Overview
During her time working as a superintendent for a property management company, an employee was subjected to ongoing assault and sexual harassment by two male tenants. She reported these issues to her employer, but they responded inadequately. She experienced severe mental health issues because of these experiences and went on medical leave. The company terminated her employment while she was on leave due to her inability to do her job. The employee brought a claim against the company and two of its employees for wrongful dismissal, damages for breach of the Ontario Human Rights Code (the “Code”), and moral and punitive damages.
In Stride v. Syra Group et al., 2024 ONSC 2169, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice sided with the employee and awarded her $175,000 in general and moral damages, and eight months’ notice for wrongful dismissal. This case, discussed in detail below, is a stark and troubling reminder to employers regarding their duty to provide a safe work environment for their employees; one that is free from violence and harassment. It is also a reminder for employers to take employee complaints seriously, including investigating when it is warranted in the circumstances.
Facts
The Plaintiff had worked for the Defendant, a residential property ownership and management corporation named Syra Group Holdings (“Syra”), in various roles from 2014 until 2018. These roles included superintendent, tenant customer service representative, property administrator, and assistant to the Property Manager. Syra owned 13 apartment buildings in the GTA, including the subject property in this case, 34 Dixington Avenue. The other two primary named defendants were the Property Manager and Syra’s CFO (all together, the “Defendants”).
The Plaintiff was working and living as the superintendent at 34 Dixington Avenue. Two male tenants at the property “focused their attention on testing and then threatening” the Plaintiff. In June 2016, one of them brandished a hammer at her and later shouted from his balcony when she was walking her dog that he would bash her head in with the hammer. He later “kicked in [her] dog’s teeth when the dog was off leash in the backyard of the building. The Plaintiff contacted the Property Manager to ask what she should do. The Property Manager simply said that if she was concerned for her safety, she should call the police. The Plaintiff did so, and the tenant was arrested.
Following this incident, the Defendants failed to have a discussion with the Plaintiff regarding any accommodations she may need in the circumstances. Further, they did not provide her with violence or harassment training and did not put in place a violence or harassment policy for the building.
In a further series of troubling and distressing events, the two male tenants continued to harass, sexually harass, abuse, and bully the Plaintiff. When the Plaintiff reported these incidents to the Property Manager or the CFO, they again told her that if she felt unsafe, she should call the police. Eventually, things got so bad that the Plaintiff went on medical leave due to severe resulting mental health issues. Her psychiatrist attested to this and sought to validate her absence vis-à-vis her employer, Syra. The Plaintiff also experienced an ankle injury that required surgery due to construction at the entrance to the building.
Despite the Plaintiff’s inability to work due to her medical condition, Syra terminated her employment, citing frustration of contract due to her inability to work. She had been absent from work for less than four months at the time of her dismissal.
The Court’s Decision
With respect to the Plaintiff’s employment, the Court found that Syra had terminated the Plaintiff’s employment without cause and without reasonable notice. The Court did not accept the Defendants’ argument that the Plaintiff’s absence due to her medical leave – which had resulted directly from the violence and harassment she had endured in the workplace – met the threshold for frustration of contract.
The Court found that the Defendants’ conduct had been “unreasonable, incomprehensible in light of the issues the plaintiff was facing, negligent and reprehensible…” The Defendants’ had a duty to protect the Plaintiff and they failed completely in this regard.
The Court provided guidance regarding what the Defendants could have done in response to the Plaintiff’s circumstances (para. 74):
Syra did not have and did not, after the complaints, prepare a violence or harassment policy for the defendant, did not organize and provide violence or harassment training for their superintendents, including [the Plaintiff]. While they indicated that they checked in with her on numerous occasions to see that she was alright, they did nothing further to provide a safe environment in which she could work. They did not provide any security cameras or any other form of security for the superintendent’s office or the building. They did not provide any updated policies for addressing harassment in the workplace and did not establish a complaint mechanism for employees who experienced harassment. They did not investigate the incident themselves and took no steps to address [the Plaintiff’s] working situation…
The Court ultimately held that the Defendants had breached their obligations under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, the Code, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and the common law when they failed to protect the Plaintiff or address the issues she had been facing.
The Plaintiff was awarded significant compensatory relief in this case, including $125,000 in general damages for the legislative violations, $50,000 in moral damages, and eight months’ notice. Regarding the notice period, the Court found that a longer notice period was required due to the Plaintiff’s medical status at the time of her termination. Unsurprisingly, the Court also found that the Plaintiff was not obligated to mitigate her damages by accepting an offer to return to her employment with the Defendant.
It is noteworthy that the Court did not award punitive damages, finding that the conduct of the defendant did not rise to the necessary level of oppressiveness, high handedness or maliciousness to warrant punitive damages.
Takeaways
This decision serves as an important reminder that employers have a duty to protect employees against violence and harassment in the workplace, including violence or harassment by third parties. Based on the above, the following steps may be taken in support of this aim:
- Implement and adhere to a workplace violence and harassment policy that includes a complaint mechanism;
- Ensure workers are properly trained on how to respond to dangerous workplace conditions, including reporting same to their superiors;
- Ensure managers and other employees in supervisory or leadership positions take employee complaints seriously and respond adequately in the circumstances; and
- Refrain from dismissing employees without valid or legal grounds for doing so, especially if they are on a medical leave at the applicable time due to workplace safety issues.
The article in this update provides general information and should not be relied on as legal advice or opinion. This publication is copyrighted by Hunter Legal LLP and may not be photocopied or reproduced in any form, in whole or in part, without the express permission of Hunter Legal LLP.