Harassment — Ontario Employment Law

S. v. Syra Group et al.

Workplace Disability Harassment and Vicarious Liability

This case involves allegations of disability-related harassment in the workplace, raising issues of vicarious liability for the employer. The primary legal focus is on whether the employer is liable for the harassment suffered by the employee.

T. v. K.

This is a procedural ruling regarding jurisdiction in a workplace dispute involving allegations of harassment and defamation within the federal public service. The court determined that section 236 of the Federal Public Service Labour Relations Act bars court jurisdiction over such claims, requiring them to be addressed through the statutory grievance process, and that equitable doctrines like estoppel cannot override this statutory bar.

2110120 Ontario Inc. o/a Cargo County v. B.

Anti-SLAPP: Former Employees' Protests vs Employer

This is an interlocutory motion to dismiss defamation, trespass, and harassment claims brought by an employer against former employees who engaged in public protests and social media campaigns alleging 'wage theft.' The court applied the anti-SLAPP framework under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to determine whether the defendants' expressions related to a matter of public interest. The motion was dismissed because the court found the defendants' actions, which included protests at the employer's residence and business premises, were intended to circumvent the ongoing legal process and that the harm to the plaintiffs outweighed the public interest in the expression.

S. v. The Ottawa Hospital

S. v. Ottawa Hospital: Collective Agreement Jurisdiction

This is a motion to strike portions of a statement of claim in a discrimination case. The central legal issue is whether claims of workplace harassment and discrimination are governed exclusively by the collective agreement under the Weber v. Ontario Hydro framework, thereby removing jurisdiction from the courts. The court also considered deficiencies in pleading material facts for tort claims such as defamation and poisoning.

K. v. Oz Optics LTD.

K. v. Oz Optics: Constructive Dismissal & Loan Judgment Stay

This case addresses whether summary judgment should be granted for an outstanding employee loan balance when the former employee alleges constructive dismissal due to harassment. The court applied the principles from Hryniak v. Mauldin to determine if the loan repayment issues required a full trial or could be resolved summarily, ultimately granting summary judgment but staying enforcement pending the resolution of the constructive dismissal claim.

Kamla’s Fashions Inc. et al v. Gykan Enterprises Inc. et al

A legal dispute involving allegations of harassment. The case centers on the liability for harassment and the resulting compensation.

A. v Atomic Energy

Termination for Cause: Dishonesty and Harassment

This is a summary judgment ruling in a wrongful dismissal case where the employer sought to terminate the employee for cause based on dishonesty during the hiring process and substantiated harassment allegations. The court applied the contextual approach from McKinley v. BC Tel and the Hryniak v. Mauldin framework, finding that the dishonesty went to the core of the employment relationship and that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer, dismissing the employee's claim.

W. v TrojanOne Ltd.

Corporate Officer Liability in Constructive Dismissal

This is an interlocutory proceeding concerning a wrongful dismissal and harassment claim where the plaintiff sought to hold corporate officers personally liable for independent tortious misconduct. The court addressed whether the pleadings sufficiently specified independent wrongdoing to sustain claims against individual officers and whether the case should proceed under simplified procedure. The court found sufficient particulars to sustain the claims against the officers and allowed the claim to proceed.

H. v Amlap Corp

Constructive Dismissal: Damages Reduced to Avoid Double Recovery

This is an appeal from a trial judge's decision in a constructive dismissal case where the employee resigned due to intolerable workplace conditions and harassment. The Divisional Court reduced the damages for constructive dismissal from two weeks' salary to one week's salary to avoid double recovery during the notice period, while also addressing the award for mental distress and costs.

Walton Enterprises v. L.

Judicial Review: Discriminatory Dismissal & Mental Health

This is a judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding that an employee's dismissal was discriminatory due to harassment and mental health issues. The Divisional Court examined whether the Tribunal's decision was reasonable and whether there was sufficient evidence to establish a causal link between the harassment, the employee's mental health, and the workplace altercation leading to dismissal. The Court found the dismissal was not discriminatory on judicial review.

T. v. University of Western Ontario

Judicial Review of Private Labour Dispute Process

This is a judicial review application concerning the validity and procedural fairness of a private dispute resolution process established by a university and its union to replace collective agreement procedures for harassment and discrimination complaints. The Divisional Court upheld the process as valid and private, finding no procedural unfairness in the investigator's jurisdiction or the denial of counsel's request to make submissions.

Thames Valley District School Board v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario (Thames Valley Local)

This is a judicial review of a grievance arbitration award where the arbitrator reinstated a grievor dismissed for inappropriate behaviour. The Divisional Court granted judicial review, finding the arbitrator's decision unreasonable due to failures in making findings of fact and credibility, and errors in applying the legal test for harassment under the Human Rights Code and collective agreement.

A. v. Canada (Attorney General)

This is an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a motion judge's decision dismissing civil claims against an employer. The unionized employee sued a co-worker, a supervisor, and the Attorney General of Canada over workplace harassment. The motion judge dismissed the claims against the supervisor and the Attorney General because the dispute was governed by a collective agreement. The Court of Appeal dismissed the employee's appeal. The Court confirmed that civil courts must defer to the statutory grievance procedure for matters involving the employer's obligation to provide a safe working environment.

T. v. Lemerz Canada Inc.

Workplace Discrimination Case: Harassment Based on Race and Origin

A workplace discrimination case involving harassment based on race, colour, and place of origin. The case also addresses the definition of employer and grievance procedures in employment law.

R. v. Canada (Attorney General)

This is a jurisdictional ruling in a wrongful dismissal action brought by a federal employee of the Department of National Defence. The employee alleged constructive dismissal following harassment by a supervisor in Saskatchewan and subsequently resigned, filing the claim in Ontario. The Court of Appeal for Ontario determined that the claim arose in Saskatchewan, where the substantive events occurred, rather than Ontario, where ancillary delays in grievance processing took place.

H. v. Toronto District School Board

Employment Claims Against Toronto District School Board: Defamation, Harassment, and Negligence

A case involving multiple tort and employment law claims against the Toronto District School Board, including allegations of defamation, harassment, misfeasance in public office, and negligence. The court addressed issues of jurisdiction, limitation periods, and whether the defendants' actions constituted legal liability. The claims were largely dismissed due to lack of evidence or statute-barred.

R. v. IBM Canada Inc.

Constructive Dismissal Case Involving Workplace Harassment and Employer Duty of Care

A constructive dismissal case where the plaintiff alleged that the employer failed to address harassment by a co-worker, leading to a claim that the employer breached its duty of care. The case also involves questions about the application of the Wallace factor, negligent misrepresentation, and whether the employer is vicariously liable for the harassment. The plaintiff also sought to proceed with a civil action while a parallel human rights complaint was pending.