The Ontario Labour Relations Board has dismissed a constructive dismissal application brought by a former supervisor at Metrolinx — the agency that runs GO Transit, UP Express, and PRESTO — ruling that her departure amounted to a voluntary resignation rather than a termination caused by a toxic work environment.
The decision provides some interesting insights into how communications, performance management and accommodation obligations can be assessed in the context of constructive dismissal claims.
‘Unprofessional’ and ‘degrading’ emails
D.T. worked for Metrolinx from 2008 until late 2022. She advanced from bus driver to supervisor in the West Region, ultimately reporting to D.H., an assistant manager of bus operations, who in turn reported to J.D., manager of bus operations for the region.
D.T. alleged she endured a toxic work environment from September 2021 onward, claiming that numerous emails she received from J.D. were “unprofessional and degrading.” She further asserted that Metrolinx’s delay in investigating her harassment complaint contributed to what she described as her constructive dismissal.
In her submissions, D.T. claimed that J.D. repeatedly told her to “slow down” in a condescending manner beginning in 2021. She pointed to two emails in which the phrase appeared, including a September 2021 exchange about reorganizing the Hamilton office. At that time, J.D. advised her to consult multiple stakeholders before making changes. In another instance, on June 22, 2022, J.D. suggested taking time to review spelling and grammar before sending group emails.
While D.T. perceived these messages as belittling, the board determined the emails did not constitute harassment. It found no evidence that J.D. used the phrase “slow down” in every conversation with D.T.
Harassment allegation
The board addressed D.T.’s claim that a November 2021 exchange, centred on a driver missing a sign-up deadline, demonstrated harassment. J.D. had denied an exception for the driver and reminded D.T. about Metrolinx’s established policies, urging her to consider possible repercussions for making special allowances. D.T. considered his response “harsh,” but the board concluded that J.D.’s tone did not rise to workplace harassment.
Similarly, the board examined a December 2021 email conversation in which D.T. initially reported a driver as having been “electrocuted” on a bus. J.D. responded with concerns about accuracy, noting that no employee should be presumed injured on the job without confirmation. Their follow-up messages touched on the importance of verifying safety incidents. D.T. later acknowledged that her wording could have been more precise. The board found nothing in that exchange to support a harassment claim.
Performance management
D.T. also raised issues related to performance management measures issued by D.H. These included a Record of Conversation in May 2022 for wearing incorrect footwear and an untucked shirt, as well as a Letter of Warning later that month concerning administrative procedures.
While D.T. attributed these actions to an alleged campaign by J.D., the board accepted evidence that J.D. was not directly involved in imposing those measures. D.H. had independently decided to address these concerns. The board noted that a Record of Conversation is not disciplinary at Metrolinx and that the Letter of Warning covered valid procedural issues, ultimately finding no harassment.
Performance Improvement Plan (PIP)
Another point of contention was an October 2022 Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) that D.T. claimed was retaliation for her workplace harassment complaint and for questioning management on idling times for vehicles. The board found that the PIP had been drafted before the contested email exchange took place, originated with D.H. and was intended to address recurring errors in D.T.’s communications. It concluded that the PIP was not an act of harassment but a formalized approach to performance management.
Throughout the dispute, D.T. raised concerns about her anxiety, asserting that Metrolinx failed to accommodate her condition. The board accepted evidence that D.T. had informed J.D. in 2019 about a medication requirement. However, the board also noted that she never made a formal accommodation request, nor did any manager or department receive sufficient information to trigger a duty to inquire. D.T. was aware of Metrolinx’s Health & Welfare processes for accommodation but did not pursue them. A physician’s note mentioning “situational stress/anxiety” arose only after her last day of work in November 2022.
In her harassment complaints — one informal to A.G. (senior manager) in mid-2022 and one formal to M.W. (the investigator) in September 2022 — D.T. cited J.D.’s emails and alleged that the pace of the investigations exacerbated her situation. She maintained that the delays led her to feel forced out. The board, however, found that the communications in question fell within the scope of standard supervisory responsibilities. It also determined that the employer’s timing in handling both the informal and the formal complaints did not constitute a fundamental breach of D.T.’s employment contract.
New job at Oakville Transit
After accepting a job offer from Oakville Transit in late November 2022, D.T. began work there on December 5, 2022. That same day, she asserted she had been constructively dismissed by Metrolinx. The board rejected that claim, concluding that she resigned to take a new position. It noted that constructive dismissal requires proof of an employer’s conduct that makes continued employment untenable, a threshold it found was not met.
Quoting from the decision, the tribunal stated it was “satisfied that none of the alleged communications” rose to the level of workplace harassment and that “the pace of both the informal and the formal harassment investigations was not conduct that constituted a fundamental breach” of the employment contract. As a result, the refusal by an Employment Standards Officer to issue an order for termination pay or severance pay was upheld, and D.T.’s application was dismissed.
Over the course of its review, the board cited case law confirming that not every rude or abrupt managerial email amounts to harassment. Similarly, it reiterated the principle that employers have “some latitude to manage their operations and workforce,” including legitimate performance management, even if delivered in a firm or direct manner.
In the end, the board ruled that Metrolinx had not constructively dismissed D.T. and bore no liability for termination or severance pay under the Employment Standards Act, 2000. The decision underscores the fact-specific nature of constructive dismissal claims, especially where allegations of harassment involve ordinary supervisory interactions and performance management.
For more information, see Deborah Tucker v Metrolinx, 2024 CanLII 136278 (ON LRB).
