Law & Order: Special Victims Unit - How the Human Rights Code is Changing Ontario Employment Law

What can the American television programme Law and Order teach us about employment law in Ontario? Not a lot, really. But the opening line from the Special Victims Unit franchise does illustrate one point, which will be of increasing focus in the coming years:

In the criminal justice system, sexually-based offenses are considered especially heinous. In New York City, the dedicated detectives who investigate these vicious felonies are members of an elite squad known as the Special Victims Unit. These are their stories.

Why do I reference Law and Order SVU on an Ontario employment law blog? Because if the opening words of that show teach us anything, it is that different crimes are treated differently by the justice system. Nowhere in the Ontario employment law context is this disparate treatment more acute than with respect to the issues of workplace harassment and discrimination.

Let us compare and contrast two decisions, both from the Court of Appeal for Ontario: Piresferreira v. Ayotte, 2010 ONCA 384 (Cronk, Lang and Juriansz JJ.A.) and Partridge v. Botony Dental Corporation, 2015 ONCA 836, (Laskin, Pardu and Roberts JJ.A.)

Bill 132... Picking Up Where Bill 168 Left Off?

Will the recently proposed changes to the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act finally bring about the workplace violence and harassment protections that so many believed would be implemented as a result of “Bill 168?” It’s possible.

For years I have been critical of the actual effects of the changes to the law brought about by Bill 168. Heralded by many at the time as a necessary change to the law, the experience of the interpretation and implementation of those changes has been grossly underwhelming.

Now the Ontario government is proposing further changes to the law by way of Bill 132, the Sexual Violence and Harassment Action Plan Act (Supporting Survivors and Challenging Sexual Violence and Harassment), 2015. The Bill passed first reading in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario on October 27, 2015.

A reading of the proposed amendments to the law leaves one with cautious optimism that perhaps change will finally come about.

The Scope of the Employer's Duty to Investigate Sexual Harassment Complaints

To what extent must an employer investigate allegations of sexual harassment? This question comes to the fore as a result of a recent episode of CBC’s The Fifth Estate, The Unmaking of Jian Ghomeshi, in which the Executive Director of Radio at CBC, Mr. Chris Boyce, defended his decision to limit his investigate of Ghomeshi’s behaviour by saying he is “not the police.”

But is that position really defensible? The Fifth Estate certainly made it appear that Mr. Boyce had been confronted with a number of allegations of serious concerns with Mr. Ghomeshi’s behaviour both inside and outside the workplace. Could Mr. Boyce, as a member of CBC management really turn a blind eye to the entire situation?

While there are several cases concerning this issue, the case of Menagh v. Hamilton (City), 2005 CanLII 36268 (ON SC) provides a paradigmatic example of poor employee behaviour and how the courts of Ontario will respond to such actions.

Termination After Being Made the Subject of Workplace Investigation may Entitle Employee to Moral Damages

If an employee is made the prime suspect in a workplace investigation but is found to be not responsible for the harm that was the subject of the investigation, can the employer nonetheless terminate the employee’s employment on a without cause basis with impunity?

In refusing to grant summary judgment fixing the applicable notice period and dismissing the plaintiff employee’s claims for moral and punitive damages in a termination without cause case, the Honourable Justice Margaret Eberhard in the case of Brownson v. Honda of Canada Mfg., 2013 ONSC 896, leave to appeal refused 2013 ONSC 6974, held that the answer may be that no, the employer cannot terminate the employee’s employment on a without cause basis with impunity.

Has the Ontario Labour Relations Board Finally Given Some Protection to Harassed Employees?

Is an Ontario worker who makes a complaint of workplace harassment to his or her employer seeking the enforcement of the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act or acting in compliance with that Act?

Can an employer legally fire someone who makes such a complaint without that termination being deemed an at of "reprisal" by the Ontario Labour Relations Board? Until the Ontario Labour Relation Board’s decision in Ljuboja v Aim Group Inc, 2013 CanLII 76529 (ON LRB) on November 22, 2013, the answers from this author would have been no, the employee is not seeking the enforcement of the Act, and yes, the employer can legally terminate the employee without the Labour Board deeming the termination as an act of reprisal. However, things may have changed.

Claims of a Hostile Work Environment: Shields not Swords?

As regular readers of this blog will know, this blog has long taken issue with the Court of Appeal for Ontario's decision in Piresferreira v. Ayotte, 2010 ONCA 384 (CanLII). The court's decision - that employees cannot sue for an employer's negligent infliction of mental suffering - has previously been considered in the post Tort Damages Place in Wrongful Dismissal Cases.

Although I have previously argued that the Piresferreira decision was legally wrong and, in fact, contrary to other appellate decisions including Sulz v. Canada, 2006 BCCA 582 and Queen v. Cognos, (the Supreme Court of Canada did not disturb or address the trial judge's award of $5,000 in damages for "emotional stress" in its decision in Queen v. Cognos Inc., [1993] 1 SCR 87,) this post will focus on a different issue: whether the decision highlights the differences to which claims of a hostile work environment can be put.

As I will argue below, it my thesis that contrary to Court of Appeal's position that it is "unnecessary and undesirable to expand the court’s involvement" into questions of a hostile work environment was wrong. While Ontario’s courts have been unwilling to accept claims of a hostile work environment when wielded as a “sword”, Ontario courts have shown that they are prepared to consider such claims when employees advance such arguments as a “shield.”

Workplace Harassment Complaints and Bill 168

Are the changes to Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act really capable of influencing the way we approach workplace harassment cases? For the reasons that follow, I would argue that they are not.

Is Having an Affair Just Cause?

Is having an affair at work "just cause" for dismissal from employment under Ontario's labour and employment laws?

The question was put to me by a colleague at the time of the David Petraeus scandal, and my initial impression was ‘likely only if precluded by an employee code of conduct, or something similar.’ The case of Reichard v. Kuntz, 2011 ONSC 7460 (CanLII), decided in December of 2011, provides some insight into the topic.

Exclusion Clause Insulates Against Tort Claims

Can a limitation of wrongful dismissal damages clause in an employment agreement insulate individual employees from personal liability at the time of dismissal? "Yes" says the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

Claims to the WSIB for Mental Stress and Workplace Harassment

Can an Ontario worker make a claim to the Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) for benefits when the cause of injury is mental stress?

Former Walmart Employee Awarded $1.5 Million for Mistreatment

This week an Ontario jury ordered Walmart to pay nearly $1.5 million dollars to a former Windsor, Ontario-store employee who claimed that she was subjected to profane and insulting mental abuse over six-month period by her 32-year old store manager.

Being Reasonable about Constructive Dismissal

Should I stay or should I go? Without question, the single most difficult case that walks through my door is that of harassment or bullying by managers. This post will focus on general hostile working environments. Working environments that are toxic by reason of violations of the Human Rights Code are treated differently.

The fact scenario most commonly presented is that of the employee who simply cannot take any more from his or her manager and/or subordinates. Pulled in a hundred different directions, often with no support from above, the worker’s well-being starts to suffer.

What is an employee, faced with this situation of unbearable stress, to do?

Tort Damages Place in Wrongful Dismissal Cases

In November of 2010 I was asked to present at the annual Carleton County Law Association's annual civil litigators conference on the topic of workplace burnout.  Although my full paper can be found here, this post will focus on the issue of adding tort damages to a claim for wrongful dismissal in Ontario.

The most exciting, some have said “sexy”, but no doubt controversial part of employment law as of late has been whether or not significant tort damages can result from wrongful dismissal.  An excellent summary of the law is found in Elgert v. Home Hardware Stores Limited, 2010 ABQB 65.

Workplace Assault Not Just Cause for Termination

(c) istock/Nomadsoul1

Is assaulting a co-worker just cause for termination of employment?

In the 2012 case of Shakur v. Mitchell Plastics, 2012 ONSC 1008 Justice David Broad of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice found that an employer did not have "just cause" to terminate an employee who slapped a co-worker.