Skip to content

Brought to you by

Dentons logo in black and white

Dentons Canadian Occupational Health & Safety Law

Keeping you current on OHS Laws and Developments in Canada.

open menu close menu

Dentons Canadian Occupational Health & Safety Law

  • Home
  • About Us

Constructively Dismissed Due to Workplace Mental Distress? You May Need to Go to the WSIB, not Courts

By Adrian Miedema
February 29, 2020
  • Caselaw Developments
  • Safety Professionals - Practice Issues
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn

The Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal has ordered that an employee’s constructive dismissal lawsuit was barred because it was based on workplace mental distress, which was a matter for the WSIB and not the courts.

The employee worked in housekeeping in a hotel.  She resigned from her job. She then started a constructive dismissal lawsuit in the courts.  In the lawsuit, she claimed that she was forced to resign from her job due to harassment, bullying and abuse and the resulting mental distress.  She also claimed that the lawsuit “relates to the harassment and bullying that [she] experienced as a result of a toxic work environment created by [the employer’s] employees and management and her subsequent constructive dismissal.”  In particular, the employee claimed that housekeeping employees sprayed the employee with Lysol claiming that she “smelled”; that employees continued to complain that she smelled; and that the housekeeping manager asked her if she showered every day and washed her uniform.

The employer asked the WSIAT to order that the employee’s right to sue for constructive dismissal was taken away by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act. That Act provides for WSIB benefits for employees who are injured at work, including employees who have experienced “chronic or traumatic mental stress arising out of and in the course of the worker’s employment”. As such, the employer argued that the employee’s lawsuit was barred because it was based on workplace mental distress which was a matter for the WSIB and not the courts. The employer relied on subsection 28(1) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act which provides that “A worker employed by a Schedule 1 employer . . . [is] not entitled to commence an action” in the courts against the worker’s employer or any other Schedule 1 employer under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act for any workplace injury.

The WSIAT decided that the employee’s constructive dismissal lawsuit was essentially a claim for “personal injury” arising from a “work accident” consisting of alleged harassment and the employer’s failure to stop it.  As such, her claim fell within the jurisdiction of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act and thus her constructive dismissal lawsuit was prohibited.

This case illustrates the historic “trade-off” in workers’ compensation legislation: employees get access to “no-fault” workers’ compensation benefits from the provincial workers’ compensation board if injured at work, but are barred from suing their employer in the courts in relation to such an injury. Given the addition in 2018 of mental stress to the types of workplace injuries for which the WSIB may pay an employee benefits, employers and employees should be aware that court lawsuits – even some constructive dismissal lawsuits – relating to workplace mental stress may now be barred by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, but only if the employer raises the issue.

The WSIAT’s decision may be accessed here: Decision No. 1227/19, 2019 ONWSIAT 2324 (CanLII)

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn
Subscribe and stay updated
Receive our latest blog posts by email.
Stay in Touch
Adrian Miedema

About Adrian Miedema

Adrian is a partner in the Toronto Employment group of Dentons Canada LLP. He advises and represents public- and private-sector employers in employment, health and safety and human rights matters. He appears before employment tribunals and all levels of the Ontario courts on behalf of employers. He also advises employers on strategic and risk management considerations in employment policy and contracts.

All posts Full bio

RELATED POSTS

  • Caselaw Developments
  • Prosecutions / Charges
  • Safety - Risk Management

Ontario man fined $6,000 for illegal use of “professional engineer” title when seeking job

An Ontario man has been found guilty of three counts of violating the Professional Engineers Act by using the protected […]

By Adrian Miedema
  • Caselaw Developments
  • Violence and Harassment

Arbitrator finds employer violated OHSA workplace-violence obligations

By Adrian Miedema
  • Caselaw Developments
  • Prosecutions / Charges
  • Safety - Risk Management
  • Safety Professionals - Practice Issues

Should Appeals of Safety Compliance Orders be Stayed While Charges are Outstanding?

A recent Ontario Labour Relations Board decision suggests that employers’ appeals of Ministry of Labour compliance orders should not proceed […]

By Adrian Miedema

About Dentons

Redefining possibilities. Together, everywhere. For more information visit dentons.com

Grow, Protect, Operate, Finance. Dentons, the law firm of the future is here. Copyright 2023 Dentons. Dentons is a global legal practice providing client services worldwide through its member firms and affiliates. Please see dentons.com for Legal notices.

Categories

  • Amendments to Safety Laws
  • Caselaw Developments
  • COVID-19
  • General
  • Government Safety Investigations
  • International Standards
  • Occupational Health and Safety
  • Other Safety Developments
  • Prosecutions / Charges
  • Safety – Risk Management
  • Safety Professionals – Practice Issues
  • Violence and Harassment

Subscribe and stay updated

Receive our latest blog posts by email.

Stay in Touch

Dentons logo in black and white

© 2025 Dentons

  • Legal notices
  • Privacy policy
  • Terms of use
  • Cookies on this site