Law Times

Law Times • OcTOber 16, 2017 Page 9 www.lawtimesnews.com Judge recognizes civil tort of harassment BY MICHAEL MCKIERNAN For Law Times E mployment lawyers say a judge's recognition of the free-standing civil tort of harassment was the next logical step in the development of Ontario's workplace law. In Merrifield v. The At- torney General, Ontario Supe- rior Court Justice Mary Vallee awarded a former Royal Cana- dian Mounted Police member $140,000 in general and special damages. The decision distinguished for the first time between the long-standing civil tort of inten- tional inf liction of mental suf- fering and the brand new tort of harassment. Landon Young, managing partner at Toronto manage- ment-side employment and labour law boutique Stringer LLP, says that while the decision marks a significant change in the law, courts have in practice sanctioned similar conduct in recent years without carving out a separate tort. "The trend has been go- ing this way for quite a while," Young says. "If employers either harass an employee or they fail to take allegations of harassment in the workplace seriously, courts have found ways to make significant damage awards that ref lect their disapproval, even in the absence of a formal tort." Jordan Kirkness, a lawyer in the employment law practice group at Baker and McKenzie LLP, traces the origins of the Merrifield decision back to the end of the last decade, when Bill 168 received Royal assent. The law amended the Occu- pational Health and Safety Act, creating new obligations for em- ployers to deal with workplace and violence and harassment, including mandatory risk as- sessments and policy creation. "That was the beginning, and it was revolutionary in the sense it confirmed that harassment of this type would fall under the OHSA," Kirkness says. That was followed a few years later by Bill 132, Ontario's Sexual Violence and Harassment Ac- tion Plan Act, which requires employers in the province to conduct investigations into in- cidents and complaints of work- place harassment. "Bill 132, in a lot of ways, gave teeth to Bill 168 by requiring employers to be more active and involved when complaints come in," Kirkness says. "This decision is part of a progression; courts have become increasingly intolerant of these kinds of activities in the work- place, and this is like an extra reminder that harassment is no longer acceptable." The case dates back to 2005, when Peter Merrifield entered the race for nomination by the federal Conservative Party in Barrie, Ont. At the time, he was seven years into his employment with the RCMP, where he was focused on counter-terrorism and serious crime. However, according to the decision, Merrifield said his run upset superiors in the force, who objected to campaign materials that referenced support for the traditional concept of marriage and the abolition of the long gun registry. In subsequent years, he faced four investigations into alleged breaches of the RCMP's code of conduct, including one conduct- ed in secret without Merrifield's knowledge. Despite positive performance reviews, Merrifield's 2013 state- ment of claim said groundless investigations, a punitive trans- fer and bullying by his bosses caused him severe emotional distress, including depression. The RCMP resisted his claim, arguing in part that the civil tort of harassment does not exist. However, Vallee disagreed, lay- ing out a four-part test for deter- mining whether it has occurred: Was the conduct of the defen- dant outrageous? Did the defendants intend to cause, or have a reckless dis- regard for causing, emotional stress to the plaintiff? Did the plaintiff suffer from severe or extreme emotional dis- tress? Was the plaintiff 's emotional distress caused by the defen- dant? Applying the test to Merri- field's case, Vallee found he had "proven the tort of harassment." In addition, she found Mer- rifield met the similar test for intentional inf liction of mental suffering, which requires the defendant's conduct to be "f la- grant" as well as "outrageous" and to show it caused a "visible and provable illness." "Notwithstanding the ab- sence of medical evidence, I am satisfied that the plaintiff suf- fered from depression and post- traumatic stress disorder as a result of the RCMP's actions," Vallee wrote. "I find that the plaintiff has proven the tort of intentional in- f liction of mental suffering." The judge set the damages for the combined torts at $100,000, and she also awarded Merri- field a further $41,000 in special damages as a result of his inabil- ity to write an exam that would have led to his promotion. Although the decision has been appealed, Laura Young, the Toronto employment lawyer who acted for Merrifield, says her client felt vindicated by Val- lee's ruling. "It was a very lengthy trial and a much longer process for him, so he was very happy to have his claims verified by the court," says Young, who adds that she expects more employees to include harassment claims as part of their actions against em- ployers in future. RCMP spokesman Harold Pf leiderer told Law Times that the RCMP is "committed to pro- viding its employees with a safe and respectful work environ- ment, free from harassment." "After a careful review and detailed legal examination of the reasons for judgment the RCMP has asked lawyers from the Department of Justice to ap- peal the Ontario Superior Court decision in the Merrifield case on the grounds that the decision contained both errors in fact and law," he added, declining to pro- vide further comment while the matter is before the courts. LT Landon Young says that while a recent Ontario Superior Court decision marks a significant change in the law, courts have in practice sanctioned similar conduct in recent years without carving out a separate tort. FOCUS Order # 804218-65203 $488 2 volume looseleaf supplemented book Anticipated upkeep cost – $405 per supplement 4-6 supplements per year Supplements invoiced separately 0-88804-218-3 Shipping and handling are extra. Price(s) subject to change without notice and subject to applicable taxes. Cited by the Supreme Court of Canada Canadian Employment Law Stacey Reginald Ball "The most comprehensive text on employment law in Canada. It is carefully constructed and accurate." Canadian Bar Review More than 7,000 cases cited Canadian Employment Law is a one-stop reference that provides a thorough survey of the law and analysis of developing trends, suggesting potential avenues of attack as well as identifying potential weaknesses in the law. Canadian Employment Law has been cited by the Supreme Court of Canada, in superior courts in every province in Canada, and is used in law schools throughout Canada. With methodically organized chapters covering the complete range of employment law, Canadian Employment Law provides the kind of detailed examination of the facts you can count on. The subject-matter is wide-ranging and addresses issues such as: wrongful dismissal, fiduciary obligations, tort law and vicarious liability issues, remedies, constitutional issues, occupational health and safety, employment contracts, duty of good faith and fidelity and human rights. Includes a Table of Reasonable Notice — a chart, which groups together comparable types of positions so you can easily compare length of notice awards. Plus, all topics are illustrated with extensive case law and useful footnotes. Available risk-free for 30 days Order online: www.carswell.com Call Toll-Free: 1-800-387-5164 In Toronto: 416-609-3800 Also available online on WestlawNext® Canada EmploymentSource™ © 2016 Thomson Reuters Canada Limited 00234UC-84746-CE 82 Scollard Street, Toronto, Canada, M5R 1G2 Excellence in Employment & Labour Law • Counsel in Leading Cases • • Author of Leading Treatise • Wrongful Dismissal Employment Law Human Rights Post Employment Competition Civil Litigation Appellate Advocacy Disability Ball Professional Corporation Referrals on behalf of employees and employers respected Contact Stacey Ball at web: www.staceyball.com (416) 921-7997 ext. 225 or srball@82scollard.com all_LT_Nov7_11.indd 1 11-11-08 11:44 AM

• Cover