Sr. Adjudicator Jaylin Cassady at 11:02 AM that morning:
“ym just following up with youin regards to on email |. got this morning
» for sound level testing, Karen Tang of Arcose Consulting, regarding ase
202618842990. | just wanted ip because there's @ bit of as
Second hand...” — J. Mayo, voicemail to J, Cassa , March 18, 2026, 1

The “shocking text” Mayo refers to is, on this timeline, almost certainly the worker's own Formal Notice,
relayed to BCRTC secondhand through Arcose before management’s own internal copy had even been
forwarded. Cassady’s memo records the substance of the return call:

“area has remained altered since W wa:
this is not necessary and she is just awaiting a cli
Phone Memo, March 18, 2026, 12:11 PM.

“TC to Jason as per his VM, Jason confirmed AE di

nical opinion from a medical

Two things follow from this memo. First, it documents BCRTC placing an unsolicited, direct call to
the assigned adjudicator on the very day the worker's staged-environment allegation
arrived—before the worker was copied on any response, and before the allegation had been
investigated—to pre-emptively deny it,

Second, and more significantly, the memo records BCRTC’s own representative admitting to the
adjudicator that the area remained unaltered since the worker was there. This admission is the
smoking gun: BCRTC confirmed to the decision-maker that they tested the workstation while it
remained in the exact, broken, “panel-off' state the worker had reported. By volunteering this,
BCRTC corroborated the worker's “forensic Catch-22": whatever Arcose tested on March 6, it
was not a properly functioning environment, but a workstation that BCRTC knowingly left.in an
uncorrected, broken condition.

000290