Sexual Harassment — Ontario Employment Law

Metrolinx v. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1587

Metrolinx v. ATU, Local 1587 (Appeal Dismissed)

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard an appeal of a Divisional Court decision that had quashed an arbitration award reinstating employees dismissed for sexual harassment. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the arbitrator's findings were unreasonable due to errors in principle and reliance on stereotypes. The Court also affirmed that the employer had a statutory duty under the Occupational Health and Safety Act to investigate the incidents even in the absence of a formal complaint.

T. v. Durham District School Board

Judicial 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.

M. v. Lafarge et al.

This is a proceeding involving a claim of sexual harassment. The court addressed a motion for summary judgment under Rule 20.04 regarding the harassment allegations and potential damages.

S.-N. v. Rubin Thomlinson LLP

Appeal Dismissed in Defamation Claim Over Harassment Report

This is an appeal to the Court of Appeal from an order granting the respondents' motion to dismiss the appellant's defamation action under the anti-SLAPP provisions (s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act). The appellant, a medical resident, had sued the respondent workplace investigator over executive summaries that concluded her sexual harassment complaints were unproven and found her not credible. The motion judge dismissed the action, finding the summaries related to a matter of public interest, were protected by qualified privilege, lacked evidence of malice, and that the balancing test favoured protecting the expression. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the reports on the investigation into a public educational institution regarding harassment and patient safety concerns engaged the public interest and were protected by qualified privilege.

I. v. Skyservice Business Aviation Inc.

Vicarious Liability for Sexual Harassment Struck

This is an interlocutory motion to strike a claim for vicarious liability for sexual harassment brought by an employee against her employer under the Ontario Human Rights Code. The court determined that no independent tort of vicarious liability for sexual harassment exists in Ontario law and that section 46.3 of the Code excludes such liability, resulting in the striking of the vicarious liability claims. However, leave to amend was granted to allow the plaintiff to seek monetary compensation for other infringements of the Code.

S. v. Carleton University

S. v. Carleton University: Sexual Harassment

This is an interlocutory proceeding involving allegations of sexual misconduct and sexual harassment against Carleton University. The case addresses the validity of the university's decision and references specific civil procedure rules regarding summary judgment or striking out pleadings.

Hucsko v. A.O. Smith Enterprises Limited

Hucsko v. A.O. Smith: Just Cause for Sexual Harassment

This is an appeal concerning the termination of a senior employee with 20 years of service who was dismissed for cause due to inappropriate comments with sexual connotations made to a co-worker. The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the employer's appeal, overturning the trial judge's finding that the dismissal was without cause. The Court concluded the employee's conduct constituted sexual harassment and that termination was a proportional and justified response given his refusal to apologize.

M. v Humber River Hospital

Wrongful Dismissal: Discovery Representative Selection

This is an interlocutory motion in a wrongful dismissal action involving a sexual harassment complainant. The defendant sought to substitute the plaintiff's selected corporate representative with an HR representative and ordered discovery to proceed via written questions, arguing that oral discovery would cause distress to the complainant. The court applied Rule 31.03(2) and Rule 31.02(1), holding that the plaintiff has a prima facie right to select the representative and that distress alone does not justify substitution or restricting discovery to written questions.

Hucsko v. A.O. Smith Enterprises

20-Year Employee Awarded 20 Months' Notice

This wrongful dismissal case involved a senior employee with 20 years of service who was terminated following allegations of sexual harassment and insubordination. The court found the employer's claim of just cause unjustified, ruling the dismissal was without cause, but awarded no aggravated or punitive damages due to the employer's reasonable investigation. The court determined a 20-month notice period was appropriate, applying the Bardal factors and declining to reduce the period for mitigation failures due to insufficient evidence of comparable employment.

Render v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator (Canada) Limited

Just Cause Dismissal After 30 Years for Harassment

This case addresses whether an employer had just cause to summarily dismiss a 51-year-old operations manager with 30 years of service for slapping a female co-worker on the buttocks, applying the proportionality framework from McKinley v. BC Tel. The court found that summary dismissal was the appropriate response in all the circumstances, so no reasonable notice was owed. It also considered the employer's breach of a witness exclusion order during trial and deferred the determination of costs.

Joe Singer Shoes Limited v. A.B.

Judicial Review: Sexual Harassment Liability Upheld

This is a judicial review proceeding in which the Divisional Court reviewed a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision holding an employer liable for sexual harassment and creating a poisoned work environment. The applicants challenged the Tribunal's decision on grounds of procedural fairness and reasonableness, specifically regarding credibility assessments and evidence scrutiny. The Court applied the reasonableness standard and upheld the Tribunal's decision as intelligible, transparent, and justifiable.

B. v. S.

Workplace Harassment Damages: Emotional Distress & PTSD

This is a merits decision regarding a claim for damages arising from sexual harassment and attempted drugging by an employer. The court found the employer's conduct abhorrent and awarded $50,000 in general damages for emotional distress and $50,000 for loss of competitive advantage due to PTSD, while declining punitive damages due to a prior criminal sentence. The plaintiff was also awarded $30,000 in substantial indemnity costs.

772694 Ontario Limited v. G.

Sexual Harassment: Motion to Strike Pleadings

This is a civil procedure motion to strike portions of a statement of defence and counterclaim in a case involving allegations of sexual harassment and discrimination. The court addressed whether allegations of intoxication and drug use were relevant to claims of stress and anxiety, and whether an employer could be held vicariously liable for harassment by a co-worker under the Human Rights Code. The court found the impugned pleadings scandalous and irrelevant, and noted that the absence of allegations regarding employer conduct precluded liability for a poisoned work environment.

Render v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator

Wrongful Dismissal: Intervener Status in Harassment Case

This is an interlocutory motion regarding intervener status in a wrongful dismissal lawsuit involving allegations of sexual harassment. The proposed intervener, likely the complainant, seeks to participate to protect their integrity and reputation against allegations of workplace misconduct, raising questions about whether their participation would unduly delay the trial or prejudice the parties.

W. v. The Governing Council of the Salvation Army of Canada

Workplace Sexual Harassment: Jurisdiction & Release

This is an interlocutory decision on a motion for summary judgment in a case where the plaintiff alleged sexual harassment and intentional infliction of emotional harm by a co-worker. The defendant argued that the claims were barred by a full and final release signed upon termination and that the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction. The court held that the sexual misconduct was not connected to the employment relationship, allowing the common law claims to proceed in court, and found that the plaintiff's evidence raised genuine issues requiring a trial.

L. v. Park Dentistry

Constructive Dismissal Claim Fails; Vacation Pay Awarded

This case addressed whether an employee's resignation amounted to constructive dismissal following unilateral changes to employment terms, including vacation pay deductions and alleged sexual harassment. The court applied the Potter test and found that the employer's provision of 18 months' working notice and a signing bonus constituted valid consideration for the new contract, and the resignation was deemed voluntary rather than a constructive dismissal. While dismissing claims for sexual harassment and constructive dismissal, the court ruled that the employer improperly deducted vacation pay, ordering reimbursement of $3,763 plus interest.

Colistro v Tbaytel

Constructive Dismissal: Poisoned Work Environment & Harassment

This case addresses whether a plaintiff was constructively dismissed due to the employer's failure to address concerns regarding the hiring of an individual with a history of sexual harassment, creating a poisoned work environment. The court also examined whether the employer's conduct constituted intentional infliction of mental suffering and assessed damages, including the deduction of collateral benefits.

S. v Olympia Jewellery Corporation

Wrongful Dismissal: Sexual and Racial Harassment Damages

This case addresses wrongful dismissal and workplace harassment involving sexual and racial harassment by a supervisor. The court found the employer vicariously liable for the supervisor's actions under Bazley v. Curry principles and awarded damages for wrongful dismissal, including aggravated and punitive damages. Additionally, the court found breaches of the Human Rights Code and awarded damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

L. v 1163957799

Costs Ruling: Sexual Harassment Case

This is a costs ruling in a case involving sexual harassment. The court awarded substantial indemnity costs.

K.L. v 1163957799 Quebec Inc.

Vicarious Liability for Workplace Sexual Assault

This is an interlocutory motion determining whether the plaintiff's statement of claim discloses a reasonable cause of action. The plaintiff alleged sexual harassment and assault by a supervisor, seeking to establish a new tort of sexual harassment, vicarious liability, and negligence against the employer. The court found that the Ontario Human Rights Code precludes a standalone civil tort for sexual harassment but allowed the claims for vicarious liability and negligence to proceed based on the employer's material enhancement of risk and duty of care.