Reprisal — Ontario Employment Law
Related Keywords
About Reprisal
In Ontario employment law, a "reprisal" refers to an employer unlawfully punishing or threatening an employee for exercising their legal workplace rights. While an employer generally has the right to terminate an employee without cause if they provide proper notice, they cross a distinct legal line if their actions are motivated by retaliation. If you assert a protected right and your employer responds by firing, demoting, suspending, or heavily disciplining you, they have likely committed a reprisal.
Several key Ontario statutes explicitly prohibit workplace reprisals. Under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA), an employer cannot punish you for asking about unpaid wages, inquiring about your overtime pay, or taking a protected leave of absence, such as maternity or parental leave. The Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) similarly forbids retaliation against workers who refuse unsafe work or report safety hazards. The Ontario Human Rights Code (OHRC) protects employees from backlash after reporting discrimination or sexual harassment, while the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA) prevents employers from penalizing workers who file a claim for a workplace injury.
One of the most powerful features of reprisal law in Ontario—particularly under the OHSA and the ESA—is the concept of a "reverse onus." In standard legal disputes, the employee must prove their case. However, in a statutory reprisal complaint, if an employee shows they exercised a right and were subsequently penalized, the burden of proof shifts to the employer. The employer must demonstrate that their actions were completely unrelated to the employee exercising their rights. Even if retaliation was only part of the employer's motivation, it is still considered a reprisal.
Remedies for reprisal can be significant. Tribunals and courts can award lost wages, damages for injury to dignity, and in severe cases, punitive damages. Unlike standard wrongful dismissal claims, statutory bodies like the Ontario Labour Relations Board can also order reinstatement, forcing the employer to give you your job back—though many employees prefer a financial settlement instead. Because uncovering an employer's true motives can be complicated, and the choice of where to file your claim (a tribunal versus a court) restricts your remedies, assessing these fact-specific situations carefully is essential. Securing insight from an Ontario employment lawyer can help you determine the most strategic path forward.
Frequently Asked Questions
What exactly is considered a workplace reprisal in Ontario?
A reprisal happens when an employer penalizes an employee for claiming or enforcing a protected legal right. This penalty could be a termination, demotion, pay cut, suspension, or even a threat to do any of these things in retaliation for you standing up for your rights.
Can I be fired for asking about my unpaid overtime or vacation pay?
No. Inquiring about your entitlements or filing a claim under the Employment Standards Act is a protected activity. If an employer fires you because you asked for the overtime or vacation pay you are legally owed, it is an illegal reprisal.
How do you prove that an employer retaliated against you?
Timing is often the strongest indicator. If you were disciplined shortly after raising a safety concern or taking a protected leave, tribunals take note. Under certain laws like the OHSA and ESA, a 'reverse onus' applies, meaning the employer actually has to prove their disciplinary action did not contain any retaliatory motive.
Are there time limits for filing a reprisal complaint?
Yes, and they vary depending on the route you take. Human rights complaints must generally be filed within one year of the reprisal. Civil lawsuits typically face a two-year limitation period, but complaints under the OHSA or ESA should be filed as soon as possible after the retaliatory event occurs.
Can I get my job back if my employer illegally fired me in retaliation?
Reinstatement is an available remedy under the ESA, OHSA, and the Human Rights Code. While courts handling wrongful dismissal lawsuits cannot force an employer to rehire you, specialized tribunals like the Ontario Labour Relations Board or Human Rights Tribunal have the power to order your job restored.
At what point should I talk to a lawyer about retaliatory behaviour at work?
You should consult an employment lawyer as soon as you notice a sudden negative shift in how you are treated after asserting a workplace right. Legal guidance is extremely important before you quit, sign a severance offer, or decide between filing a tribunal complaint versus launching a civil lawsuit.
Common Scenarios
- A warehouse worker reports missing safety guards on a forklift to their supervisor, and the following week their scheduled shifts are drastically cut without any business justification.
- A senior administrative assistant announces she is pregnant and intends to take maternity leave, only to have her role suddenly eliminated under the guise of an unexpected 'company restructuring' three days later.
- A construction worker injures his back on site, files a WSIB claim, and upon returning for modified duties, finds himelf aggressively disciplined and written up for minor administrative errors that were previously ignored.
- A retail employee reports an assistant manager to HR for making racially insensitive comments, and subsequently finds herself given the worst tasks and passed over for an expected promotion.
What You Should Know
- Always create a paper trail; put your workplace safety concerns or rights inquiries in writing (like an email) so there is undeniable proof that the employer knew about your complaint before they penalized you.
- Keep a detailed log of dates and times regarding when you asserted your rights and when the negative actions occurred, as a close timeline is one of the strongest pieces of evidence in a reprisal claim.
- Remember the 'reverse onus' rule for health and safety issues; if you are disciplined after refusing unsafe work, it is up to your employer to legally prove the discipline was entirely unrelated to your refusal.
- Before assuming you just have a standard wrongful dismissal case, have an employment lawyer evaluate the context of your termination to see if a human rights or statutory reprisal claim could trigger additional damages.
Featured Cases
W. v. 1355844 Ontario INC. o/a Korean Grill House
2026 ONSC 2788 (CanLII) · 2026-05-13HRTO Reprisal Judicial Review: No Nexus to Code Rights
This is a judicial review of an HRTO decision dismissing a reprisal complaint. The Divisional Court upheld the tribunal's finding that the actions were not connected to the exercise of rights under the Ontario Human Rights Code, specifically regarding public speech and threats of civil proceedings.
M. v. Global Growth Assets Inc.
2025 ONSC 5226 (CanLII) · 2025-09-12Securities Reprisal: Employment Termination Damages
This is a merits decision regarding a claim of employment reprisal under the Ontario Securities Act, where the plaintiff alleged termination was motivated by protected activity. The court found that the termination was indeed motivated, at least in part, by the protected activity and awarded statutory remedies including two times remuneration. The plaintiff's additional claims for wrongful dismissal damages and aggravated or punitive damages were dismissed as the statutory remedy was deemed sufficient.
T. v. Durham District School Board
2025 ONSC 3118 (CanLII) · 2025-05-30Judicial Review: HRTO Dismissal Upheld
The Divisional Court conducted a judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that dismissed an applicant's application alleging discrimination, sexual harassment, and reprisal in the workplace. The Court applied the reasonableness standard under Canada v. Vavilov and upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding it entitled to deference and supported by evidence. The Court also declined to admit new evidence regarding the union's representation.
O. v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
2025 ONSC 710 (CanLII) · 2025-02-03Judicial Review: Human Rights Tribunal Dismissal
This is a judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that dismissed an applicant's claims of discrimination and reprisal following their termination. The Divisional Court reviewed the Tribunal's finding that the termination was due to policy violations rather than perceived disability or discrimination based on association.
C. v. Peel District School Board
2024 ONSC 4354 (CanLII) · 2024-08-12OLRB Reprisal Judicial Review: OHSA s. 50
This is a judicial review of an OLRB decision concerning an alleged unlawful reprisal under section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard, confirmed by Canada v. Vavilov, to uphold the Board's finding that the denial of 0.1 FTE was based on the employee's inability to perform essential duties rather than safety-related reprisal. The Court also found that the applicant received procedural fairness during the hearing.
Y. v. 30 Forensic Engineering Inc.
2023 ONSC 6475 (CanLII) · 2023-11-20HRTO Judicial Review: Application Dismissed
This is a judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision regarding employment discrimination and reprisal claims. The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard to assess the tribunal's findings on discrimination based on PTSD, race, place of origin, sex, and age, as well as the duty to accommodate and reprisal allegations. The court found the tribunal's reasons to be justified, transparent, and intelligible, and upheld the decision.
M. v. Minister of Labour (Ontario)
2022 ONSC 5299 (CanLII) · 2022-09-27Judicial Review of Reprisal Complaint Dismissal
This is a judicial review proceeding concerning the reasonableness of the Ontario Labour Relations Board's decision to dismiss reprisal complaints filed by an employee under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 and Occupational Health and Safety Act. The applicant alleged that their termination was a reprisal for exercising statutory rights regarding personal emergency leave, while the Board found the termination was due to poor performance. The Divisional Court reviewed the Board's decision, dismissing allegations of bias as unfounded and upholding the exclusion of evidence as reasonable and fair.
A. v. Eamon Park Housing Cooperative Inc.
2019 ONSC 6868 (CanLII) · 2019-11-27Judicial Review: OHSA Reprisal Dismissal Upheld
This is a judicial review of the Ontario Labour Relations Board's decision dismissing the applicant's reprisal claim under section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard and upheld the Tribunal's findings, determining that the employer's actions were good faith exercises of authority and not reprisals for workplace safety complaints.
J. v. Allstate Insurance Company of Canada
2019 ONSC 4382 (CanLII) · 2019-07-22Anti-SLAPP Dismissal in Wrongful Dismissal & Discrimination Case
This is an interlocutory proceeding determining whether a counterclaim in a wrongful dismissal and discrimination case qualifies for dismissal under the Anti-SLAPP provision of the Courts of Justice Act. The court found that the plaintiff's allegations regarding discriminatory insurance practices and her subsequent termination constituted matters of public interest, and the defendant failed to satisfy the merits threshold for the counterclaim.
2076831 Ontario Ltd. v. Q.
2018 ONSC 7295 (CanLII) · 2018-12-05Judicial Review: Human Rights Tribunal Reprisal Decision
An application for judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal decision regarding a poisoned work environment and reprisal was dismissed. The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's findings on reasonableness, credibility, and procedural fairness were open on the record and owed deference.
K. v. Guelph Mercury et al
2018 ONSC 2405 (CanLII) · 2018-04-27Judicial Review: Human Rights Tribunal Dismissal
This is a judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal decision that dismissed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal for lack of reasonable prospect of success. The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard, finding the Tribunal's decision justified and transparent, and rejected allegations of bias and procedural unfairness.
O. v. Ontario (Human Rights Tribunal)
2018 ONSC 374 (CanLII) · 2018-02-22Judicial Review: Human Rights Tribunal Dismissal
This is a judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision regarding an application alleging workplace discrimination and reprisal related to the denial of tenure. The Divisional Court reviewed the Tribunal's findings on the limitation period, the amendment of the application, and the sufficiency of evidence for reprisal claims.
C. v. DCL International Inc.
2018 ONCA 49 (CanLII) · 2018-01-23Wrongful Dismissal: Personal Liability of Corporate Officers
This is an appeal from a motion to strike under Rule 21 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure. The appellant, a former employee, alleged that the termination was a reprisal for a workplace injury claim and sought to hold individual corporate officers personally liable for wrongful dismissal and intentional torts. The Court of Appeal reviewed whether the motion judge correctly applied the standard for striking a claim for lacking a reasonable cause of action.
H. v. Ontario (Human Rights Tribunal)
2014 ONSC 2858 (CanLII) · 2014-07-03Human Rights: First Nations Constable Termination Review
This is a judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal decision regarding a First Nations constable's employment. The applicant alleged that his suspension and termination constituted racial discrimination and reprisal under the Human Rights Code, but the Tribunal found the actions were based on non-discriminatory reasons, including his public criticism of the police.
Guild Automotive Restorations Inc. v. P.
2013 ONSC 3129 (CanLII) · 2013-05-31Judicial Review: HRTO Gender Discrimination & Reprisal Upheld
This is a judicial review proceeding where the Divisional Court reviewed a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding gender discrimination and reprisal against the employer. The Court applied the standard of reasonableness and upheld the Tribunal's findings that gender was a factor in disciplining the employee and that her termination was linked to her assertion of human rights. The Court also upheld the Tribunal's damage award of $15,000 for injury to dignity and six months' lost wages.
A. v. Bell Globe Media Publishing Inc.
2009 CanLII 3974 (ON SC) · 2009-02-04Wrongful Dismissal: Pregnancy Leave Reprisal Case
A wrongful dismissal case where the plaintiff was terminated shortly after declaring her intention to take maternity leave. The plaintiff alleges reprisal under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, and claims of fraudulent concealment and sham reorganization. The case also addresses whether the action is statute-barred under the Limitation Act, 2002, and whether discrimination can be pleaded as an independent actionable wrong.
M. v. Toronto Transit Commission
2005 CanLII 1485 (ON CA) · 2005-01-27Workplace Reprisal: Burden of Proof and Procedural Fairness
This is a judicial review of the Ontario Labour Relations Board's procedural decisions in a reprisal complaint under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The Court of Appeal addressed whether the Board breached procedural fairness by consolidating proceedings, the correct burden of proof for reprisal complaints, the applicability of Charter protections against self-incrimination, and the Board's authority to draw adverse inferences from a party's failure to testify.
J. v. Amway of Canada Ltd.
2002 CanLII 78246 (ON SC) · 2002-04-19Human Rights Employment: Termination Reprisal Under Ontario Code
A human rights employment case where the plaintiff alleged that their termination constituted reprisal under section 8 of the Ontario Human Rights Code. The Board of Inquiry found no reprisal, and the court upheld this decision as reasonable, applying the standards of review to the Board's factual and legal findings.
H. v. Ontario (Ministry of Community and Social Services)
1997 CanLII 24782 (ON CTGDDC) · 1997-12-17This is a judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision regarding a complaint of reprisal. The Divisional Court reviewed the tribunal's interpretation of the definition of reprisal in the context of human rights protections.
A-1 Collision and Auto Service v. H.
1994 CanLII 7554 (ON SC) · 1994-11-29Workplace Sexual Harassment: Secretary Awarded Damages for Reprisal
A workplace sexual harassment case where a secretary was dismissed after rejecting sexual solicitation by her employer. The court upheld the Board’s findings that the employer’s conduct constituted harassment and reprisal under the Human Rights Code, and confirmed the complainant’s entitlement to a decision despite procedural delays.