Workplace Harassment — Ontario Employment Law
Related Keywords
About Workplace Harassment
Under the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA), workplace harassment is defined as engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct against a worker in a workplace that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome. While people often associate harassment with human rights violations, such as racism or sexism, Ontario law also protects workers from general psychological harassment, bullying, and intimidation that is not tied to a protected ground. This includes repeated derogatory comments, yelling, or aggressive behavior that makes the work environment intolerable.
It is equally important to understand what does not constitute harassment. The OHSA explicitly states that a reasonable action taken by an employer or supervisor relating to the management and direction of workers or the workplace is not workplace harassment. Routine performance reviews, reasonable disciplinary actions, or legitimate Performance Improvement Plans (PIPs) are generally permissible. However, if a PIP is deployed unfairly as retaliation shortly after an employee raises a harassment complaint, it can be viewed by the courts as part of a toxic work environment and may contribute to a constructive dismissal claim.
Employers in Ontario have a strict legal duty to maintain a harassment policy and to conduct an investigation into any incidents or complaints of workplace harassment that is appropriate in the circumstances. Failing to investigate, conducting a biased investigation, or ignoring abusive conduct by a manager or co-worker can expose an employer to significant legal liability. Conversely, employees who are found to have committed severe workplace harassment may face termination for cause, meaning they can be fired without severance pay.
For workers governed by a collective agreement, the avenue for resolving harassment disputes is typically different. The courts generally rule that disputes regarding workplace assault, harassment, and an employer's failure to enforce internal policies must be resolved through mandatory grievance arbitration rather than civil lawsuits, following the core principles of Ontario labour law.
Because the threshold between tough management and unlawful harassment is highly dependent on individual circumstances, anyone dealing with a toxic workplace should seek out a qualified legal professional to assess the specific facts and determine the best strategic approach before taking action.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the legal definition of workplace harassment in Ontario?
Under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, it means engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct against a worker that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome. This covers bullying and intimidation, even if it has nothing to do with discrimination based on race, gender, or religion.
Is my employer legally obligated to investigate my harassment complaint?
Yes. Ontario employers have a statutory duty under the OHSA to conduct an investigation that is 'appropriate in the circumstances' whenever they become aware of an incident or receive a complaint about workplace harassment.
Can my employer put me on a performance plan if I complain about a toxic work environment?
An employer cannot legally penalize you for exercising your right to report harassment. If you are suddenly placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) immediately after complaining about a toxic manager, this could be considered an unlawful reprisal under the OHSA.
Can I be fired for without severance if I am accused of yelling at coworkers?
Yes, depending on the severity and frequency of the behavior. Courts in Ontario have upheld terminations for cause without notice or severance when an employee's conduct constitutes severe workplace harassment and breaches the employer's code of conduct.
Can I just sue my employer in court if I am unionized and being bullied?
Generally, no. If your employment is governed by a collective agreement, disputes regarding harassment and policy enforcement typically fall under the primary jurisdiction of a labor arbitrator, meaning you must proceed through your union's grievance process.
When should I involve a lawyer if I am facing workplace harassment?
You should speak with legal counsel as soon as you realize internal reporting mechanisms are failing, before you quit, or if you experience retaliation. Leaving a toxic workplace without legal guidance can jeopardize your ability to claim constructive dismissal or secure a severance package.
Is there a deadline to take legal action regarding workplace bullying?
You generally have two years from the date the harassment occurred (or the date you realized a claim could be made) to file a civil lawsuit in Ontario. However, filing union grievances or specific statutory complaints often involves much shorter deadlines, sometimes just days or weeks.
Common Scenarios
- An employee reports their direct supervisor to HR for repeated yelling and belittling in front of colleagues, and the employer responds by hastily dismissing the complaint without interviewing any of the witnesses the employee provided.
- A worker is subjected to an ongoing campaign of aggressive micro-management, unrealistic deadlines, and derogatory comments from a business owner, making the environment so emotionally taxing that they feel forced to resign.
- Shortly after raising concerns about a toxic workplace culture, an employee with a historically spotless record is suddenly placed on a restrictive and seemingly unattainable Performance Improvement Plan.
- A senior manager is investigated by an external third party and is subsequently fired for cause without a severance package because it was discovered they routinely intimidated and verbally abused junior staff.
What You Should Know
- Keep a detailed, private log of all harassment incidents, noting the date, time, location, witnesses present, exactly what was said or done, and the impact it had on you.
- Review your workplace’s harassment and violence policy to ensure you follow the correct internal reporting structure before escalating the matter externally.
- Always participate cooperatively if your employer launches a formal investigation into harassment, as refusing to answer an investigator's questions can negatively impact your legal standing.
- Do not resign in the heat of the moment due to an abusive supervisor; consult an employment lawyer first to strategically preserve your right to claim constructive dismissal.
- If unionized, immediately inform your union steward about the harassment, as your rights and remedies will be dictated by the specific timelines in your collective agreement.
Featured Cases
Ciulla v. The Toronto Catholic District School Board
2021 ONSC 3110 (CanLII) · 2021-04-28Workplace Discrimination: Arbitration vs Civil Court Jurisdiction
A case involving workplace harassment, discrimination, and non-enforcement of policies by school board employees. The court considered whether disputes arising from a collective agreement should be resolved through mandatory arbitration or civil court jurisdiction, applying principles from Weber v. Ontario Hydro. The case also addressed the scope of the duty to ensure a harassment-free workplace and the nature of defamation claims in the context of employment relationships.
Clayton v. SPS Commerce Canada Ltd.
2018 ONSC 5017 (CanLII) · 2018-08-22Workplace Harassment: Employer Obligations and Constructive Dismissal
A case involving workplace harassment where an employee was placed on a performance improvement plan after raising harassment claims. The court examined whether an employer's conduct during a harassment investigation is relevant to claims of constructive dismissal and whether communications regarding statutory obligations are protected by settlement privilege.
Aboagye v Atomic Energy
2016 ONSC 8165 (CanLII) · 2016-12-30Termination for Cause: Dishonesty and Harassment in Employment
A court case involving termination for cause due to dishonesty during hiring and workplace harassment. The court applied a contextual approach and a summary judgment framework to determine that the employee's actions justified termination and granted summary judgment against the employee's wrongful dismissal claim.
Chartrand v. R. W. Travel Limited
2011 ONSC 2148 (CanLII) · 2011-04-05Workplace Harassment and Vacation Pay: Chartrand v. R. W. Travel Limited
A constructive dismissal case where the plaintiff alleged abusive conduct by the employer, including yelling and derogatory comments, making continued employment intolerable. The court dismissed the constructive dismissal claim but awarded $978 in vacation pay. The court also ruled on costs, ordering each party to bear its own costs.
Kohlhammer v. Modern Railings & Metalcraft Ltd.
2010 ONSC 30 (CanLII) · 2010-01-06Workplace Harassment and Wrongful Dismissal: Jurisdiction and Collective Agreement Issues
A merits decision involving an employee alleging workplace assault, harassment, and wrongful dismissal. The court determined that the essential character of the dispute falls under a collective agreement and the Labour Relations Act, applying the Weber v. Ontario Hydro principle. The court also addressed jurisdictional issues and dismissed claims for defamation due to insufficient pleadings.
Howorth v. Danylkiw
2009 CanLII 50226 (ON SC) · 2009-08-21Workplace Harassment: Leave to Appeal Granted on Discovery Scope
A workplace harassment case where the plaintiff sought leave to appeal an interlocutory decision denying discovery of the alleged harasser’s prior conduct and systemic harassment issues. The court granted leave to appeal due to conflicting case law on discovery scope and relevance, emphasizing the need for full disclosure in assessing employer liability and systemic harassment.
Piresferreira v. Ayotte
2008 CanLII 67418 (ON SC) · 2008-12-03Constructive Dismissal: Employer Liability for Supervisor Harassment and Assault
A constructive dismissal case where the plaintiff alleged that the employer failed to address verbal abuse and physical assault by a supervisor, leading to a repudiation of the employment relationship. The court determined that constructive dismissal was established and considered the reasonable notice period based on Bardal factors. The case also addressed vicarious liability for the supervisor’s actions and the employer’s duty to provide a safe workplace.
Amaral v. Canadian Musical Reproduction Rights Agency Limited
2007 CanLII 46701 (ON SC) · 2007-07-25Workplace Harassment and Mental Health: Employer Liability and Family Damages
A case involving an employee who alleged workplace harassment, denial of promotion, and changes to job duties, raising questions about whether the employer's actions constituted intentional infliction of mental suffering or breach of duty to accommodate. The court also addressed whether a tort of negligent infliction of mental suffering exists in Canadian law.
Treacher v. LaFarge Canada Inc.
2007 CanLII 1929 (ON SC) · 2007-02-01Workplace Harassment Case: Fiduciary Duty and Negligence Claims Struck
A case involving allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and intentional infliction of mental suffering in the workplace. The court dismissed the breach of fiduciary duty and negligence claims, finding they lacked a valid legal basis, and struck the tort claims as improperly framed. The court granted leave to amend the pleadings to include specific details about the alleged harassment.
Menagh v. Hamilton (City)
2005 CanLII 36268 (ON SC) · 2005-10-04Wrongful Dismissal: Senior Employee Accused of Workplace Harassment
A wrongful dismissal case involving a senior municipal employee accused of harassment, stalking, and retaliation toward a colleague. The court assessed whether the plaintiff’s misconduct justified dismissal and whether the employer’s investigation and termination process were fair and in good faith.
York Advertising Ltd. v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission)
2004 CanLII 58230 (ON SC) · 2004-03-11Human Rights Tribunal Review: Non-Parties Challenge Procedural Fairness
A judicial review case concerning a human rights tribunal decision that found gender-based discrimination and harassment in the workplace. The applicants, who were not parties to the hearing, argue they have standing to seek judicial review due to procedural unfairness and potential reputational and financial harm. The court is considering whether urgency justifies a single judge hearing and whether interim relief should be granted to prevent further dissemination of the tribunal’s decision.
Stamos v. Annuity Research & Marketing Service Ltd.
2002 CanLII 49618 (ON SC) · 2002-05-13Constructive Dismissal: Employee Awarded Damages for Hostile Work Environment
A constructive dismissal case where an employee was subjected to a hostile work environment involving verbal harassment, intimidation, and sexist remarks by a co-employee. The employer failed to discipline the disruptive employee or provide adequate support, leading to the employee's claim of constructive dismissal. The court awarded damages for six months’ notice, mental distress, and dental expenses caused by workplace stress.
TDL Group Ltd. v. 1060284 Ontario Ltd.
2000 CanLII 22736 (ON SC) · 2000-12-01Workplace Harassment Case: Franchise Termination and Interlocutory Injunction
A case involving workplace harassment where the plaintiff sought to terminate franchise agreements due to alleged sexual harassment and reprisal activities by the defendants. The court addressed issues related to termination clauses in franchise agreements, a motion to strike allegations of sexual harassment, a motion to stay proceedings pending an Ontario Human Rights Commission investigation, and an interlocutory injunction to enforce the Workplace Harassment Policy and issue non-contact orders.
Gill v. Fairview Chrysler Dodge Ltd.
1996 CanLII 8164 (ON SC) · 1996-12-19Wrongful Dismissal: 12-Year Employee Claims Resignation Due to Gender Transition
A wrongful dismissal case where the plaintiff alleged she was wrongfully dismissed after 12 years of employment, while the defendant claimed she resigned voluntarily to pursue personal goals related to her gender transition. The court found the plaintiff resigned voluntarily and dismissed the claim, citing credibility issues and lack of mitigation efforts.