The claims stemmed from a news article linking the plaintiff’s wife to a convicted serial killer
The Ontario Superior Court struck claims alleging privacy violations, including intrusion upon seclusion, in a workplace harassment lawsuit but allowed contract-related claims to proceed.
A former employee of Ontario Power Generation (OPG) filed a lawsuit alleging workplace harassment and failure to investigate. The plaintiff, a former manager at OPG’s Darlington Nuclear Generating Station, alleged that the dissemination of personal and defamatory information about his family by OPG employees caused significant harm. He argued that OPG failed to adequately investigate the incidents and allowed a culture of impunity to persist. The claims arose from the circulation of a news article connecting the plaintiff’s wife to a convicted serial killer, which the plaintiff alleged was disseminated by OPG employees using company resources.
The court ruled that the claim for negligent investigation could not proceed. While the plaintiff argued that OPG’s nuclear safety team acted as peace officers under the Nuclear Facilities Act, the court found their role in investigating the dissemination of information fell under OPG’s capacity as an employer, not as peace officers. Based on established case law, the court concluded that employers generally do not owe a duty of care under the tort of negligent investigation.
The Superior Court also struck the claim for intrusion upon seclusion through vicarious liability, ruling that the plaintiff failed to establish that the employees' alleged actions were sufficiently related to their employment. Additionally, the court noted that the claim focused on dissemination rather than the act of intrusion, which is central to the tort of intrusion upon seclusion.
The court dismissed the claim for breach of fiduciary duty, finding that the employment relationship did not create an ad hoc fiduciary obligation. The court emphasized that OPG's promises to liaise with police and monitor online activity did not constitute a forsaking of OPG’s interests in favour of the plaintiff’s.
The court ruled that the claim for harassment could not proceed, citing the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in Merrifield v. Canada (Attorney General), which declined to recognize a free-standing tort of harassment.
While striking these claims, the court allowed other claims related to breach of contract and constructive dismissal to remain, as they were not the subject of the motion.
