Special thanks to our articling student Ravneet Minhas for contributing to this update.

The Alberta Court of King’s Bench recently became the first Canadian province to recognize the tort of harassment. This development is notable in the face of recent case law out of both British Columbia and Ontario that has declined to recognize a general tort of harassment.  

For example, the Ontario Court of Appeal in Merrifield v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 ONCA 205 overturned the finding of a trial judge who found that the tort of harassment existed in Ontario. The Court’s analysis explained that significant changes to the law should be left to the legislature, and the role of the courts is only to make incremental changes to the law. Similarly, British Columbia courts have also resisted recognizing the tort of harassment (Stein v Waddell2020 BCSC 253Anderson v Double M Construction Ltd2021 BCSC 1473). 

The recognition of a general tort of harassment by the Alberta Court of King’s Bench, coupled with case law post-dating Merrifield[1], may lead other Canadian courts to rethink their position on this issue. As discussed further below, Justice Feasby in Alberta Health Services v Johnston2023 ABKB 209, recognized the tort on the basis that the harm in question could not be adequately addressed by any existing torts (Nevsun Resources Ltd v Araya2020 SCC 5 at para 123). As such, where the facts of a case demand the creation of a novel legal remedy, other Canadian courts may recognize a similar tort of harassment.

Alberta Establishes a Tort of Harassment

In Alberta Health Services v Johnston, Alberta Health Services (AHS) and two of its senior employees sued Mr. Johnston for defamation, invasion of privacy, assault and harassment. Mr. Johnston, an online talk show host and mayoral candidate, used his talk show to frequently criticize the AHS’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. He repeatedly alleged an intention to prosecute AHS employees for “heinous crimes”, and stated that his goal was to “bankrupt AHS members”. He further referred to the AHS as Nazis and suggested that they should be subject to violent attacks. He particularly targeted one AHS employee, Ms. Nunn, by sharing photos from her social media accounts, attacking her family and alleging that she was an alcoholic. 

The Court awarded Ms. Nunn $300,000 in general damages for defamation, $100,000 in general damages for harassment, and $250,000 in aggravated damages. While the Court held that AHS was not eligible for damages, both Ms. Nunn and AHS were granted permanent injunctions restraining Mr. Johnston. 

In recognizing the tort of harassment, Justice Feasby canvassed the existing case law across the country and found that no existing torts squarely addressed the harms caused by the harassment. He found that while defamation and assault share some elements with harassment, they fall short of clearly addressing the type of harm suffered by Ms. Nunn. Similarly, the new privacy torts only address harassment where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. 

Justice Feasby also noted that the recognition of the tort was merely a reflection of what Alberta courts have already been doing in the context of granting restraining orders.

In his decision, Justice Feasby defined the tort of harassment to exist where a defendant has: 

  1. Engaged in repeated communications, threats, insults, stalking, or other harassing behaviour in person or through other means;
  2. That he knew or ought to have known was unwelcome;
  3. Which impugn the dignity of the plaintiff, would cause a reasonable person to fear for her safety or the safety of her loved ones, or could foreseeably cause emotional distress; and
  4. Caused harm.

Continue Reading An Emerging Tort of Harassment in Canada?

Special thanks to our former summer associate Thanusa Sounthararajah for contributing to this update.

On July 1, 2023, the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (“ESA“), was amended to require temporary help agencies (“THAs“) and recruiters to obtain a license to operate in Ontario as of January 1, 2024. In addition, the Ontario

Special thanks to our summer associate Keyonna Trojcak for contributing to this blog.

On July 1, 2023, Ontario implemented a number of amendments to Regulation 854 – Mines and Mining Plants under Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act. Effective September 1, 2023, additional requirements will take effect.

The Regulation has and will create many new safety obligations for employers in Ontario’s mining industry, and will increase the requirements for safety policies and procedures in mining operations across Ontario. You can find the newest version of the Regulation with all of the changes here.

Summary of Key Changes Effective July 1, 2023

  • Flammable Hazards: Oil, grease and flammable liquids must be stored or transported in metal containers, receptacles or portable containers or safety cans that are government-approved when being used underground.
  • Ladderways: Where a worker could fall more than three meters, a ladderway should be fixed in place with a safety cage and a protective device to prevent the worker from falling. Furthermore, if a ladderway is seven meters or longer and at an angle step greater than 70 degrees, the ladderway needs to have platforms at intervals not greater than seven meters.
  • Mine Design: Mine designs must now be prepared under the direction of an engineer, instead of a “competent person.” Mine designs will also be required to describe both the geology and geotechnical aspects of the mine.
  • Power Sources: Independently powered conveyances used instead of a ladderway must have a source of power that is independent of the main power source of the mine, and must be capable of safely transferring persons through the shaft to a location they can use to safely exit the shaft. These must be readily available for use.

Continue Reading Digging into the Amended Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act Mining Regulation

Special thanks to our summer associate Daniel Dai for contributing to this update.

British Columbia’s Pay Transparency Act, which received royal assent on May 11, 2023, imposes pay disclosure and reporting obligations on both public and private sector employers to address systemic discrimination in the workplace. It is the latest in a series of new pay transparency laws across Canada.

This push for more transparency to bridge the pay gap for historically disadvantaged groups is a global trend. In the United States, 8 states, including California, Colorado and Washington, along with cities like New York City, have recently adopted salary disclosure laws. There is also pending legislation at the federal level—the Salary Transparency Act—that would require all job postings to include the wage or wage range for a position. Similarly, the European Parliament approved the Pay Transparency Directive in March 2023, which is set to enter into force in 2024. Among other things, this Directive establishes a right to certain pay information and imposes pre-employment pay disclosure obligations on both public and private sector EU employers.

Recent Canadian Developments

Continue Reading The Legislative Push for Pay Transparency in Canada Mirrors Global Trend

We are pleased to share a recent Canadian HR Reporter article, “What do employers in Quebec need to know about new OHS rules?,” with insight from Ajanthana Anandarajah.

The article discusses new rules and policies employers need to follow now that remote workers are legally recognized in Quebec. Updates include remote work recognition, new hazard

Special thanks to Eloise Somera (articling student in our Toronto office) for co-authoring.

Before the end of 2023, and every three years thereafter, all businesses or non-profits with twenty or more employees in Ontario must confirm their ongoing compliance with the accessibility requirements under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 (AODA) and submit an accessibility compliance report to the Ontario Government. The same reporting requirement applies to designated public sector organizations, but they must submit an accessibility compliance report every two years.

Failure to submit an accessibility compliance report can lead to significant penalties and fines by the Ontario Ministry of Labour (the Ministry).

Required Self-Assessment

AODA’s accessibility compliance report is intended to be an organization’s self-assessment of its compliance with Ontario’s accessibility requirements, including a confirmation that the organization is complying with the Accessibility Standards. The types of questions a business must answer will depend on what organization category it falls into (i.e., business or non-profit, designated public sector, or Ontario public service/Ontario Legislative Assembly). This is because different businesses are subject to different accessibility requirements under AODA. (Electronic copies of the applicable form can be downloaded on the government’s website here.)

As a business, non-profit, or a designated public sector organization, the organization can expect to answer questions regarding whether it:

  • employs any person with disabilities for whom it has provided individualized workplace emergency response information;
  • provides appropriate training on AODA, which includes the Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation;
  • provides appropriate training on Ontario’s Human Rights Code as it pertains to people with disabilities; and
  • has implemented a multi-year accessibility plan, and if yes, whether that plan is posted on the organization’s website, and whether it is updated at least once every five (5) years.

Continue Reading Workplace Accessibility Reports Under Ontario’s AODA Due By December 31, 2023

Ontario’s provincially-regulated employers will have to determine whether they must provide naloxone kits at their workplace by June 1, 2023.

Naloxone is a drug that can temporarily reverse the effects of an opioid overdose, and naloxone kits are designed to combat opioid addiction and overdose.

Last year, Ontario’s Bill 88, Working for Workers Act, 2022

Special thanks to Sarah Adler, Immigration Legal Counsel.

Our webinar was designed to bring Canadian in-house counsel and human resources leaders up to speed on the top labour, employment and human rights law developments of 2022 and to prepare them for what’s on the horizon in 2023.  

Using our “quick hits” format, we

In December 2021, the Ontario government passed Bill 27 – Working for Workers Act, 2021 requiring employers with 25 or more employees to create a “Disconnecting from Work Policy” by June 2, 2022. The Ontario government is following the lead of France, Spain and Portugal — all of which have adopted similar legislation in recent