Termination After Harassment Complaint Results In $195,000 OHSA Reprisal Damages

In Braganza v. Randstad Canada, 2026 CanLII 46836 (ON LRB), the Ontario Labour Relations Board (“Board”) awarded more than $195,000 in compensation to a former employee after previously finding that her employment had been terminated in reprisal for filing a workplace harassment complaint, contrary to Section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (“OHSA”).

Section 50 of the OHSA prohibits employers from dismissing, disciplining, intimidating, coercing, or otherwise penalizing workers because they have exercised rights under the legislation, including raising health and safety concerns or participating in workplace harassment and violence processes.

The decision provides an important reminder of the significant financial consequences employers may face when adverse employment actions are connected to an employee’s exercise of statutory workplace rights.

Background

The Applicant was employed by Randstad Canada and was terminated on March 31, 2023, shortly after filing a workplace harassment complaint.

In an earlier liability decision released in October 2025, the Board determined that Randstad Canada had violated Section 50 of the OHSA by terminating the Applicant in response to her filing a workplace harassment complaint. Having found that an unlawful reprisal had occurred, the Board directed that a separate hearing be held to determine the appropriate remedy.

The Applicant did not seek reinstatement and instead requested monetary compensation.

The Remedy Decision

The Board noted that remedies in reprisal cases are particularly important because employees may otherwise be discouraged from exercising their statutory rights out of fear of adverse consequences.

The Board considered three categories of compensation:

1. Compensation for direct wage loss;
2. Compensation for loss of reasonable expectation of continued employment; and
3. Compensation for injury to dignity and mental distress.

Mitigation Efforts

The Applicant had not earned any employment income during the approximately thirty-four months between her termination and the conclusion of the hearing.

The Board accepted evidence that the Applicant had applied for approximately 700 positions and had produced documentation supporting her job search efforts. While the employer argued that some of the positions were outside her qualifications, the Board held that the employer had failed to establish that the Applicant had not taken reasonable steps to mitigate her losses.

As a result, the Board declined to reduce the damages award on the basis of a failure to mitigate.

Delay Arguments Rejected

The employer also argued that compensation should be reduced because of delays in filing the application and delays during the litigation process.

The Board rejected both arguments. It found that the period before the application was filed was reasonably explained by ongoing settlement discussions between counsel. The Board further held that additional time taken by the self-represented Applicant during the hearing process did not justify a reduction in compensation.

Assessing the Length of Lost Income

A significant issue before the Board was determining how long the Applicant would have remained employed had the reprisal not occurred.

The employer argued that substantial restructuring and workforce reductions would have resulted in the Applicant losing her employment well before the conclusion of the hearing. To support this position, the employer relied on evidence regarding layoffs and organizational downsizing.

While the Board accepted that the Applicant likely would have lost her employment when her division was ultimately disbanded in October 2024, it was critical of the employer’s evidence regarding earlier layoff scenarios. In particular, the Board noted concerns regarding the absence of contemporaneous documentation supporting the employer’s decision-making processes and the speculative nature of portions of the evidence presented.

The Board ultimately concluded that the Applicant would probably have remained employed until October 2024 and would then have received an additional three months of compensation in lieu of notice.

Based on those findings, the Board awarded 22 months of lost income compensation totaling $194,333.26.

Mental Distress Damages

The Applicant also sought compensation for injury to dignity and mental distress arising from the reprisal and the circumstances surrounding her termination.

The Board accepted that the events had negatively affected the Applicant’s dignity and professional standing and awarded an additional $1,500 in damages.

In total, the Board awarded the Applicant $195,833.26.

Key Takeaways for Employers

This decision serves as an important reminder that reprisal complaints under the OHSA can expose employers to significant liability.

First, employers should exercise caution whenever disciplinary action, termination, or other adverse employment decisions involve an employee who has recently exercised a statutory workplace right, including filing a workplace harassment complaint. Once a reprisal is established, the Board has broad remedial authority to compensate employees for resulting losses.

Second, the decision highlights the importance of maintaining contemporaneous documentation supporting employment decisions. The Board was critical of the absence of objective records supporting the employer’s performance concerns and restructuring decisions, which undermined its ability to establish that the employee would have been terminated earlier through legitimate business processes.

Finally, employers should recognize that damages in reprisal cases can extend well beyond traditional wrongful dismissal principles. Even where an employee does not seek reinstatement, the Board may award substantial lost-income compensation covering lengthy periods of unemployment, together with additional damages for injury to dignity and mental distress.

Employers should ensure that workplace complaints, investigations, performance management decisions, and termination decisions are carefully documented and supported by objective evidence to minimize the risk of reprisal claims under the OHSA.