The memo also shows the claim was still open on March 18: the adjudicator was “awaiting a clinical
opinion from a medical advisor” and declined Mayo’s offer of additional testing as unnecessary. Two days
later, on March 20, 2026 (Section 8, below), that same adjudicator called BCRTC to advise the claim would
be disallowed. This dossier does not assert what caused that shift — only that it is a legitimate question
for review why the file moved from “awaiting a clinical opinion” to “disallow” within forty-eight hours of
an unsolicited call from the employer’s own representative to the file's adjudicator, made the same day
the worker’s staged-environment complaint arrived, and never disclosed to the worker.

Evidence: Exhibit P — WorkSofeBC Phone Memo, March 18, 2026, 12:11 PM (J. Mayo voicemail to Sr. Adjudicator J.
Cassady).

8. Reliance and Celebration — The “Sunny Afternoon” Email

a  eetttttt EE Spas aan

Rather than pausing to address the staged-enviranment allegation — or disclosing the direct call its own
representative had already placed to the adjudicator that same day (Section 7, above} — BCRTC
management's next communication in this same email thread was to celebrate the outcome it produced.

Evidence: FO! Release 2026-143, pp. 9-10; corroborated by WorkSafeBC Phone Memo, March 20, 2026, 2:47 PM,
confirming the Sr. Adjudicator called the employer to advise of the disallow decision that same afternoon.

Three things about this email matter for credibility purposes. First, it attributes the denial expressly to
“our submissions” — BCRTC’s own words tying the outcome to the material it provided. Second, it was
sent two days after BCRTC had already received the worker's written notice (Section 6, above) that those
submissions were based on a staged test of a misclassified, misaddressed room. Third, it was sent three
days before the worker himself was formally notified of the decision — meaning BCRTC's management
was thanking each other for a result the injured worker did not yet know had been decided.

9. Jurisdictional Evasion — “Hiding Behind the Railway Act”

a A

The same email thread shows BCRTC’s reaction when a second, independent regulator — the City of
Burnaby Building Inspections Division — began looking at the same installation following the worker's
March 7, 2026 fire and building code complaints.

Evidence: FO! Release 2026-143, p. 3; “The Name and Address Shell Game” submission, p. 2:

The Control Training Room is. a commercial classroom inside a municipal building, not a rail line or
rail-specific facility. The installation of two industrial server racks, the breach of a fire-separated ceiling,
and a change in the room's functional use are ordinary municipal Building and Electrical Code matters.
Rather than pulling the permits the record indicates were never obtained, BCRTC’s documented internal
response to a municipal investigation was to-explore whether a different regulatory scheme — one with

000291