Ontario Workplace Harassment Policy: A Plain-English Employer Guide for 2026

Ontario employers need more than a short statement saying harassment is not allowed. The Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) requires a workplace harassment policy and a program that explains how the policy will work in practice. The program must include reporting routes, an investigation process, privacy rules and written communication of investigation results and corrective action. The policy and program must also be reviewed as often as necessary and at least once a year. This guide explains those duties in plain English. It is built around Canada Policy Manual's detailed Ontario template and shows employers how to turn a downloadable document into a working system. Ready to put the Ontario program into practice? Start with the jurisdiction-specific policy and program template, then replace every placeholder with your workplace details. Download the Free Ontario Workplace Harassment Policy Every Ontario employer covered by the OHSA must prepare a workplace harassment policy and develop and maintain a program to implement it. If six or more workers are regularly employed at a workplace, the policy must be in writing and posted conspicuously. Ontario also permits compliant electronic posting where workers are directed to where and how they can access the document and the employer provides a paper or electronic copy on request. The program must explain: how a worker can report harassment to the employer or a supervisor; how a worker can report when the employer, supervisor or normal recipient is the person accused; how incidents and complaints will be investigated and dealt with; how identifying information will be protected, subject to necessary and lawful disclosure; how the person who allegedly experienced harassment and the alleged harasser, if that person is an employer worker, will receive written results and information about corrective action; and any other prescribed elements. The employer must ensure an investigation appropriate in the circumstances is conducted when it becomes aware of an incident or complaint. A formal written complaint is not always needed to trigger that duty. This guide is general information, not legal advice. A template cannot identify every risk in a specific workplace or replace legal advice about a serious complaint, collective agreement, regulated profession, privacy issue or parallel police matter. The OHSA definition is the right starting point. In simplified language, workplace harassment is a course of vexatious comment or conduct against a worker in a workplace, including virtual conduct through information and communications technology, when the conduct is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome. The definition includes workplace sexual harassment. Several parts of that definition matter. “A course” usually means a pattern A course normally involves more than one comment or act. Repeated insults, exclusion, humiliating messages, sexual jokes or work sabotage can form a course when viewed together. An employer should not divide connected incidents into isolated pieces and then dismiss each piece as too small to matter. However, a single event should never be ignored just because the OHSA definition uses the word “course.” A single serious act may engage workplace violence duties, the Human Rights Code , criminal law, another legal obligation or a broader employer policy. A strong internal policy can also prohibit serious one-time misconduct even when the narrow statutory harassment definition may not apply. “Vexatious” is about troubling or abusive conduct Ordinary workplace disagreement is not automatically harassment. A difficult conversation, a reasonable correction or a fair performance discussion can be uncomfortable without being vexatious. The surrounding facts matter: the words used, tone, frequency, power relationship, setting, effect and whether the conduct served a real work purpose. The person does not need to say “stop” every time Conduct is covered when the person engaging in it knew or reasonably should have known it was unwelcome. An obvious sexual comment, slur, threat or public humiliation does not become acceptable merely because the affected worker froze, laughed nervously or did not confront a manager. Employers should consider the power imbalance and the context, not demand proof that the worker objected in the moment. Intent is not the only question “I was joking” is not a complete answer. The test includes what the person reasonably should have known. The investigation should consider the actual conduct and its context, not only the respondent's stated intention. Virtual harassment and telework are expressly covered Ontario's current OHSA wording recognizes harassment that occurs virtually through information and communications technology. The Act also applies to telework performed in or about a private residence. That means work email, chat, video meetings, collaborative platforms, employer systems and connec