Divisional Court Finds Ottawa City Council Displayed Reasonable Apprehension of Bias Against Councillor Rick Chiarelli with Respect to Complaints to Integrity Commissioner

In the period September to November 2019, six complaints were filed against Ottawa City Councillor Richard Chiarelli with the Integrity Commissioner for the City of Ottawa. The Commissioner investigated and then prepared one report in respect to three of the complaints, which were similar. The Commissioner filed the Report with Ottawa City Council on July 9, 2020. City Council considered the Report on July 15, 2020, accepted its conclusions that Councillor Chiarelli had engaged in acts of misconduct in respect to the three complaints, and imposed the maximum available penalty: suspending Councillor Chiarelli’s salary for 270 days in the aggregate. City Council also adopted a resolution calling upon Councillor Chiarelli to resign from City Council.

Councillor Chiarelli applied to the Ontario Divisional Court for judicial review of the proceedings below. He argued that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to investigate the complaints, showed bias against him, and denied the Councillor procedural fairness. He argued that City Council exhibited bias against him. He sought various remedies, including orders quashing the findings and sanctions against him and orders prohibiting the respondents from taking further steps against him respecting the complaints.

In its decision released December 22, 2021, Chiarelli v. Ottawa (City of), 2021 ONSC 8256 (CanLII), the Divisional Court (Morawetz C.J.O.S.C.J., D.L. Corbett and Ryan Bell JJ.):

1. Dismissed the application as against the Commissioner, with costs payable by Councillor Chiarelli to the Commissioner fixed on a partial indemnity basis at $40,000, inclusive, payable within thirty days;
2. Granted the application as against the City of Ottawa;
3. Quashed the sanction decision of City Council, with costs payable by the City of Ottawa to Councillor Chiarelli fixed at 50% of partial indemnity costs, in the amount of $20,000, inclusive, payable within ten days of the date on which Councillor Chiarelli pays the $40,000 in costs he owes to the Commissioner; and
4. Imposed a sanction on Councillor Chiarelli of suspension of salary for 270 days in the aggregate.

Complainant in Sexual Assault Claim Compellable as Employer’s Representative on Examinations for Discovery in Wrongful Dismissal Claim

Is it “oppressive” to compel an unwilling complainant in a sexual assault and harassment matter to be examined for discovery when he is not a party to the underlying lawsuit and when his version of events has already been made available to the plaintiff in the form of his written complaint?

In Mohotoo v Humber River Hospital, 2021 ONSC 4894 (CanLII), Master Lisa La Horey of the Ontario Superior Court held that, on the basis of binding case law, the legal answer is that it is not “oppressive.”

Refusing to Apologize for Inappropriate Comments Not Cause for Dismissal

Is refusing to apologize to a co-worker, after a company’s finding of your having made inappropriate comments to that co-worker cause for termination? Does it matter if, at the time the direction to apologize was made, the company elected not to terminate your employment at all (let alone for cause?)

In Hucsko v. A.O. Smith Enterprises, 2020 ONSC 1346 (CanLII), the Honourable Mr. Justice G.E. Taylor of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that an employer was not justified in summarily ending the employment relationship because the employee refused to apologize (after seeking legal advice) and could not use the previous findings concerning inappropriate comments to later justify the termination.

UPDATE: On October 15, 2021, the Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the employer's appeal, reversed Justice Taylor's decision, and dismissed the plaintiff's claim. For my summary of that case see: “It's Too Late to Apologize” Court of Appeal Finds Refusal to Apologize For Inappropriate Conduct Just Cause for Termination of Employment

Non-Consensual Sharing of Intimate Images Grounds for Summary Dismissal

Can sharing intimate photos of one your coworkers with your friends result in the summary termination of your employment for cause?

In an unreported decision from the Ontario Ministry of Labour, the answer was a resounding “yes.”

Top Five Cases of Importance to Ontario Employment Law - 2018 Edition

2018 has been, compared to some other years, relatively quiet with respect to employment law jurisprudence. Sometimes that can be a good thing.

The point of this blog post, however, is to consider what I consider to be the “Top Five Cases of Importance to Ontario Employment Law”. I have produced such a list since 2012:

• 2012
• 2013
• 2014
• 2015
• 2016
• 2017

And so, with another year coming to a close, it is once again time for this Ontario employment lawyer to provide his picks for the Top Five Cases of Importance to Ontario Employment Law!

Employee Allowed to Sue for Sexual Harassment Five Years After Signing Full and Final Release

Can an employee sue her former supervisor for sexual harassment if she has signed a Full and Final Release in favour of her former employer?

In the case of Watson v. The Governing Council of the Salvation Army of Canada, 2018 ONSC 1066 (CanLII), the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that she might not be precluded by the release.

Assessment of Damages in Sexual Assault Cases

What is a reasonable assessment of damages in a civil case of sexual assault? Is the fact that a perpetrator of sexual assault has not been criminally punished a relevant factor in the decision to award punitive damages?

In Zando v. Ali, 2018 ONCA 680 (CanLII), Ontario’s top court adopted the framework for determining damages in a civil sexual battery or assault cases described in Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v. B.M.G., 2007 NSCA 120 (CanLII), 260 N.S.R. (2d) 257, per Cromwell J.A. (as he then was), and affirmed a lower court’s award of $200,000, made up of general damages of $175,000 and punitive damages of $25,000.

Employers’ Vicarious Liability for Sexual Assault

“Is a taxi company liable for a sexual assault allegedly committed by one of its drivers, absent any fault on its part?” That was the question that the Court of Appeal for Ontario answered in the case of Ivic v. Lakovic, 2017 ONCA 446.

The court’s answer, which affirmed an answer from the Ontario Superior Court, was “no”.

Workplace Harassment “Arises From” but does not “Relate To” Employment

Does workplace harassment simply “arise from and in the course of” an employee’s employment, or does it actually “relate to” that employment?

That question, as incredibly pedantic as it may appear, was of material consequence to a decision of the Ontario Grievance Settlement Board issued January 23, 2018: OPSEU and Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services) (Rosati), Re, 2018 CarswellOnt 1017.

In short, the answer to that question drove the analysis as to whether a claim for workplace harassment was compensable pursuant to the newly revised provisions of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997.

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.

HRTO Awards $150,000 to Temporary Foreign Worker following Sexual Assault by Employer

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario ordered an employer to pay $150,000.00 to a former temporary foreign worker after finding that the owner and principal of the company had engaged in a series of prolonged unwanted sexual solicitations and advances against her, including sexual assaults.

O.P.T. v. Presteve Foods Ltd., 2015 HRTO 675 (CanLII), now stands as the present ‘high-water mark’ for damages as compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect.

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.