Canadian Employment Law Today

sions about how they can work side-by-side with a person who reveals such hostility and menace, bordering on violence. More and more employers have devel - oped general codes of conduct, which in- clude guidance regarding conduct outside the workplace. Because of the immense harm which can be triggered by a 30-sec- ond video clip, waiting until an event hap- pens before devising rules, is not an option. T. (O.P.) v. Presteve Foods: Raising the ceiling for sexual assault damages One might think Ghomeshi, Hydro One and the other issues addressed here would be sufficient reason for an employer to be con- cerned about consequences resulting from lack of workplace rules or enforcement of those rules. However, those incidents have not led to financial damages awards against employers — at least nothing which has been announced publically. Aside from physical and psychological harm, employers have good reason to be concerned that workplace harassment can lead to substantial financial liability. is year, setting a new high watermark at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, an em - ployer was found liable for sexual harass- ment committed against two vulnerable workers. e wrongs included repeated sexual propositioning, repeated sexual con- tact, forced hugging and kissing, and, with respect to one worker, three incidents of forced intercourse. One of the workers was awarded $150,000 and the other $50,000, for the injury to their dignity, feelings and self-respect. As repugnant as the facts were in T. (O.P.) v. Presteve Foods Ltd., sexual assault is not a requirement for substantial civil liability to arise. Piresferreira v. Ayotte involved a su - pervisor abusing an employee over the peri- od of a single week. e abuse included yell- ing, profanities and one incident of forceful pushing. As a result, the worker was diag- nosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. e Ontario Court of Appeal assessed the worker's claim at $55,000 for battery and mental distress damages, in addition to one year's pay for constructive dismissal. e future — Bill 132 Whatever one thinks about the current law of workplace violence and harassment, there is little doubt it will continue to evolve in the direction of increased worker protec - tions and employer obligations. At the end of October 2015, the Ontario government introduced Bill 132, the Sexual Violence and Harassment Action Plan Act. Of particular pertinence to employers are: • Enhanced requirements for sexual harass - ment prevention programs • Creation of specific duties to protect workers, including more specific rules about the investigation of complaints • Elimination of the statutory limitation pe - riod for civil proceedings based on sexual assault (currently two years) As 2015 comes to a close, the law relating to workplace harassment and violence in the workplace is still in its infancy. However, employers that ignore recent and impending developments increase the chances they will become the subject of the next viral video or defendant in a ruinous legal proceeding. For more information see: • T. (O.P.) v. Presteve Foods Ltd., 2015 Car - swellOnt 12338 (Ont. Human Rights Trib.). • Piresferreira v. Ayotte , 2008 CarswellOnt 7733 (Ont. S.C.J.). Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2015 CREDIT: PHOTOGRAPHEE.EU/SHUTTERSTOCK November 25, 2015 | Canadian Employment Law Today ABOUT THE AUTHOR THOMAS GORSKY Thomas Gorsky is a lawyer with Sherrard Kuzz LLP, a management-side labour and employment law firm in Toronto. Thomas can be reached at (416) 603-0700 (Main), (416) 420-0738 (24 Hour) or by visiting www.sherrardkuzz.com.

• Cover