Ontario Superior Court Says that You Cannot Sue for the Tort of Sexual Harassment

Is the tort of sexual harassment a recognized cause of action in the Province of Ontario? Put another way, in Ontario, can you sue in court if you are sexually harassed?

Two days ago, on April 16, 2017, I blogged about the case of Merrifield v The Attorney General, 2017 ONSC 1333, released February 28, 2017, in which the Honourable Justice Mary E. Vallee of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice found that “harassment” was recognized as a tort upon which a civil cause of action may be based. (See Ontario Superior Court Awards $100,000 in General Damages for Tort of Harassment.)

Surely, one would think, if you can sue for “harassment” in Ontario’s courts, you can sue for sexual harassment. However, as the case of K.L. v 1163957799 Quebec Inc., 2015 ONSC 2417 (CanLII) demonstrates, few things in law make such sense.

Update: The Court of Appeal for Ontario has since said that employees cannot sue for the Tort of Harassment either. See Tort of Harassment Not Available in Ontario Employment Context.

Ontario Superior Court Awards $100,000 in General Damages for Tort of Harassment

(c) istock/Wavebreakmedia

In Ontario, is harassment recognized as a tort upon which a civil cause of action may be based? Put another way, can you sue for workplace harassment in Ontario?

While this blog has frequently argued that the answer to that question is likely “no”, in the case of Merrifield v The Attorney General, 2017 ONSC 1333, released February 28, 2017, the Honourable Justice Mary E. Vallee of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice said “yes.”

When Does the Limitation Period Begin for a Wrongful Dismissal Case in Ontario?

(c) istock/frantic00

How long do you have to start a case for wrongful dismissal in Ontario? Perhaps more importantly, when does the limitation period begin to run for a wrongful dismissal action – at the time notice of termination is received or on the last day worked?

That second question, when does the limitation period begin to run , was answered by the Honourable Justice Kirk W. Munroe of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in the case of Bailey v Milo-Food & Agricultural Infrastructure & Services Inc., 2017 ONSC 1789 (CanLII).

If a Termination Provision Potentially Violates the ESA, It Is Void: ONCA

(c) istock/AtnoYdur

“If a [termination] provision’s application potentially violates the ESA at any date after hiring, it is void.”

In a very short endorsement released by the Court of Appeal for Ontario on April 5, 2017, Covenoho v. Pendylum Ltd., 2017 ONCA 284, Ontario’s top court confirmed what many of Ontario’s employment lawyers having been saying for years now: a poorly drafted employment agreement is going to prove costly.

Labour Pains Turns Five: Lessons Learned

(c) istock/seriga

On April 1, 2012, I published my first post to what was then called “Sean Bawden’s Law Blog for Suddenly Unemployed.” That was five years and over 330 posts ago. Some things, such as this blog’s title, have changed. Other things, like who is behind the keyboard, have not.

As regular readers of this blog will know, from time-to-time I try to take an introspective look at how we got here. Also, in the spirit of inspiring others to do the same, here is my ‘look behind the curtain’ at what is now Labour Pains.

Failure to Pay $300,000 Bonus a Breach of Contract Only and Not a Constructive Dismissal: ONCA

(c) istock/Jummie

Can an employer breach a rather fundamental element of an employee’s employment contract (to the tune of over $300,000) without triggering a constructive dismissal?

In a decision released March 21, 2017, Chapman v. GPM Investment Management, 2017 ONCA 227, the Court of Appeal for Ontario said “yes.”

Is a legal ban on requiring high heeled shoes in the workplace inevitable?

(c) istock/grinvalds

Is a legal ban on requiring high heeled shoes in the workplace inevitable? Probably.

On March 8, 2017, Dr. Andrew Weaver, Member of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia for Oak Bay-Gordon Head (Green) introduced a Private Member’s Bill, Bill M237 — Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2017. As the explanatory note to the bill explained, that bill would have amended the BC Workers Compensation Act, RSBC 1996, c. 492, by prohibiting employers from setting varying footwear requirements for their employees based on gender, gender expression or gender identity. Consequently, the law (if it had passed) would have made employers unable to require select employees to wear high heels.

The bill died on the order paper when the legislature rose on May 9th, ahead of the upcoming provincial election. It never really had a chance.

But, is such a ‘ban’ either coming to Ontario or inevitable? I think so.