B.C. Court Approves $4.5M Workplace Harassment Settlement: What Canadian Employers Should Learn

A B.C. court has approved a $4.5-million workplace harassment class-action settlement. The case is a timely reminder that a written policy is only the beginning. Here are the practical lessons Canadian employers — particularly federally regulated employers — should take from it.

Introduction

B.C. Court Approves $4.5M Workplace Harassment Settlement: What Canadian Employers Should Learn

A workplace harassment policy sitting in an employee handbook is not, by itself, a workplace harassment prevention system.

That is the most important employer lesson to take from a major Canadian workplace case that reached a significant milestone in August 2026.

On August 10, 2026, the Supreme Court of British Columbia approved a $4.5-million settlement in the long-running Lewis v. WestJet Airlines Ltd. class action. The Supreme Court of British Columbia's official recent-judgments listing identifies the decision as Lewis v. WestJet Airlines Ltd., 2026 BCSC 1547, dated August 10, 2026. The settlement resolves disputed claims involving current and former female flight attendants. Importantly, the settlement does not amount to an admission of liability or wrongdoing, and the underlying allegations were not determined at trial.

For employers, the value of this development is not in speculating about the allegations or assigning blame.

The better question is:

If an employee needed to use your workplace harassment policy tomorrow, would the system behind the policy actually work?

Would the employee know where to report?

Would there be an alternative reporting route if the normal recipient were involved?

Would the employer respond promptly?

Would the people receiving complaints know what to do?

Would an appropriate investigation be available?

Would privacy be protected?

Would patterns and workplace risk factors be examined?

Would the employer have records showing that the process actually occurred?

Those are the questions that turn a policy from words on a page into an operational workplace system.

For federally regulated Canadian employers, they are also closely connected to detailed obligations under the Canada Labour Code and the Work Place Harassment and Violence Prevention Regulations.

The Short Answer for Employers

What should Canadian employers learn from the $4.5-million harassment settlement?

Four things stand out:

A written policy is only the starting point. Reporting, risk assessment, training, response, investigations, privacy, support, documentation and review all matter.
Employers must first identify the correct jurisdiction. An employer operating in British Columbia is not automatically governed by B.C. employment and occupational health and safety rules. Airlines and many other businesses are federally regulated.
Reporting systems need to work in real life. Employees must know how to raise an occurrence, and the people receiving reports need a defined process for responding.
Employers should test whether their harassment prevention system actually works. A polished policy that employees do not understand, cannot access or do not trust is very different from an implemented prevention program.

For federally regulated employers, the current federal framework expressly addresses workplace assessment, prevention measures, policy content, emergency procedures, training, reporting, resolution, investigation, recordkeeping and annual reporting.

Sources

What Happened in the $4.5-Million Workplace Harassment Case?

The Supreme Court of British Columbia approved the settlement on August 10, 2026, in Lewis v. WestJet Airlines Ltd., 2026 BCSC 1547.

The litigation involved allegations concerning workplace harassment and an alleged failure to live up to anti-harassment commitments made to employees.

The settlement is significant in monetary terms, but an especially interesting feature for employers is its focus on the workplace system itself.

Publicly reported settlement terms include an independent workplace assessment examining issues such as the prevalence of harassment, possible underreporting and the effectiveness of reporting and response systems.

That gives employers an important concept to think about:

Compliance cannot be measured only by asking whether a policy exists.

Employers also need to ask whether the workplace environment, reporting channels and response mechanisms function as intended.

Important legal caution

This settlement should not be described as a court finding that the employer committed harassment.

It should also not be described as a $4.5-million regulatory fine for violating the current federal Work Place Harassment and Violence Prevention Regulations.

The claims were disputed, the matter settled without a trial determination of the underlying allegations, and the settlement does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing.

That distinction is important for accurate employer education.

Why Is a B.C. Court Case Relevant to Federal Workplace Harassment Law?

This is one of the most important points for employers — and one that can easily be missed.

The case was heard in British Columbia.

But airlines and air transportation are generally within federal labour jurisdiction.

The Government of Canada identifies air transportation, including airlines, airports, aerodromes and aircraft operations, among the industries governed by the Canada Labour Code.

So an employer should never select a workplace harassment policy simply because its office is physically located in Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta or another province.

The first question should be:

Is this workplace federally or provincially regulated?

That determines which legal framework the employer should examine.

Other federally regulated industries and workplaces include areas such as banking, telecommunications, interprovincial and international transportation, certain First Nations activities and many federal Crown corporations.

A provincially regulated restaurant in Vancouver and a federally regulated airline operating from Vancouver may therefore have different workplace harassment requirements.

Jurisdiction comes before template selection.

Another Important Distinction: This Case Is Not a Judgment Applying the Current 2021 Federal Regulations

The current federal Work Place Harassment and Violence Prevention Regulations came into force on January 1, 2021.

The litigation behind the 2026 settlement began years earlier.

Employers should therefore avoid saying:

“This employer was fined $4.5 million under the current federal harassment regulations.”

That would be inaccurate.

The better employer lesson is this:

The settlement creates a timely reason to examine whether today's workplace harassment and violence prevention system is actually functioning as required.

That is the purpose of this guide.

Sources

https://www.worksafebc.com/en/health-safety

What Does “Harassment and Violence” Mean Under Federal Law?

The Canada Labour Code uses a broad definition.

Under Part II of the Code, the definition covers any action, conduct or comment — including conduct of a sexual nature — that can reasonably be expected to cause offence, humiliation or other physical or psychological injury or illness to an employee. It also includes any prescribed action, conduct or comment.

The federal framework can therefore reach much more than obvious physical violence.

Government guidance gives examples that can include:

aggressive or threatening behaviour;
verbal abuse;
physical assault;
malicious rumours;
social exclusion;
persistent belittling or undermining;
abuse of authority;
inappropriate online communications;
sexual comments or conduct;
sexual touching;
certain forms of cyber harassment; and
domestic violence where it becomes a workplace hazard.

At the same time, not every difficult workplace interaction is harassment.

Reasonable supervision, performance management, constructive feedback, work assignment and legitimate disciplinary measures do not automatically become harassment merely because an employee finds them unpleasant. Context matters.

A Policy Is Not the Same Thing as a Prevention System

This is where many employers make a practical mistake.

Imagine two employers.

Employer A

Employer A has a beautifully written 15-page harassment policy.

But:

nobody remembers receiving it;
managers do not know who receives complaints;
the designated contact has never been trained;
there is no current workplace risk assessment;
nobody knows what happens after a complaint;
complaint records are scattered across email inboxes;
employees fear reporting to their direct manager; and
the policy has not been reviewed for years.

Employer B

Employer B also has a written policy.

But it has additionally:

identified its workplace risk factors;
designated a reporting recipient;
created an alternative reporting route;
trained employees;
trained the people receiving occurrences;
established response procedures;
defined privacy controls;
identified employee support resources;
built an investigation process;
established document retention practices;
created compliance reminders; and
periodically reviews whether the system works.

Those employers may possess similar-looking PDFs.

They do not have similar harassment prevention systems.

The federal Regulations make this distinction especially clear because their requirements extend far beyond simply creating a policy document.

Federal Workplace Harassment Requirements: The Employer Checklist

For federally regulated employers, the current framework includes several interconnected duties.

Here is the practical picture.

Area	What the federal framework requires	What employers should verify
Workplace assessment	Employer and applicable partner jointly assess harassment and violence risks	Is the assessment current and workplace-specific?
Risk factors	Consider workplace culture, conditions, activities, organizational structure, records, physical design and other factors	Have actual workplace risks been documented?
Preventive measures	Develop and implement measures addressing identified risks	Did the assessment result in action?
Prevention policy	Jointly develop a workplace harassment and violence prevention policy	Does the policy contain all prescribed elements?
Designated recipient	Designate a person or work unit to receive notices	Do employees know who this is?
Reporting	Principal parties and witnesses may provide notice orally or in writing	Are reporting routes practical and accessible?
Initial response	Contact the principal party within 7 days	Can HR reliably meet this timeline?
Resolution efforts	Reasonable efforts toward negotiated resolution must begin within 45 days	Does the employer have a workflow and owner?
Investigation	If unresolved, an investigation must be carried out if the principal party requests one, subject to the Regulations	Is there a qualified-investigator process?
Training	Employees, employer and designated recipient have training obligations	Are training dates documented?
Emergency procedures	Procedures required for immediate danger or threats of immediate danger	Can employees access them quickly?
Support measures	Information about available medical, psychological or other support services	Is current support information available?
Privacy	Policy must explain how privacy will be protected	Are files and communications appropriately restricted?
Status updates	Monthly updates are required during an active resolution process	Is somebody responsible for sending them?
Completion	Resolution process generally must be completed within one year, subject to specified exceptions	Are cases actively tracked?
Records	Specified records must be maintained; several categories have a 10-year retention rule	Is retention controlled and auditable?
Annual reporting	Federal employers have annual Labour Program reporting obligations	Is March 1 in the compliance calendar?
Policy review	Policy must be jointly reviewed at least every 3 years and following changes to an element	Is the next review date recorded?

These requirements come from the Canada Labour Code and the Work Place Harassment and Violence Prevention Regulations.

Sources

10 Lessons Canadian Employers Should Take From This Case

1. Confirm Your Legal Jurisdiction Before You Download a Policy

This is lesson number one because every other step depends on it.

A business operating in British Columbia does not necessarily follow British Columbia's workplace harassment framework.

A business operating in Ontario does not necessarily follow Ontario's framework.

Federal jurisdiction can apply because of the nature of the employer's business.

Air transportation is one example. Banking and telecommunications are others.

Before adopting a policy, ask:

Are we federally regulated or provincially/territorially regulated?

Only then choose the appropriate template and implementation process.

2. Do Not Treat the Policy as the Finished Product

A policy is important.

But the federal Regulations separately deal with:

workplace assessment;
risk factors;
preventive measures;
emergency procedures;
training;
support measures;
reporting;
resolution;
investigation;
recordkeeping; and
reporting to the Labour Program.

That tells employers something important.

The system matters as much as the document.

Downloading a template and changing the company name is not implementation.

3. Reporting Routes Must Work When the Problem Is Uncomfortable

A reporting route is easy to design when imagining a simple complaint between two coworkers.

The system becomes more important when the allegation involves:

a supervisor;
a senior executive;
the employer;
a member of HR;
someone normally responsible for receiving complaints; or
a person with significant influence over the employee's career.

Under the federal Regulations, an employer must designate a person or work unit as the designated recipient.

A principal party or witness may generally provide notice orally or in writing to the employer or designated recipient. Where the employer is the principal or responding party, notice must go to the designated recipient.

A strong reporting system therefore answers:

Who can employees contact when the obvious person is part of the problem?

4. Response Speed Should Be Built Into the Process

Policies often contain phrases such as:

“The company will respond promptly.”

That is not enough for federal employers.

The Regulations provide concrete procedural timelines.

After receiving notice of an occurrence, the employer or designated recipient generally has seven days to contact the principal party and provide prescribed information about the process.

Reasonable efforts toward negotiated resolution must begin no later than 45 days after notice is provided.

The resolution process generally must be completed within one year, subject to the temporary-absence rule contained in the Regulations.

Employers should therefore build calendar controls around the complaint process.

Do not rely on somebody remembering.

5. Investigation Procedures Should Exist Before an Investigation Is Needed

The worst time to design an investigation process is after a serious allegation arrives.

Under the federal Regulations, if an occurrence is not resolved through the prescribed earlier stages, an investigation must be carried out if the principal party requests one, subject to the Regulations.

The investigator must meet prescribed qualification requirements, including training in investigative techniques and relevant knowledge, training and experience relating to workplace harassment and violence. The investigator must also provide a written conflict-of-interest statement.

The investigator's report must address:

a general description of the occurrence;
conclusions, including workplace circumstances contributing to the occurrence; and
recommendations aimed at eliminating or minimizing the risk of similar occurrences.

The report must not directly or indirectly reveal the identities of people involved in the occurrence or resolution process.

That is much more structured than simply telling a manager to “look into it.”

6. Look for Underreporting, Not Just Reported Complaints

One of the most useful employer questions raised by the 2026 settlement is whether the absence of complaints necessarily means the absence of a problem.

It does not.

A workplace can have low reporting because:

employees genuinely experience few problems;
employees do not recognize conduct as reportable;
employees do not know where to report;
employees believe reporting will achieve nothing;
employees fear retaliation or career consequences;
employees distrust confidentiality;
the reporting route involves someone in the employee's management chain; or
earlier workplace experiences have discouraged reporting.

For federal employers, the workplace assessment is particularly important here.

The Regulations require consideration of factors including workplace culture, conditions, activities and organizational structure, relevant reports and data, physical design, external circumstances and measures protecting psychological health and safety.

So employers should not limit risk monitoring to:

“How many formal complaints did we receive?”

A better question is:

“What is the available evidence telling us about risk in this workplace?”

7. Training Must Connect to the Actual Workplace

Generic harassment training may create awareness.

But federal training requirements go further.

Training must be specific to the culture, conditions and activities of the workplace, and it must address the policy, the relationship between harassment and violence and prohibited grounds of discrimination, and how to recognize, minimize, prevent and respond to harassment and violence.

Employees must generally receive required training within three months after employment begins and at least every three years thereafter, along with certain additional training following updates or new increased-risk activities or roles.

The designated recipient must be trained before taking on the role and at least every three years after that.

Training therefore should not be treated as a one-time onboarding video that disappears into a learning management system.

8. Privacy Must Be Designed Into the System

Confidentiality promises are easy to make.

Implementing appropriate privacy controls requires more thought.

The federal policy must describe how the employer will protect the privacy of persons involved in an occurrence or resolution process.

Employers should consider practical questions such as:

Who can access occurrence files?
Where are interview notes stored?
Who receives investigation reports?
What information goes into an employee's general personnel file?
How are emails concerning investigations handled?
Who may discuss the matter internally?
How are documents retained?
What happens when an executive asks HR for details they do not need?

A statement saying “all complaints will remain confidential” may also be too absolute.

Some information may need to be disclosed for procedural fairness, investigation, safety, legal or regulatory reasons.

A better policy explains how privacy will be protected while recognizing that necessary disclosure may sometimes occur.

9. Documentation Is Part of the Compliance System

Imagine an employer saying:

“We handled the complaint properly.”

The next question is:

Can the employer demonstrate that?

The federal Regulations require employers to maintain several categories of workplace harassment and violence records, including records of notices and actions taken, investigator reports and annual reports.

Specified records under section 35(1)(c) through (i) must be kept for 10 years.

Good records can help an organization:

track deadlines;
identify repeated risk factors;
demonstrate training;
identify systemic trends;
support workplace assessments;
prepare annual reporting;
show what actions were taken; and
improve the prevention system over time.

Documentation should never replace action.

But action without reliable documentation can create its own problems.

10. Review Whether the System Works — Not Just Whether the Policy Is Current

For federally regulated employers, the prevention policy must be jointly reviewed and, where necessary, updated at least once every three years and following any change to an element of the policy.

The workplace assessment also has ongoing monitoring requirements and a three-year review cycle, with additional review requirements in certain circumstances.

This is an important distinction from some provincial regimes.

For example, employers should not copy an Ontario annual-review statement into a federal policy without checking the federal requirements.

Every jurisdiction has its own framework.

That is why jurisdiction-specific workplace policies matter.

Sources

What Must Be Included in a Federal Workplace Harassment and Violence Prevention Policy?

Section 10 of the federal Regulations is unusually specific.

The policy must address matters including:

the employer's prevention and protection mission statement;
roles of the employer, designated recipient, employees and applicable health and safety bodies or representatives;
internal and external workplace risk factors;
training;
the resolution process;
the identity of the designated recipient;
how a principal party or witness can provide notice;
circumstances requiring workplace assessment review;
emergency procedures;
privacy protections;
additional recourse available;
employee support measures; and
the person designated to receive certain complaints under the Canada Labour Code.

The policy must also be made available to employees.

A generic two-page “we prohibit harassment” document is unlikely to perform the same function.

Sources

Free Federal Workplace Harassment and Violence Prevention Policy Template

If your organization is federally regulated, Canada Policy Manual provides a detailed Workplace Harassment and Violence Prevention Policy Template for Federally Regulated Workplaces.

Download the Free Federal Workplace Harassment and Violence Prevention Policy Template

The template is designed as a detailed drafting resource for federally regulated Canadian employers. It should be customized to the workplace, and employers still need to complete required workplace-specific assessment, consultation, training and implementation steps.

Not federally regulated?

Do not use the federal template simply because it appears more detailed.

Choose the policy that corresponds to the legal jurisdiction governing your workplace.

Browse Workplace Harassment Policy Templates by Canadian Jurisdiction

Canada Policy Manual provides separate workplace harassment policy resources for federally regulated employers and Canadian provinces and territories outside Quebec because requirements differ substantially by jurisdiction.

Sources

A 15-Minute Workplace Harassment System Self-Check

Employers can use the following questions as a quick internal review.

This is not a legal compliance determination. It is a practical way to identify areas deserving closer attention.

Jurisdiction

Have we confirmed whether our workplace is federally, provincially or territorially regulated?

Policy

Do we have the correct jurisdiction-specific workplace harassment policy?
Is the policy readily available to workers?
Have all required workplace-specific names, reporting routes and procedures actually been completed?

Prevention

Have we completed the required workplace assessment?
Have we identified actual workplace-specific harassment and violence risk factors?
Have preventive measures been developed and implemented?

Reporting

Do workers know exactly where an occurrence can be reported?
Is there a safe alternative route when the normal contact is involved?

Response

Does the person receiving reports know what must happen immediately?
Are regulatory timelines tracked?

Investigation

Do we know how a qualified investigator would be selected?
Do we have a process for dealing with conflicts of interest?

People

Are employees, the employer and designated recipient current on required training?

Privacy and support

Are occurrence records access-controlled?
Do employees know what support services are available?

Monitoring

Do we have scheduled policy, assessment and training reviews?
Are annual federal reporting deadlines on our compliance calendar, where applicable?

If several of those answers are “no” or “not sure,” the problem may not be the wording of the policy.

The problem may be implementation.

Sources

Federal Employers: Do Not Miss the March 1 Reporting Requirement

Federally regulated employers also have annual reporting obligations.

The Regulations require an annual report to the Head of Compliance and Enforcement on or before March 1 containing prescribed aggregated information concerning occurrences in the previous calendar year.

Government of Canada guidance states that federally regulated employers must submit the required annual reports by March 1 even where there are no occurrences to report.

This deadline should be built into the employer's recurring compliance calendar rather than rediscovered each February.

Sources

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/l-2/index.html

What Should an Employer Do After Receiving a Harassment Notice?

For a federally regulated workplace, a simplified high-level workflow looks like this:

Step 1 — Receive the notice

A principal party or witness may generally provide notice orally or in writing to the employer or designated recipient.

Step 2 — Conduct the initial review

Every notice must receive an initial review.

Step 3 — Contact the principal party

The employer or designated recipient generally has seven days after receiving notice to contact the principal party and provide the information required by section 20.

Step 4 — Begin resolution efforts

Reasonable efforts toward negotiated resolution must begin no later than 45 days after notice is provided.

Step 5 — Consider conciliation

Conciliation may be available if the principal and responding parties agree both to conciliation and to the person facilitating it.

Step 6 — Investigate where required

If the occurrence remains unresolved, an investigation must be carried out if the principal party requests one, subject to the Regulations.

Step 7 — Implement applicable recommendations

Following an investigation, recommendations selected through the process prescribed by the Regulations must be implemented.

Step 8 — Keep the parties updated

Monthly status updates are required during the resolution process.

Step 9 — Track completion

The resolution process generally must be completed within one year, subject to the specified temporary-absence exception.

Step 10 — Maintain required records

The employer must retain the prescribed records and incorporate the necessary information into federal reporting.

This is why an employer needs more than an anti-harassment statement.

It needs a workflow.

Sources

The Bigger Lesson: Test the System Before a Serious Complaint Tests It for You

There is a simple exercise every employer can perform.

Ask a manager:

“An employee has just told you that a senior leader has been harassing them. What happens next?”

Then listen.

If the answer is:

“I think I send them to HR…”

the system may need work.

Ask HR:

“Who is our designated recipient?”

Ask:

“When was that person last trained?”

Ask:

“Where is the workplace assessment?”

Ask:

“When is our next policy review?”

Ask:

“How would we select an investigator tomorrow?”

Ask:

“Who is monitoring the seven-day, 45-day and one-year federal timelines?”

Ask:

“Where are our occurrence records stored?”

Ask:

“Who prepares our March 1 annual reporting?”

An employer should ideally know those answers before an occurrence arises.

That is what implementation looks like.

Workplace Harassment Policies Should Protect People — and Create a Process Employers Can Actually Follow

There can be a temptation to write workplace policies using sweeping promises.

Statements such as:

“We guarantee a harassment-free workplace.”

may sound strong.

But good policy drafting should focus not only on strong values, but also on clear responsibilities and realistic processes that the organization is prepared to implement.

A useful policy should tell people:

what conduct is addressed;
what their responsibilities are;
where concerns can be reported;
what happens after notice;
how privacy is handled;
what support exists;
what resolution mechanisms are available; and
how prevention measures are maintained.

The policy should then be supported by actual workplace practices.

That combination is stronger than either piece standing alone.

Frequently Asked Questions

What happened in the 2026 workplace harassment settlement? On August 10, 2026, the Supreme Court of British Columbia approved a $4.5-million settlement in Lewis v. WestJet Airlines Ltd., 2026 BCSC 1547, a workplace harassment-related class action involving current and former female flight attendants. The settlement resolves disputed claims and does not constitute an admission of liability or wrongdoing.

Was the employer found guilty of workplace harassment? No. Employers should not describe the settlement as a finding of guilt or a trial judgment establishing the allegations. The claims were disputed and the settlement does not constitute an admission of liability or wrongdoing.

Was the $4.5 million a fine under Canada's federal harassment regulations? No. The settlement should not be characterized as a regulatory fine under the Work Place Harassment and Violence Prevention Regulations. The litigation began years before the current federal regime came into force.

Why does federal law matter if the case was heard in British Columbia? Because labour jurisdiction and court location are different questions. Air transportation, including airlines, is among the industries governed by the Canada Labour Code.

Does every Canadian employer need a federal workplace harassment policy? No. The federal framework applies to federally regulated workplaces. Most employers are regulated provincially or territorially and should follow the requirements that apply in their own jurisdiction.

How often must a federal workplace harassment and violence prevention policy be reviewed? The employer and applicable partner must jointly review and, where necessary, update the policy at least once every three years, and following any change to an element of the policy.

Does a federal employer need a workplace assessment as well as a policy? Yes. The federal Regulations require the employer and applicable partner to jointly carry out a workplace assessment involving identification of risk factors and development and implementation of preventive measures.

How quickly must a federal employer respond after receiving notice of an occurrence? The employer or designated recipient generally must contact the principal party within seven days after notice is provided. Reasonable efforts toward negotiated resolution must begin no later than 45 days after notice.

Must every federal harassment complaint automatically lead to a formal investigation? Not necessarily. The Regulations provide a resolution process that can involve negotiated resolution and conciliation. If an occurrence remains unresolved under those mechanisms, an investigation must be carried out if the principal party requests one, subject to the Regulations.

Can a witness report workplace harassment anonymously? Under the federal Regulations, a witness may provide notice anonymously. However, following the initial review, an occurrence is deemed resolved if the notice does not identify the principal party or otherwise allow the principal party's identity to be determined.

Do federal employers need to provide status updates during a harassment process? Yes. The Regulations require monthly status updates to the principal party and, after the responding party has been contacted, to the responding party until the resolution process is completed.

How long does a federal employer have to complete the resolution process? The resolution process generally must be completed within one year after notice is provided, subject to an extension mechanism where a principal or responding party is temporarily absent from work for more than 90 consecutive days.

How often must employees receive federal harassment and violence prevention training? Employees must generally receive training within three months of starting employment and at least once every three years afterwards. Additional training may be required following updates or assignment to certain new activities or roles involving increased or specific risk.

Does the designated recipient need special training? Yes. The designated recipient must receive the required training before assuming the role and at least once every three years thereafter.

How long must federal workplace harassment records be retained? The Regulations identify a range of required records. Records specified in section 35(1)(c) through (i), including occurrence-response records and investigator reports, must be retained for 10 years.

Do federally regulated employers have to report harassment occurrences to the government every year? Federally regulated employers have annual Labour Program reporting obligations. Reports are due by March 1 for the previous calendar year, and Government of Canada guidance states that the required reports must be submitted even where there were no occurrences to report.

Where can employers download a free federal workplace harassment policy template? Canada Policy Manual provides a detailed free Workplace Harassment and Violence Prevention Policy Template specifically for federally regulated Canadian workplaces.

Download the Federal Workplace Harassment and Violence Prevention Policy Template

What if my workplace is provincially regulated? Use the workplace harassment policy resource for the jurisdiction governing your workplace rather than the federal version.

Browse Workplace Harassment Policy Templates by Canadian Jurisdiction

Sources

Final Takeaway for Employers

The headline from this case is $4.5 million.

The more useful employer lesson is much bigger.

A workplace harassment policy should not be treated as a document that is written, approved and forgotten.

A functioning prevention system asks:

Have we identified our risks?

Can employees report safely?

Does somebody know what to do when a report arrives?

Are deadlines tracked?

Can we obtain an appropriate investigation when required?

Are employees trained?

Is privacy protected?

Are support services available?

Are required records maintained?

Are we reviewing whether the system actually works?

For federally regulated employers, many of those questions are not merely best practices. They form part of the detailed framework established by the Canada Labour Code and the Work Place Harassment and Violence Prevention Regulations.

Start with the correct policy.

Then build the system behind it.

Federally regulated workplace?

Download the Free Federal Workplace Harassment and Violence Prevention Policy Template

Provincial or territorial workplace?

Find Your Workplace Harassment Policy Template by Jurisdiction

Important Disclaimer

This article provides general educational information and is not legal advice. Workplace harassment, violence, occupational health and safety, human rights, privacy, collective agreement and employment obligations can overlap. The applicable requirements depend on the employer's jurisdiction, workplace structure and circumstances.

A template should be customized before adoption. Employers should complete all required workplace-specific assessments, consultation, training, implementation and review steps and obtain qualified legal advice where appropriate, particularly for serious allegations, complex investigations, unionized workplaces, human rights issues, criminal allegations or other high-risk situations.

Sources

Key Takeaways

A written policy is only the starting point. Reporting, risk assessment, training, response, investigations, privacy, support, documentation and review all matter.
Employers must first identify the correct jurisdiction. An employer operating in British Columbia is not automatically governed by B.C. employment and occupational health and safety rules. Airlines and many other businesses are federally regulated.
Reporting systems need to work in real life. Employees must know how to raise an occurrence, and the people receiving reports need a defined process for responding.
Employers should test whether their harassment prevention system actually works. A polished policy that employees do not understand, cannot access or do not trust is very different from an implemented prevention program.

Disclaimer: This article provides general educational information and is not legal advice. Workplace harassment, violence, occupational health and safety, human rights, privacy, collective agreement and employment obligations can overlap. The applicable requirements depend on the employer's jurisdiction, workplace structure and circumstances. A template should be customized before adoption. Employers should complete all required workplace-specific assessments, consultation, training, implementation and review steps and obtain qualified legal advice where appropriate, particularly for serious allegations, complex investigations, unionized workplaces, human rights issues, criminal allegations or other high-risk situations.