Workplace Harassment — Ontario Employment Law

B. v. York Region District School Board

Weber Exclusive Jurisdiction in School Board Harassment

This is a judicial review proceeding where the Divisional Court reviewed an application challenging the School Board's handling of a workplace harassment investigation. The court determined that the dispute arose from the interpretation and application of the collective agreement, granting exclusive jurisdiction to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under the Weber principle, thereby barring the court from hearing the matter.

B. v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario et al.

Judicial Review: Human Rights Tribunal Employment Decision

This is a judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision regarding employment-related human rights complaints. The Divisional Court reviewed allegations of sex discrimination, a poisoned work environment, and reprisal in the context of the applicant's termination during a probationary period. The Court applied the Vavilov standard of reasonableness to the Tribunal's findings that the employer had valid, non-discriminatory reasons for termination and that the workplace environment allegations were unsubstantiated.

M. v. Department of National Defence

M. v. DND: FPSLRA Bar on Harassment Claims

This is a procedural motion ruling in a wrongful dismissal and harassment case brought by a federal public sector employee against the Department of National Defence. The court addressed whether negligence and harassment claims were barred by the statutory grievance regime under the FPSLRA, characterizing them as employment disputes precluded from court action. Additionally, the court struck the plaintiff's claim for malicious prosecution due to insufficient pleadings and refused leave to amend.

C. v Edward Jones Investments

Workplace Harassment Discovery Motion

This is an interlocutory motion concerning discovery in a workplace harassment case. The plaintiff sought to compel the defendant to answer undertakings and produce documents related to succession planning, employment files, and conflict of interest investigations, while also requesting a further examination of the defendant. The court considered the proportionality and relevance of these requests under the governing law on refusals motions.

M. v. Toronto Metropolitan University

Judicial Review: University Harassment Decision

This is a judicial review application concerning a university's decision not to proceed with a complaint alleging harassment and discrimination against Jewish faculty members. The court applied Strickland factors to determine whether to exercise its discretion to decline review, considering the adequacy of alternative forums such as grievance procedures and human rights applications.

A. v. B.

Workplace Harassment Jurisdiction: Weber Framework Application

This is a jurisdictional motion determining whether claims of workplace harassment, defamation, and intentional interference with economic relations fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of a Grievance Settlement Board or the courts. Applying the Weber v. Ontario Hydro framework, the court analyzed the essential character of the dispute based on the pleadings to determine if it arose from the collective agreement. Costs were awarded to the successful party on a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

W. v. VAC Developments Limited

W. v. VAC Developments: Defamation Claim Dismissed

This was an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a motion judge's decision dismissing the employer's counterclaim for defamation. The employee, laid off after reporting racist threats at work, spoke to the media about the employer's failure to address the threats. The employer sued for defamation, and the employee brought an anti-SLAPP motion which was granted. The Court of Appeal dismissed the employer's appeal because the employer failed to show sufficiently serious harm to outweigh the public interest in protecting the employee's expression.

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.

General Motors of Canada Company v. O.-A.

Workplace Harassment: Interlocutory Injunction Granted

This is an interlocutory proceeding where the plaintiff sought an injunction to protect employees and contractors from trespassing, harassment, and threats by the defendant. The court found a serious issue to be tried and that irreparable harm, including physical and psychological harm, was likely, leading to the granting of an injunction under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Courts of Justice Act.

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.

O. v. Universal Structural Restorations Ltd.

Constructive Dismissal: Abusive Workplace & Human Rights Violations

This is a merits decision in a wrongful dismissal case where the plaintiff alleged constructive dismissal due to an abusive workplace environment, including harassment and unsafe conditions. The court found that the employer's failure to address these issues created a poisoned work environment, establishing constructive dismissal, battery, assault, and human rights violations, and awarded damages accordingly.

H. v. Ontario

H. v. Ontario: Workplace Harassment and Charter Claims

This is an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a motion judge's decision dismissing the employee's action against the Crown. The employee sued the Crown, alleging it was responsible for harassment and threats she suffered while working at a public hospital, and for the failure of various administrative tribunals to support her claims. The motion judge dismissed the action, finding that the Crown is not vicariously liable for the employment issues of public hospitals or the decisions of administrative tribunals. The Court of Appeal agreed and dismissed the appeal, concluding there was no viable cause of action pleaded against the Crown.

C. v. Ottawa (City of)

This is a judicial review application concerning the jurisdiction and procedural fairness of the City of Ottawa's Integrity Commissioner. The applicant challenged the Commissioner's investigation into complaints of sexual harassment, arguing a lack of jurisdiction under the Municipal Act, 2001, and alleging bias and a denial of procedural fairness. The Divisional Court reviewed whether the Commissioner acted within their statutory authority and whether the investigation met the standards of natural justice.

United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 175 v. Copper River Inn and Conference Centre

This is a judicial review of a labour arbitration award where the union challenged the arbitrator's decision regarding the employer's failure to investigate a workplace sexual assault. The Divisional Court examined whether the arbitrator's award of nominal damages and failure to address statutory breaches under the Ontario Health and Safety Act and Ontario Human Rights Code were unreasonable under the Vavilov framework.

C. v. The Toronto Catholic District School Board

C. v. TCDSB: Exclusive Arbitration Jurisdiction

This is an interlocutory proceeding determining whether the court has jurisdiction to hear claims of workplace harassment, discrimination, and defamation, or if they must be resolved through mandatory arbitration under the collective agreement. The court applied the Weber principles to confirm that disputes arising from the interpretation and application of the collective agreement, including those involving workplace policies and employee conduct, fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the arbitrator.

D.F. v. Toronto Parking Authority

Workplace Sexual Assault: Labour Arbitrator Jurisdiction

This is a jurisdictional decision determining whether a unionized employee's claims for workplace sexual harassment and assault fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator under the Labour Relations Act. The court affirmed that such claims arise from the collective agreement and do not violate the Charter, finding no remedial gap in the arbitration process.

M & P Tool Products v. L.

Summary Judgment: Fraud, Fiduciary Duty & Harassment

This is a procedural ruling on a motion for partial summary judgment in a dispute between an employer and a former employee. The plaintiff sought judgment for civil fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, while the defendant raised a counterclaim for workplace harassment and a defence of condonation. The court considered whether the written record allowed for a fair determination of credibility issues, particularly regarding the harassment counterclaim and the defence of condonation.

Ottawa Carleton Standard v. F.

Workplace Harassment: OHSA Duty in Condominium

This is an interlocutory proceeding involving a condominium corporation, addressing whether a defendant's conduct constituted workplace harassment under the OHSA and breached the Condominium Act. The court considered the statutory duty of condominium corporations to protect workers from harassment and whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted to prohibit the defendant from communicating with personnel.

Colistro v. Tbaytel

Colistro v. Tbaytel: Constructive Dismissal & Honda Damages

This is an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a trial judge's decision regarding constructive dismissal and intentional infliction of mental suffering. The employee, an executive assistant with nearly twenty years of service, went on stress leave and objected after her employer rehired a former supervisor who had previously been fired for sexually harassing her. The trial judge dismissed the employee's claim for intentional infliction of mental suffering but found she was constructively dismissed, awarding 12 months' notice and $100,000 in Honda damages for bad faith. The Court of Appeal dismissed the employee's appeal and the employer's cross-appeal. The Court upheld the trial judge's findings that a single egregious act can make employment intolerable, leaving the 12 months' notice and $100,000 Honda damages awards in place.

Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. The Crown in Right of Ontario

Judicial Review: WSIA Jurisdiction and Harassment Damages

This is a judicial review of a Grievance Settlement Board decision regarding workplace bullying and harassment under a collective agreement. The Divisional Court examined whether the Board had jurisdiction to award damages for mental stress injuries compensable under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA) and whether its reliance on WSIAT decisions was reasonable. The Court found the decision reasonable and declined to consider new arguments raised for the first time on judicial review.