Policy is written by leaders. Risk is created by them too.

What senior leaders are actually accountable for

CSA Z1003 is organised around thirteen psychosocial factors. Read through them once and the pattern is obvious: the large majority are set by management practice, not by individual resilience. An employee assistance programme does not touch a single one.

That has a practical consequence. An organization can fund every wellbeing benefit on the market and still fail the standard, because the standard measures the conditions of work rather than the supports bolted onto it. Leadership training is where that gets addressed or it does not get addressed.

What this looks like in a room

Leaders audit their own team's exposure against the thirteen factors, with structured peer challenge so the audit is honest rather than diplomatic. They then rebuild one recurring practice and defend the redesign to the room. Nobody leaves with a values statement.

Groups are capped at 25. Senior teams often prefer the two half-day format, which sets the exposure audit as work between sessions and materially improves the second day.

What it does not cover

This is not legal advice, and it does not certify anyone in anything. It is training, aligned with CSA Z1003 and informed by the Mental Health Commission of Canada's psychological health and safety material. Where the session states an obligation under the Occupational Health and Safety Act or WSIB, it states it precisely and without embellishment, because overstating an employer's legal position in a training room is its own liability.