Introduction
Sexual harassment in academic settings remains a significant concern for universities, faculty, and students alike. Three recent cases confirm that allegations of sexual harassment are treated seriously, with termination being the supported outcome where the allegations are proven. In one case, the Labour Board upheld a Faculty Association’s decision not to challenge the termination of a professor at arbitration.
Termination Upheld: Brock University Professor Dismissed for Sexual Harassment and Policy Violations
Brock University v. Brock University Faculty Association (unreported – available here) (ON LA) (Reaume; July 9, 2025)
Introduction
This case arose from a grievance filed by the Brock University Faculty Association. The Association challenged Brock University’s decision to terminate the employment of a tenured professor (the “Grievor”) in May 2022. The dismissal followed an independent, external investigation into a complaint of sexual harassment that was made by a graduate student (“GS”) whose doctoral work was supervised by the Grievor. The investigation substantiated the allegations. After a thirteen-day hearing de novo, Arbitrator Reaume dismissed the grievance, finding that the University had just cause to terminate the Grievor’s employment under the collective agreement.
Background
In 2016, the Grievor was appointed as an academic administrator and tenured professor at Brock University. He had previously worked at an Australian University, where he met GS. GS was first the Grievor’s undergraduate student, then his graduate student. With the Grievor’s support, GS transferred to Brock as a visiting Ph.D. candidate.
The incidents in question occurred at Brock between March 2017 and February 2019, while GS was completing her doctoral studies. The University alleged that the Grievor engaged in sexually- and/or gender-oriented conduct that made GS increasingly uncomfortable. Some examples of the impugned conduct – which were substantiated by the investigation and at arbitration – are as follows:
- In the summer of 2017, a promotional video was being produced at Brock. The Grievor told GS that he recommended her for the video and described her to the producer as a “gorgeous Australian.”
- At a July 2017 conference in Portugal, the Grievor made various comments about GS’s appearance and attire. For example, the Grievor said GS “should wear [her] hair out more often,” complimented her dress, and asked where she purchased it.
- At an April 2018 conference in San Diego, the Grievor’s comments began to increase in frequency and intensity, and he began touching GS. For example:
- When GS wore a dress and heels, the Grievor said, in the presence of GS and another male colleague, that GS looked “stunning,” “amazing,” and “like a movie star,” that he loved how her dress swayed, and that her legs “looked great.”
- The Grievor began guiding GS by touching or holding her lower back through doorways, into her seat, and up the escalator. GS attempted to avoid this contact.
- The Grievor asked, in the presence of their male colleague, whether GS bought “a one-piece or a bikini” swimsuit. He also repeatedly invited her to swim at his hotel pool.
- After the San Diego conference, the Grievor invited GS to swim in his backyard pool and suggested she bring her “red” swimsuit.
In August 2018, GS raised her concerns directly with the Grievor, describing a pattern of unwanted and gendered conduct that had made her increasingly uncomfortable. Although the Grievor appeared to listen to GS’s concerns, he was ultimately dismissive and did not take her complaints seriously.
Despite this meeting, the unwanted attention resumed and intensified over the following months. For example:
- The Grievor was aware that GS was uncomfortable discussing her tattoos with him. GS was sitting on a chair in the lab and her top had ridden up exposing the tattoo on her lower back. The Grievor said “nice tattoo.”
- In the context of a discussion about financial instability and GS’s potential desire to have a child one day, the Grievor said that she would have no problem finding a sperm donor if she wanted to have a baby herself and that “they’d be lining up.”
- On a cold morning, when GS arrived at the lab, in the presence of another student, the Grievor said to GS: “do I need to check you for frostbite?”
This pattern culminated in February 2019, when GS informed the Grievor that she could no longer work with him due to his continued crossing of her boundaries. During this final, intense discussion, the Grievor confronted GS with a rumour, stating, “everyone here is saying you are banging BB,” referring to a male colleague. Following this meeting, the Grievor withdrew as GS’s supervisor. GS subsequently completed her thesis and graduated in April 2019.
The Investigation
GS filed her formal complaint in August 2019. The University initiated an investigation, which concluded with a final report in March 2022 – about two and a half years later. The process was prolonged by the complexity of the allegations, the large volume of evidence, and multiple rounds of written submissions. The Grievor’s participation was also limited to written responses due to a serious health condition, further contributing to delays. Additionally, concerns raised by the Association about the initial investigator’s role led the University to appoint a second investigator to restart the process, which added further time.
The investigation found that the Grievor’s conduct breached the sexual harassment provisions of the University’s Respectful Work and Learning Environment Policy (the “Policy”) and created a poisoned work and learning environment for GS. It also determined that the Grievor had improperly disclosed confidential information to GS about a previous complaint and investigation against him under the Policy. With respect to the prior discipline, in the fall of 2017, the Grievor was removed from his position as an academic administrator because he was found to have engaged in personal harassment against a female director under his supervision. The Grievor did not dispute this breach of confidentiality.
The University’s Decision and the Grievance
The University accepted the investigation findings and initiated a disciplinary process. The Grievor and his Association representative met with the administration twice, following which, the University decided to dismiss the Grievor from his employment for just cause.
The Association challenged the dismissal, arguing that the Grievor’s conduct did not meet the definition of sexual harassment under the Policy. Alternatively, it contended that termination was an excessive disciplinary response in the circumstances.
The Hearing
The matter proceeded as a hearing de novo, meaning the arbitrator considered the case afresh. The hearing lasted 13 days, with testimony from five witnesses and extensive documentary evidence.
A central issue at the hearing was credibility, as GS and the Grievor provided conflicting accounts of many key incidents. The arbitrator conducted a careful assessment of the reliability of each witness and ultimately found GS to be credible and consistent in her testimony.
In contrast, the arbitrator found that the Grievor’s evidence was undermined by a persistent pattern of minimizing, rationalizing, and de-sexualizing his comments and conduct. This pattern was particularly apparent in the Grievor’s inconsistent explanations regarding the nature of his remarks and actions. The arbitrator concluded that these efforts to downplay the seriousness and sexualized nature of his behaviour significantly undermined the Grievor’s credibility.
The Decision
Arbitrator Reaume found that the Grievor engaged in persistent and escalating sexually- and gender-oriented behaviour towards GS. This included repeated comments about GS’s appearance – such as compliments on her clothing, hairstyle, and attractiveness – as well as remarks with sexual undertones or innuendo. The Grievor also showed inappropriate interest in GS’s personal relationships, making comments about her romantic life and interactions with male colleagues. Despite GS’s clear discomfort and direct requests for the behaviour to stop, the Grievor continued to cross professional boundaries.
Arbitrator Reaume determined that these actions violated the Policy and that the Grievor failed to recognize or address the power imbalance inherent in his supervisory role. The cumulative effect of his conduct created a poisoned work and learning environment for GS, ultimately leading to the breakdown of their educational and professional relationship.
Notably, Arbitrator Reaume provided as follows:
[349] … [T]he Grievor’s failure to establish and maintain proper boundaries with GS in his role as her graduate supervisor is central to this case. The Grievor’s statement that he understands boundaries and the impact of even the appearance of impropriety is not supported by the evidence. Other than having the title “supervisor” he denied that there was a power imbalance between himself and GS. He demonstrated no understanding of gender-based conduct and no willingness to accept GS’s experiences in this regard. He had no appreciation of what it takes for a female graduate student to raise concerns of this nature with a male supervisor or what his responsibilities might be in response. His testimony that they concluded the August meeting agreeing to continue to interact in their “usual straightforward manner” and continue as they had in the past is devoid of any understanding of the need to adjust his own behaviour. Importantly, the Grievor minimized the nature of the conduct that GS was raising with him, by describing his understanding of boundaries in the context of casual compliments like “nice haircut” which belies both the nature and frequency of the comments that were directed at GS. Finally, despite expressing an understanding that even innocent comments can be misconstrued, the Grievor stood by the propriety of admittedly asking GS about her swimsuit in front of one of his male colleagues and telling her that she looked like a movie star. I was not persuaded by this evidence that the Employer can trust that he will not repeat the behaviour that gave rise to GS’s complaint.
In addition, Arbitrator Reaume found that the Grievor’s breach of confidentiality and prior disciplinary history for personal harassment were significant aggravating factors, demonstrating a disregard for the Policy and a pattern of inappropriate conduct.
Given the seriousness and persistence of the misconduct, as well as the Grievor’s failure to learn from previous discipline, Arbitrator Reaume concluded that dismissal was reasonable and not excessive in the circumstances. The grievance was dismissed.
Termination Upheld for TMU Faculty Member Following Findings of Sexual Harassment and Incivility
Toronto Metropolitan Faculty Association v Toronto Metropolitan University, 2025 CanLII 95115 (ON LA) (Mathew; September 13, 2025)
Overview
This decision affirmed the termination of a pre-tenured faculty member (the “Grievor”) at Toronto Metropolitan University for gross misconduct, including sexual harassment and workplace incivility, in relation to a more senior tenured faculty member (“CP”).
The Investigation
The investigation, conducted by an independent third party, exhaustively reviewed over 30 alleged incidents spanning from August 2019 to January 2022. In conclusion, the investigation determined that the Grievor had engaged in a pattern of sexual and gender-based harassment, as well as uncivil conduct, in violation of the University’s Sexual Violence Policy, Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy, and Workplace Civility and Respect Policy (together, the “Policies”).
From August 2019 to September 2019, the Grievor made repeated and invasive comments of a sexual nature to CP, including references to his own sexual habits and intrusive questions about CP’s personal life. For example, the Grievor:
- told CP that growing up he had lots of sex in his family’s apartment.
- told CP that a student had propositioned him for sex, and that he “didn’t fuck her because [he] didn’t want to get fired from [his] job.”
- told CP about a conversation with a graduate student about how “hot” a female colleague was.
- asked CP if she was bisexual and said that he “would like to see [CP] with her girlfriend sometime.”
- asked CP if she and her partner sexted, and told her about how he sexted with his partner.
Up to as late as March 2020, the Grievor also made comments about CP’s body shape and appearance, commenting on her “beautiful eyes,” her “nice shape,” and telling her that “you look great today.”
The investigator found that there was no evidence that CP invited these comments and/or disclosures, nor did she participate in the conversations to a similar extent.
The sexualized and gendered comments stopped around January 2021. However, in the summer of 2021, the Grievor began making comments that disrespected and undermined CP’s authority in her role as Graduate Program Director, including in front of other staff members and external stakeholders. The investigator found that the Grievor communicated with CP in a manner that was disrespectful and lacking in civility.
Ultimately, the investigation found that the Grievor’s conduct was pervasive and severe enough to create a poisoned work environment, and that it had a significant adverse impact on CP’s career and personal well-being.
The University’s Decision and the Grievance
On the basis of the investigation, the University determined that the Grievor had engaged in gross misconduct and concluded that termination on this basis was justified in the circumstances.
The Association challenged the dismissal. It acknowledged the seriousness of sexual harassment but argued that the Grievor’s conduct did not warrant termination. In addition, it argued that the Grievor’s behaviour was less severe than in comparable cases, lacked aggravating factors, and was confined to the early part of the professional relationship. It maintained that a three-month suspension, rather than dismissal, was appropriate in this case.
Post-Termination Conduct
Shortly after his termination, the Grievor sent an email to an external organization comprised of academics in their shared discipline, which included the following opening line: “As some of you may know I am not with TMU any longer. I was caught in the crossfire of department politics; myself and the union are grieving the process.”
Similarly, email communications circulated among colleagues in the department following the Grievor’s termination, entitled “Justice for [the Grievor]; justice for us.” One of the emails from a colleague included the following information: “I don’t mind telling you that I am outraged by the process and the revanchism displayed by the University. He did not face his accuser(s), there was no cross-examination, no witnesses were called, and there is no appeal.”
The arbitrator would later find that these communications showed that the Grievor had misrepresented the circumstances of his dismissal and disclosed confidential details of the investigation.
The Hearing
The parties adopted a trauma-informed litigation approach, agreeing to accept the independent investigator’s report as evidence and forgoing the need for the complainant to testify in detail. This streamlined process focused on minimizing harm and expediting resolution, with both sides collaborating to admit evidence and determine the penalty based on the investigator’s findings.
This approach stands in marked contrast to the one in Brock University v. Brock University Faculty Association, discussed above, where the parties engaged in a traditional, adversarial process with a 13-day hearing de novo, re-litigating all facts through extensive testimony.
During the hearing, the credibility of the Grievor was a central issue. Both the investigator and the arbitrator found the Grievor not credible regarding the most serious allegations. He consistently denied the allegations, accused CP and a corroborating witness of lying, and minimized his conduct. The arbitrator noted that the Grievor attempted to deflect attention from the allegations by referencing departmental tensions and failed to provide a full and honest acknowledgment of wrongdoing. His admissions were vague and lacked specificity, and he continued to dispute the most serious facts even when confronted with corroborating evidence.
The Decision
Because the parties accepted the investigation report as fact, the arbitrator’s role was to determine whether those facts breached the Policies and, if so, whether termination was justified or if mitigating factors warranted a lesser penalty.
Arbitrator Mathew found that the facts did constitute a violation of the Policies and agreed with the University’s assessment that the Grievor’s conduct amounted to gross misconduct, warranting termination. Arbitrator Mathew reiterated that sexual harassment is among the most serious workplace infractions, with discharge being the presumptive penalty unless compelling mitigating circumstances exist.
Aggravating factors in this case included the repeated and invasive nature of the sexually explicit comments, ongoing uncivil conduct, and the Grievor’s dishonesty and combative behaviour during and after the investigation. Notably, the Grievor’s post-termination communications further undermined the University’s process and perpetuated a hostile environment for CP.
Although the Association argued that the Grievor’s acceptance of the investigation report and decision to forego a hearing de novo showed accountability, the arbitrator found this was undermined by his failure to fully acknowledge the most serious and harmful facts. The arbitrator concluded the Grievor did not demonstrate genuine accountability or insight into the harm caused.
While certain aggravating factors present in other cases, such as persistent unwelcome comments after being asked to stop, abuse of power over a student, or inappropriate touching, were absent, the seriousness of the misconduct and lack of genuine acknowledgment outweighed these considerations. The misconduct persisted until intervention, not because the Grievor recognized the harm.
Ultimately, Arbitrator Mathew found no sufficient basis to impose a lesser penalty. The termination was upheld and the grievance was dismissed.
BC Labour Board Upholds Union’s Handling of Sexual Harassment Grievance in UVic Professor’s Dismissal
Robert Gifford, 2025 BCLRB 109 (BCLRB) (May 29, 2025) (original decision)
Overview
This decision concerns a duty of fair representation dispute arising from the termination of a tenured professor at the University of Victoria (the “Applicant”) in June 2024. The termination resulted from an investigation into allegations of sexual harassment involving a female graduate student (“AB”). The Board ultimately dismissed the application, finding that the Union’s decision not to proceed to arbitration was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or made in bad faith.
Background
In late April 2018, the Applicant and AB exchanged emails in connection with a conference they were both attending. In one such email, the Applicant invited AB to share a hotel room with him and suggested the possibility of a sexual encounter:
… I am glad to hear your view about this hotel. This is not so easy for me to talk about. I am staying in Queen Elizabeth Hotel, one of the landmarks in Montreal. As you might have guessed, my idea is for us to share a room, partly of course so we can spend more time together, and partly to save money. This arrangement might require a bit of care in terms of other people who we know at the congress, but that can be managed. And, of course, everything beyond the mere sharing of the room is to be decided on a completely mutual basis, at the time. How does that sound? …
AB responded that she wished to maintain a strictly professional relationship.
AB did not immediately report the conduct. However, she became significantly more concerned about the Applicant’s behaviour only after learning from another individual that the Applicant may have made similar advances towards other women affiliated with the University. It was this new information that prompted AB to come forward in late 2023.
The Investigation and the University’s Decision
The University initiated an investigation after receiving information about the Applicant’s interactions with AB. The investigator concluded that the Applicant’s conduct towards AB was harassment based on a prohibited ground of discrimination, and sexual harassment under the University’s Discrimination and Harassment Policy. The investigator also concluded that the Applicant’s conduct towards AB was sexualized misconduct under the University’s Sexualized Violence Policy. On this basis, the University terminated the Applicant’s employment in June 2024.
Decision Not to Arbitrate
The University Faculty Association subsequently filed a grievance challenging the termination, raising concerns regarding the application of progressive discipline and the adequacy of the investigation. The Union sought a legal opinion, which identified both strengths (including the professor’s lengthy service and potential procedural issues) and weaknesses (such as the risk that the University’s decision would be upheld, evidence of a pattern of behaviour, and concerns about the professor’s effectiveness as a witness). After careful consideration – including input from the Union’s Arbitration and Appeal Committees – the Union decided not to proceed to arbitration, citing limited prospects for success and the need to allocate resources effectively.
The Duty of Fair Representation Hearing
The Applicant alleged that the Union’s decision was arbitrary and constituted a breach of its duty of fair representation. The Board reviewed the Union’s process, including its reliance on legal advice, internal appeals, and communications with the Applicant. The Board found that the Union’s decision was reasoned, informed by relevant workplace considerations, and was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or made in bad faith. The application was dismissed.
Robert Gifford, 2025 BCLRB 156 (BCLRB) (August 7, 2025) (reconsideration decision)
The professor sought reconsideration of the original decision, detailed above, arguing that the Board in that case failed to address flaws in the investigation and the Union’s handling of his case. The Board reiterated that reconsideration is not an opportunity to reargue the case before a different panel. The Board confirmed that its role is not to assess the merits of the grievance, but to ensure the Union’s representation was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. The Board found that the Union had considered all relevant factors, including the uncontested evidence (the emails) and the interests of the bargaining unit, and had provided the professor with opportunities to present his case. The application for reconsideration was dismissed.
Conclusion
The recent decisions discussed in this article underscore the seriousness with which sexual harassment is regarded in the university context and the high standards of conduct expected of faculty members. These cases demonstrate the importance of robust institutional policies, thorough investigations, and fair representation in addressing allegations of misconduct. We will continue to monitor the approach taken to litigating harassment cases to see if the trauma-informed approach adopted in the TMU case becomes the norm.
For more information or assistance with workplace law matters, please contact a member of our team.
This publication 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.