We would like to ensure that you are still receiving content that you find useful – please confirm that you would like to continue to receive ILO newsletters.
12 July 2017
Can a Canadian employee sue an employer for harassment which is unrelated to a discrimination claim? The answer used to be no; but this is changing.
In most jurisdictions across Canada, an employee could:
However, until recently, an employee could not usually sue an employer for harassment that was unrelated to another legal right or protection.
In Merrifield v Attorney General (2017 ONSC 1333) the Ontario Superior Court of Justice introduced a new, freestanding basis to sue for workplace harassment. Employers should take note.
Merrifield was an officer of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). He said that his supervisors harassed him after he sought to be nominated to run in an election as a candidate for the Progressive Conservative Party.
Merrifield said that he suffered:
He raised his concerns with superiors; however, the RCMP did not respond. Merrifield then sued his employer for harassment, among other things.
The court had to decide whether Merrifield could sue for harassment. This was not the first time the issue had been raised – in 2006 a British Columbia court decided that it could be done, and at least two Ontario cases since then have applied this decision.
On that basis the court decided that Merrifield could sue for harassment, saying the following four questions were to be answered affirmatively in order to prove harassment:
The court answered yes to all four questions and therefore awarded Merrifield C$100,000 in damages for harassment and intentional infliction of mental suffering. The RCMP has appealed.
Unless and until the appeal is allowed, employers can be subject to a civil lawsuit from employees for harassment. If the four-point test is proven, an employer is liable to pay damages. This is in addition to any complaints that may be brought under human rights laws for harassment relating to unlawful discrimination, and to complaints made under health and safety or general harassment laws in effect in various jurisdictions.
The case also highlights the importance of proactively preventing harassment and effectively discharging a duty to respond to complaints of harassment. If the RCMP had investigated and, if necessary, taken appropriate corrective action when Merrifield first complained, this lawsuit may never have happened.
Employers should review and, if necessary, update training, policies and procedures for preventing harassment, investigating complaints and reporting the results of any investigations.
For further information on this topic please contact Shane D Todd at Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP by telephone (+1 416 366 8381) or email (email@example.com). The Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP website can be accessed at www.fasken.com.
Geoff Tadema assisted in the preparation of this update.
This update was reprinted with permission from Northern Exposure, a blog written by lawyers in the labour, employment and human rights group at Fasken Martineau, and produced in conjunction with HRHero.com.
The materials contained on this website are for general information purposes only and are subject to the disclaimer.
ILO is a premium online legal update service for major companies and law firms worldwide. In-house corporate counsel and other users of legal services, as well as law firm partners, qualify for a free subscription.
Shane D Todd