Following the viral outing of an extramarital affair between Astronomer’s CEO and the Head of HR at a Coldplay concert in July of 2025 (and their subsequent resignations), the consequences of sexual misconduct in the workplace is top of mind for many employers. Many are wondering: how difficult is it to dismiss an employee for cause due to them engaging in this type of misconduct in Canada? As one recent Ontario arbitration decision illustrates, it is often easier than one might think.
In Brock University v. Brock University Faculty Association, an arbitrator upheld a for-cause dismissal of a tenured professor based on him sexually harassing a female graduate student that he supervised over an extended period of time. Notably, the arbitrator reached this decision despite that the sexual harassment largely consisted of flirtatious comments and some instances of unwanted touching of her shoulders and back, without any outright sexual demands/advances, blatant sexual/obscene comments, or more egregious unwanted touching.
Background
The grievor worked as a professor at the University of Australia (“AU”) before he was subsequently appointed to be a tenured professor at Brock University (“Brock”) in 2016. At Brock, he served as the supervisor of a female graduate student (“GS”) who was completing her PhD.
Between March 2017 and February 2019, the grievor engaged in an escalating pattern of sexually-oriented and/or gender-oriented conduct that made GS increasingly uncomfortable. This included comments about her appearance/attractiveness, touching of her lower back and shoulders, intrusive questions about her personal life, comments about her diet/exercise regimes, and intrusions into her personal time spent with male friends or partners.
GS subsequently initiated a meeting with the grievor in August 2018 to discuss her growing discomfort with his conduct toward her, during which she told him that she did not like the “male-female dynamic” between them and that she did not like him touching her body or making comments regarding her looks/clothing, among other concerns. Nonetheless, the grievor continued with the inappropriate comments/conduct after this meeting, such as: (i) stating that she would have no problem finding a sperm donor and that donors would be “lining up”; (ii) asking her whether he needed to check her for frostbite when she arrived on a cold morning; and (iii) approaching GS while she was having dinner with her partner at a pub, touching the sleeve of her dress, and commenting “nice dress”.
In light of the above, GS met with the grievor to communicate that she could not continue studying under him after she completed her doctorate. In response, the grievor accused her of “banging” one of her colleagues and withdrew from being her advisor. GS proceeded to make a complaint against him, which Brock investigated. It found her allegations to be substantiated, and it dismissed the grievor for cause as a result. The union representing the grievor opposed this dismissal, arguing that the grievor’s comments and conduct did not constitute sexual harassment.
The Decision
Ultimately, the arbitrator found that the grievor sexually harassed GS, that this misconduct was so serious and persistent that it created a poisoned work environment, and that his dismissal for cause was justified in the circumstances.
In reaching this conclusion, the arbitrator held that sexual harassment consists of vexatious comments or conduct of a sexual nature that relates to a person’s gender which the person knows or ought to know is unwelcome. Further, while recognizing that sexual harassment encompasses a range of behaviours from mild to severe, it is generally considered one of the most severe forms of workplace misconduct. Additionally, the arbitrator held that a poisoned work environment is created where there is serious and persistent wrongful behaviour which a reasonable person would consider to make a worker’s continued employment intolerable.
The arbitrator found that the grievor’s conduct constituted sexual harassment because he persistently engaged in inappropriate conduct and made comments about GS’s appearance which were sexually suggestive and gender-based, despite knowing that this was unwelcome. Further, the arbitrator found that the grievor created a poisoned work environment because this misconduct was sufficiently serious and persistent to render the workplace intolerable for GS. The arbitrator also found that dismissal for cause was appropriate in the circumstances because Brock could not trust the grievor to refrain from engaging in further misconduct of this nature. This was because: (i) the grievor had previously been found to have harassed another female colleague; (ii) he had been warned about the consequences of engaging in further harassment; (iii) he did not demonstrate an understanding of the inappropriate nature of his conduct or take responsibility for his actions; and (iv) he breached confidentiality in regard to the previous harassment complaint against him.
As a result, the arbitrator upheld the grievor’s dismissal for cause.
The Bottom Line
As the Brock decision illustrates, sexual harassment/misconduct in the workplace is considered to be one of the most serve forms of workplace misconduct from a legal perspective, and it is often easier to dismiss an employee for cause due to sexual harassment than one might think.
That said, whether substantiated allegations of sexual harassment will establish cause for an employee’s dismissal must be determined contextually on a case-by-case basis, in light of the severity/duration of the harassment and any other relevant mitigating or aggravating factors. For example, cause will be far more likely to be established where: (i) the harassment was more severe or long-standing; (ii) the harasser was disciplined for similar misconduct previously; (iii), the harasser fails to appreciate the seriousness of their misconduct or take responsibility for it; and (iv) the harasser is in a position of power over the other worker. As a result, employers should always seek specific legal advice when determining whether to dismiss an employee for cause for engaging in sexual harassment.
If you have any questions or require any assistance with investigating or addressing workplace harassment or sexual harassment, please do not hesitate to contact us for expert legal advice.
