The Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) has dismissed a workplace safety reprisal complaint brought by former law clerk against a Toronto-based personal injury law firm.
N.P. alleged that his security fob was deactivated as a reprisal for raising workplace harassment complaints and that this action resulted in his constructive dismissal. The employer, Wendy Sokoloff Professional Corporation, denied the allegations, asserting that the deactivation was an unauthorized action by a maintenance staff member and not tied to the harassment complaints.
Background
N.P. was employed as a law clerk at the firm from May 9, 2023, to Dec. 7, 2023. He alleged that he was harassed by two colleagues and that the employer failed to take his complaints seriously. His allegations included claims that colleagues made derogatory comments about his appearance, refused to assist him, and laughed at him.
The employer acknowledged that complaints were made but contended that it took steps to address them, including speaking with the individuals involved and facilitating meetings to resolve conflicts.
On Dec. 7, 2023, after returning from lunch, N.P. discovered that his security fob no longer granted him access to certain areas of the office, including a corridor leading to the archive room. He alleged that this amounted to a reprisal for his harassment complaints and effectively locked him out of the workplace.
Employer’s position
The law firm maintained that N.P. was never locked out of the office entirely and that he remained at work for the remainder of the day. It also argued that the deactivation of his fob was done unilaterally by a maintenance staff member, R.M., without the knowledge or approval of the firm’s principal, W.S.
Email correspondence submitted as evidence showed that upon learning of the issue, W.S. instructed R.M. to restore N.P.’s access, stating, “I did not know nor was I consulted… you are not locked out at all and your fob works.” R.M. later confirmed that he had acted on his own initiative and reinstated N.P.’s access, stating, “I didn’t ask (W.S.’s) permission and decided to lock it myself.”
N.P. continued to assert that he was constructively dismissed and refused to return to work. The employer maintained that he voluntarily resigned, issuing a Record of Employment reflecting that understanding.
OLRB’s analysis
The Board applied the three-part test under section 50(1) of OHSA to determine whether a reprisal had occurred:
- Did the worker engage in a protected activity?
- The Board found that filing a workplace harassment complaint is a protected activity under OHSA.
- Did the worker suffer an adverse consequence?
- The Board determined that the temporary restriction of access to one door did not constitute an adverse consequence under section 50. N.P. was not entirely locked out, remained at work for the remainder of the day, and had access to other areas of the office.
- Was there a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse consequence?
- The Board found no evidence to support N.P.’s claim that his fob was deactivated as a reprisal for his harassment complaints. The evidence indicated that R.M. acted independently, and W.S. was unaware of the restriction until later that day.
The Board also rejected N.P.’s claim that the fob deactivation amounted to constructive dismissal, stating that such determinations fall outside the scope of OHSA proceedings and should be pursued in civil court.
Conclusion
Given the lack of evidence linking the security fob deactivation to N.P.’s harassment complaints, the Board ruled in favour of the employer and dismissed the application. It reiterated that while OHSA protects workers from reprisals, it does not provide a mechanism to adjudicate workplace harassment complaints or determine wrongful dismissal claims.
For more information, see Nemanja Petrovic v Wendy Sokoloff Professional Corporation, 2025 CanLII 16802 (ON LRB).
