Duty to Investigate Human Rights Code Violations

In the recent decision Rougoor v. Goodlife Fitness Centres Inc., 2024 HRTO 31, the Tribunal clarified employer obligations in handling harassment complaints; particularly those brought by former employees after their employment has ended. The Tribunal concluded that employers are not legally required to investigate complaints filed after an employee’s termination. Additionally, the Tribunal examined the concept of a “poisoned work environment,” distinguishing it from harassment.

The Applicant was briefly employed as a personal trainer by the Respondent. She claimed that shortly after starting her job, she was sexually harassed by a coworker.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant did not report the harassment to the Respondent until six months after her employment had been terminated. Since employers are not vicariously liable for sexual harassment committed by their employees under section 46.3(1) of the Human Rights Code, the Tribunal only had to determine whether Respondent had a duty to investigate the complaint. It ruled that because the complaint was made post-termination, the Respondent was under no obligation to investigate it. An employer has a duty to investigate in order to ensure a complainant is not required to work in a discriminatory environment. The Applicant’s right to be free from discrimination in her workplace could not be infringed by the Respondent’s failure to investigate because she was no longer employed with the Respondent.

A “poisoned work environment” is considered endemic discrimination or harassment in the workplace such that enduring such conditions becomes a term or condition of employment. The Tribunal ultimately concluded that the Applicant’s allegations did not meet the threshold required to establish a poisoned work environment. This was primarily on account of the employer having no knowledge of the harassment until after the Applicant’s employment was terminated.