2. BCRTC Credibility Dossier

A standalone evidentiary record of the employer's conduct — not a WCB legal argument.

Documents a pattern of institutional misconduct by BCRTC (not WorkSafeBC or Pang
individually), from retaliatory intent through evidence tampering to a post-denial privacy
breach. Built to support parallel proceedings — City of Burnaby code enforcement, a Section
47/48 reprisal complaint, and the OIPC complaint — as well as to inform the credibility of any
WCB submission.

e 1— Executive Summary

© 2—Retaliatory Intent: the Jan 26, 2026 Puder-Gill email proposing removal for a
“vexatious Work Refusal,” same day as the worker's first sick day.

e 3-5— The Address Shel! Game, Photographic Corroboration, and the Occupancy
Misclassification — how the tested room was mis-located and mis-labelled on paper.

e 6— The Staged Test Environment: the worker's Mar 18 Formal Notice.

« 7—Pre-emptive Damage Control: the Mar 18 Mayo—Cassady voicemail admitting
the area “remained altered” since the worker's exposure.

e 8-9 —Reliance and Celebration (the “sunny afternoon” email) and Jurisdictional
Evasion (BCRTC's Railway Act argument).

e 10— Post-Denial Escalation: the ForeMed/Adenekan medical-privacy breach, blank
consent field, AWOL designation, and Payne's termination-jeopardy letter.

e 11~13 — Consolidated Timeline, Why the Pattern Matters, and the Master Exhibit
Index (A-W).

3. WCB Medical Evidence Rebuttal

A clinical rebuttal to Flora Pang's Opinion, built from post-denial specialist evidence.

Addresses the medical reasoning of the Opinion on the merits, using evidence gathered
after March 20, 2026 that Pang did not have: ENT, neurology/pain, independent audiology,
and the prescription record,

e 1-2— Executive Summary and the Opinion's own conclusion, quoted directly.

e 3—The managed migraine baseline, disrupted by exposure (Dr. Chaudhary).

@ 4— Wrong mechanism tested: acoustic trauma/shock vs. Dr. Samad's
TMJ/masseter tension finding.

e 5 —The Wavefront asymmetry and Khalfa hyperacusis score, absent from the
Opinion.

e 6—Selective use of the Jan 30 ER record and the Thin Skull Rule.

e 7-8 — The medication timeline and the mischaracterized sensory/psychological
picture (same evidence as Review Division Part IV.C-D, in fuller clinical form).

e 9—Evidentiary imbalance in the claim file (irrelevant 2022 endoscopy imagery vs.
no contemporary imaging).

e 10— Active Regulatory Proceedings against Pang: CHCPBC Case 2026-057 and
OIPC File INV-F-26-01595 (same date-scrubbing facts as Review Division Part II.B,
framed for a College/privacy audience).

e 41-12 — Conclusion/Requested Relief and the Source Documents list (A-I).

000301