Workplace disputes often involve deeply personal allegations, including harassment, discrimination, and unfair treatment. Employees may understandably feel that civil litigation is the appropriate forum to seek accountability and compensation. However, for many employment relationships in Ontario, particularly unionized environments, the courts are not the correct venue for resolving these disputes.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice’s recent decision in Mittal v. Department of National Defence provides a detailed reminder of how and why employment-related claims can be barred from civil court proceedings. While the case arises from a federal employment context, its reasoning offers essential lessons for Ontario employers about jurisdiction, pleadings discipline, and the limits of creative litigation strategies.

Employee Sued Department of National Defence for Harassment and Negligence

The employee was employed as a civilian cook at the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ontario. His employment was governed by a collective agreement, and he was a member of a union representing federal public service employees. Over several years, he alleged that he experienced harassment, discrimination, and unfair treatment in the workplace.

The dispute escalated significantly after a workplace altercation in 2021, following which criminal charges were laid against the employee by the Military Police. Those charges were later withdrawn. The employee subsequently commenced a civil action seeking substantial damages, alleging workplace harassment and negligence, and later advanced arguments consistent with malicious prosecution.

Rather than delivering a statement of defence, the employer brought an early motion seeking to strike the claim in its entirety.

The Central Legal Question: Who Has Jurisdiction?

At the heart of the decision was whether the Ontario Superior Court even had jurisdiction to hear the employee’s claims. The defendants argued that the claims were barred by section 236 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act (“FPSLRA”), which provides that an employee’s right to grieve workplace disputes replaces any civil right of action arising from those same facts.

The court agreed. While the FPSLRA applies specifically to federal public service employees, its structure mirrors the logic behind Ontario’s own labour relations framework. In both systems, legislatures have created specialized dispute-resolution mechanisms—grievance procedures, arbitration, and labour adjudication—to address employment-related conflicts.

The court emphasized that this jurisdictional bar applies regardless of whether an employee actually pursues a grievance. The existence of the grievance process alone is sufficient to displace the civil courts.

Employee Attempted to Preserve Negligence Claim

The employee conceded that his workplace harassment claims fell squarely within the grievance process and could not proceed in court. However, he attempted to preserve a negligence claim, arguing that the employer owed him a duty of care separate from the employment relationship.

The court rejected this argument. After reviewing the pleadings, the court concluded that the negligence allegations were inseparable from the conditions of employment. Claims about fairness, supervisory conduct, workplace investigations, and employer responses to complaints are fundamentally employment matters. As such, they fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the grievance regime.

For Ontario employers, this reinforces a critical principle: courts will look at the essential character of a claim, not how it is labelled. Rebranding workplace allegations as negligence does not create a civil cause of action where the legislature has removed one.

Attempting to Reframe the Claim as Malicious Prosecution

In the face of dismissal of his harassment and negligence claims, the employee attempted to rely on allegations consistent with malicious prosecution. He argued that false reports by colleagues led to criminal charges being laid against him, which were later withdrawn.

The court undertook a careful analysis of whether the statement of claim properly pleaded the elements of malicious prosecution. While acknowledging that malicious prosecution is a recognized tort, the court found that the pleadings fell well short of what is required.

The High Bar for Malicious Prosecution Claims

Malicious prosecution is notoriously difficult to prove. A plaintiff must establish four distinct elements:

1. The defendant initiated the proceedings;
2. The proceedings terminated in the plaintiff’s favour;
3. There was no reasonable and probable cause for the proceedings; and
4. The defendant acted with malice or an improper purpose.

While the statement of claim arguably addressed the first two elements, the court found that it failed entirely on the third and fourth.

Allegations that investigators failed to conduct a “fulsome investigation” do not establish an absence of reasonable and probable cause. Nor do they demonstrate malice. The court emphasized that poor investigations, even if negligent, are not synonymous with malicious intent.

Crucially, the plaintiff attempted to attribute alleged malice by individual co-workers to the Military Police. The court rejected this approach, noting that malice cannot be imputed in this way without specific factual allegations supporting such an inference.

Pleading Requirements Matter

Beyond the substantive deficiencies, the court highlighted the importance of proper pleading standards. Where malice is alleged, Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure require full particulars. Vague assertions and general narratives of unfairness are insufficient.

The court concluded that the malicious prosecution claim had no reasonable prospect of success and struck it without leave to amend. This effectively ended the lawsuit.

For employers, this aspect of the decision underscores the value of early procedural motions. Weakly pleaded claims, particularly those attempting to stretch tort law into the employment context, can and should be challenged at the outset.

Why Leave to Amend Was Denied

Courts are generally reluctant to deny plaintiffs the opportunity to amend defective pleadings. However, this case fell into what the court described as “the clearest of cases” where amendment would serve no useful purpose.

The plaintiff’s original claims were fundamentally employment disputes. Allowing him to recast those same allegations into a tort claim would undermine the statutory scheme governing labour relations.

This reinforces a vital takeaway: where the core dispute is jurisdictionally barred, an amendment cannot cure the problem.

The Importance of Understanding Employment/Labour Jurisdictional Distinctions

Although this case arises from a federal employment relationship, its lessons apply broadly across Ontario workplaces.

1. Statutory grievance regimes matter. Whether under federal legislation or Ontario’s labour relations framework, courts will respect legislative intent to channel employment disputes away from civil litigation.
2. The substance of a claim matters more than its label. Employers should look past creative pleadings and assess whether allegations truly fall outside the employment relationship.
3. Malicious prosecution and similar torts are not easy workarounds. Courts will require strict compliance with pleading standards and compelling factual foundations before allowing such claims to proceed.
4. Early procedural motions can be highly effective. Addressing jurisdiction and pleading deficiencies at the outset can prevent years of unnecessary litigation and expense.

Why This Decision Is Particularly Relevant in Windsor–Essex County

Windsor–Essex County has a significant unionized workforce across manufacturing, public sector, healthcare, and education. Employers in this region frequently operate within collective bargaining frameworks that include grievance and arbitration mechanisms.

This decision serves as a reminder that those mechanisms are not optional, and that courts will not entertain parallel civil proceedings simply because an employee is dissatisfied with internal processes.

Understanding where disputes belong and responding strategically when claims are misdirected is an essential part of risk management for employers in the region.

Willis Business Law Offers Multifaceted Employment & Labour Law Support to Windsor-Essex Employers

Workplace disputes can escalate quickly, and choosing the wrong forum can be costly. If you are an employer in Windsor-Essex County facing a grievance, harassment complaint, or threatened civil claim, experienced legal guidance can help you respond strategically and protect your organization.

The labour and employment law team at Willis Business Law advises employers on jurisdictional issues, grievance management, and risk mitigation at every stage of a workplace dispute. From the heart of downtown Windsor, we proudly serve clients throughout the surrounding areas, including Amherstburg, Essex, Kingsville, Lakeshore, LaSalle, Leamington, Pelee Island, Tecumseh, Chatham-Kent, and Sarnia. To book a consultation, please contact us online or call 519-945-5470.