Workplace litigation is often deeply personal and can evolve from a dispute over legal rights into a battleground for personality conflicts. While legal issues such as wrongful dismissal or constructive dismissal may initiate the claim, the underlying motivations often stem from interpersonal clashes, power struggles, or resentment between employees and employers. These conflicts can overshadow the original legal questions, with both parties focusing on personal grievances, perceived slights, or long-standing tensions. As emotions intensify, the litigation becomes a venue for individuals to confront personal issues rather than seek purely legal resolutions, complicating and lengthening the process.
When toxic workplace litigation becomes entangled in personal conflicts, it often transforms into a mudslinging contest, where both parties focus more on tarnishing each other’s character than on addressing the legal issues at hand. In such cases, accusations of poor work ethic, misconduct, or personal flaws become weaponized to damage reputations rather than seek justice. This shift occurs as each side attempts to paint the other as unfit, dishonest, or malicious, turning the legal process into a battleground of personal attacks. As emotions run high, the focus on vindicating personal grievances can overshadow legitimate claims, leading to prolonged and more contentious proceedings
Recent Toxic Workplace Case Law
The danger of this risk is on full display in Bennett v NE2 Canada Inc, 2024 ABKB 695. The case concerns competing claims of illegal competition by an energy brokerage against its former brokers, as well as a claim by one of the former brokers for constructive dismissal. The brokerage was concerned that the brokers were overpaid, so it began preparing to transition the business to a digital trading platform. As explained by the court, “[t]his concerned the brokers, as did cutbacks in expense allowances and a decision not to proceed with the installation of a golf simulator at the office.”
Following a letter from two of the top brokers detailing their concerns, one of these brokers was fired, while the other resigned and pursued a claim for constructive dismissal. Notably, the claim alleged that the brokerage had become a toxic workplace, filled with bad behavior. Numerous other brokers resigned and ended up working for a competing startup, leading to the brokerage’s claim of illegal competition.
As litigation erupted and various procedural remedies were pursued by both parties, the toxic workplace allegation opened the door for the parties to file evidence about bad behavior. Both sides pointed the finger in the opposite direction, saying the other was the cause of the toxic workplace environment. The evidence included allegations of verbal harassment, physical harassment, and sexual harassment. Some of the brokers then became concerned about the impact these allegations might have on their reputations, as filed evidence on the court record is available to the general public. They pursued an application to strike certain materials from the court record to protect their reputations. The court denied this relief, citing the open court principle:
In this case, the Brokers and Ms. Burgess chose to put Mr. Gunn’s behaviour and reputation into issue by alleging that NE2’s work environment was toxic, and that the toxicity was due to Mr. Gunn’s bad behaviour. Mr. Gunn responded by denying responsibility for toxicity and pleading that if there was toxicity, it was due to the behaviour of the Brokers under Mr. Bennett’s and Ms. Burgess’ leadership. Although the Brokers have since retained new counsel, who may have a different view of the situation, relevance and materiality is determined by the pleadings, not by the views of counsel.
The court also reminded the parties that distributing filed court documents to non-parties and the media can attract liability for defamation and displace the defense of qualified privilege.
Recommendations For Toxic Workplace Litigation
We can draw some clear recommendations from this case:
- Focus on litigating the legal issues. Do not allow personal grievances or personality conflicts to dominate the case. While toxic workplace claims can be legitimate, they should be reserved for scenarios where this is the true focus of the lawsuit.
- Be cautious about allegations of bad behavior. You can expect the opposing party to employ the same strategy. This will escalate the dispute and damage reputations.
- The Court record is public. Parties should be mindful of the public nature of court documents, as any information shared in the course of litigation can become part of the public record, subject to the implied undertaking.
Cashion Legal
Cashion Legal is a litigation and employment law firm based in Calgary, Alberta. We are focused on employment disputes, non-compete disputes, and shareholder disputes.
We help people and businesses with sound advice and strong advocacy. If you have an employment law or non-competition question, we would love to help you. Contact us today.
This blog post is legal information, not legal advice. If you need legal advice, speak with a lawyer.