EMPLOYERS NOT LIABLE FOR EMPLOYEE’S MENTAL DISTRESS ARISING IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT

July 16, 2010

A recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal clarifies the law concerning employer liability for workplace-induced mental distress. The Court’s ruling confirms that employers do not have a duty of care to shield employees throughout their employment from mental distress; simply, there is no action against an employer for negligent infliction of mental suffering in an employment context. The Court affirmed that employers may be held liable for mental distress caused by a bad faith constructive dismissal and for the intentional infliction of mental suffering.

Background

The matter arose out of a series of interactions between a Supervisor and an employee at Bell Mobility Inc.

The employee had worked as an Account Manager at Bell Mobility for nearly 10 years. Her Supervisor was “critical, demanding, loud and aggressive”.  In the final incident, the Supervisor yelled and swore at the employee for failing to arrange a meeting with a client.  In an attempt to explain herself, the employee approached her Supervisor and asked him to read an email on her Blackberry. The Supervisor refused, shoving the employee backwards approximately a foot. She subsequently took a several vacation days, and lodged a formal complaint with Bell. Soon after, she provided a certificate from her doctor stating that she required “stress leave due to anxiety.” The employee was later diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, major depression and anxiety, and was deemed by her physician to be totally disabled from work.

She did not return to work, and commenced litigation against both Bell and the supervisor.

Trial

At trial, Bell was held vicariously liable for the Supervisor’s battery, as well as the torts of intentional infliction of mental suffering and negligent infliction of mental suffering. Damages of over $500,000 were awarded. Further, the employee was also held to have been constructively dismissed.

Appeal

The Court of Appeal unanimously agreed with the trial judge’s findings of liability for battery and constructive dismissal. However, the Court held that the employer could not be liable under the tort of negligent infliction of mental suffering. To be liable in negligence, the law requires that a duty of care be owed; the Court found no duty of care owing between an employer and employee in regards to mental distress. Justice Juriansz asserted that allowing a claim of negligence in this context would represent a “radical” and “undue shift” in the law. Moreover, he emphasized that a framework for compensating employees inflicted with mental distress already existed; that is, where an employee is sufficiently aggrieved, they may have the right to claim that they have been ‘constructively dismissed’ and have damages awarded for any mental distress suffered as a consequence of that dismissal.

The Court of Appeal further reversed the trial court’s finding of liability for intentional infliction of mental suffering, holding that neither the supervisor’s nor the employer’s conduct was calculated to produce harm.

If you require assistance in addressing complaints or claims regarding workplace conduct, please contact our Labour and Employment Department.

To review the entire decision click here.